QFT - I'm walking away.
Screw Scouts - build Warriors
- Thread starter delra
- Start date
QFT - I'm walking away.
I don't understand taltamir's arguement, he constantly says that archers are more expensive than warriors, but in this case we are getting the archer from a scout, so its cheaper right?
In any case, I do find this question to be difficult to answer. I think it depends on the number of players and the size of the map, and placement. If the scout doesn't find at least a few ruins, all you have is a unit that can explore the rest of the map (devoid of ruins, since the other players got them) faster than a warrior. On the other hand, usually a scout can find some gold to justify their cost. Usually, I build only 1 scout, as a second scout will almost never make up their cost.
In any case, I do find this question to be difficult to answer. I think it depends on the number of players and the size of the map, and placement. If the scout doesn't find at least a few ruins, all you have is a unit that can explore the rest of the map (devoid of ruins, since the other players got them) faster than a warrior. On the other hand, usually a scout can find some gold to justify their cost. Usually, I build only 1 scout, as a second scout will almost never make up their cost.
themaelstorm
Chieftain
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2009
- Messages
- 37
So it seems OP is in an interesting world that:
His warriors seem to avoid blind attacks or survive about any attack while his scouts and scout-upgraded-archers (who, I think, has a greater sight range?) keep getting attacked by blind spots and always die. (hint: as long as you pay attention, scouts raarely get attacked by anyone)
His warriors who need to melee are alright to use but his archers who can range are too risky to use because they die all the time. (hint: archers are more lost-hammers if they die, true, but they never really need to die if you use them properly)
His maps are most of the time better to explore with warrior because, by some sort of miracle, there is so few rough terrain that scout bonus hardly matters. (hint: unless some map combo makes this happen or you are very lucky, land is FULL of rough terrain. sure, there are sweet spots, but you can only get so many)
His 3~ warriors, by some miracle, are so spread that it's no problem to find cities in this world with little rough terrain, yet they get together (remember, little rough terrain) so fast that they take down cities before enemies build anything or tech up. (hint: depending on map size and placement, you may need to spend a lot of time to find enemies and actually get all your warriors to them)
(last hint: you may have turned off ancient ruins, but you should have told it in the first place as a disclaimer. most people use them and scouts have a TREMENDOUS advantage when it comes to them)
I'm going for...
-not able to use scouts well
-not able to use archers well
-tactical plan consists of charging everything directly
-works because of lower level
I also play on lower levels and I can survive without building -any- units for noticeable amounts of time. A strategy doesn't need to work on ALL levels of course, but as someone said, you should have a disclaimer. Also, to be honest, this doesn't seem worth a thread. "make wariar, attack mighty, loot the goldz, btw screw other, this rule" is pretty much what you said.
You dare make a strategy thread, you should fill it. Talk about city management meanwhile. Policies. Other units. Anything.
And if you haven't tested it on higher levels, don't go arguing with higher level players. You look needlessly arrogant when higher level players keep telling you why and how it wouldn't work on higher levels and you claim that you were yet to see an indication of why it shouldn't work on higher levels. They just told you! You didn't try it yourself! Take criticism man, it's okay
His warriors seem to avoid blind attacks or survive about any attack while his scouts and scout-upgraded-archers (who, I think, has a greater sight range?) keep getting attacked by blind spots and always die. (hint: as long as you pay attention, scouts raarely get attacked by anyone)
His warriors who need to melee are alright to use but his archers who can range are too risky to use because they die all the time. (hint: archers are more lost-hammers if they die, true, but they never really need to die if you use them properly)
His maps are most of the time better to explore with warrior because, by some sort of miracle, there is so few rough terrain that scout bonus hardly matters. (hint: unless some map combo makes this happen or you are very lucky, land is FULL of rough terrain. sure, there are sweet spots, but you can only get so many)
His 3~ warriors, by some miracle, are so spread that it's no problem to find cities in this world with little rough terrain, yet they get together (remember, little rough terrain) so fast that they take down cities before enemies build anything or tech up. (hint: depending on map size and placement, you may need to spend a lot of time to find enemies and actually get all your warriors to them)
(last hint: you may have turned off ancient ruins, but you should have told it in the first place as a disclaimer. most people use them and scouts have a TREMENDOUS advantage when it comes to them)
I'm going for...
-not able to use scouts well
-not able to use archers well
-tactical plan consists of charging everything directly
-works because of lower level
I also play on lower levels and I can survive without building -any- units for noticeable amounts of time. A strategy doesn't need to work on ALL levels of course, but as someone said, you should have a disclaimer. Also, to be honest, this doesn't seem worth a thread. "make wariar, attack mighty, loot the goldz, btw screw other, this rule" is pretty much what you said.
You dare make a strategy thread, you should fill it. Talk about city management meanwhile. Policies. Other units. Anything.
And if you haven't tested it on higher levels, don't go arguing with higher level players. You look needlessly arrogant when higher level players keep telling you why and how it wouldn't work on higher levels and you claim that you were yet to see an indication of why it shouldn't work on higher levels. They just told you! You didn't try it yourself! Take criticism man, it's okay
jayjackson
Warlord
Honestly, I think Hiawatha is probably the only civ where you don't build Scout first 99% of the time.
He's trolling.
Yeah so far I like the warriors better in the initial stage of the game, especially as Songhai. Archers do fine but only because the AI Barbarian Brutes don't rush out and attack them for some reason but I still run archers behind warriors just in case.
disagreeing with you isn't trolling.
As for getting an archer from a scout... great upgrade in terms of price... if you luck out and get it, but its based on luck, and it means spending a bunch of turns looking for ruins instead of doing something constructive (aka, conquering someone)
There is a difference between "always" and "better"... warriors are better if they are just slightly more likely to do any of these things. They don't need be ALWAYS perfect to be worth it.
Pinstar
Ringtailed Regent
A good technique for a scout to bust a barb camp on rough terrain is to roll up next to the camp on rough terrain and fortify next to it. Normally the barb inside won't attack your scout right away...but after a certain number of turns he'll get impatient and attack. When that happened, he lost 8 hp while my scout only lost 4...and he lost his own fortify bonus. I was able to finish him off, clear the camp and make Copenhagen happy at the same time, just with a scout.
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
Fact- Scouts- Quicker to build
Fact- Scouts- Can Kill Archers
Fact- Scouts- Have a cape and are graphically a bit more interesting
Fact- Scouts- America- Visibilty and terrain ability can get them atop resource or whatever quickly
The Evidence is clear- Scouts- for the superior
Fact- Scouts- Can Kill Archers
Fact- Scouts- Have a cape and are graphically a bit more interesting
Fact- Scouts- America- Visibilty and terrain ability can get them atop resource or whatever quickly
The Evidence is clear- Scouts- for the superior
Scouts are MUCH improved on CiV. I always build one first now. The ability to ignore the terrain means lots more ruins discovered. If you are lucky enough to get one upgraded to an archer then you are laughing in the early game.
With the embark feature as soon as your continent is all uncovered, send them off over the ocean!
With the embark feature as soon as your continent is all uncovered, send them off over the ocean!
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
from "Attacko's -Scouts- A Guide to Scout Assault in Civ V "
page 7- "there is not one AI, no matter how clever that tries to use a Scout attack- whereas there is not one player- however how feeble- that does not try it out , unless they are that stodgy kinda of dull player that writes about like trading posts"
Below, Standard, Small Continents, King, Scout going to woods, Barbarian attacking- Scout counter attacking- killing Warrior and then takes camp for 25 cash money
page 7- "there is not one AI, no matter how clever that tries to use a Scout attack- whereas there is not one player- however how feeble- that does not try it out , unless they are that stodgy kinda of dull player that writes about like trading posts"
Below, Standard, Small Continents, King, Scout going to woods, Barbarian attacking- Scout counter attacking- killing Warrior and then takes camp for 25 cash money
Attachments
Pir Lan Tota
Warlord
Scout, since I play with No Huts, only good to map the map, other then that not worth it....now if I would play with huts, thats another story...
swordspider
Dread Multiplayer
I TOTALLY DISAGREE with the NO SCOUTS. Here's my play, and it usually works like a charm-
Free Warrior- Send him out for close by huts then double back home (unless Germany, then go sack an encampment with him to double up).
Then SCOUT - Send him out one direction for more huts.
Then SCOUT 2 - Send him the other direction for even more huts.
Then Warriors/Military from there on out.
Those 2 scouts will at a minimum find you a hut each (usually 3) and the benefits of those huts are vast. If you get 6 huts, I can almost guarantee you will get at least 1 culture bonus, 1 free tech, and some gold. That is worth 2 scouts any day. Plus, if your scouts live, they fulfill the 25% bonus for having a unit in an adjacent tile so they help out early on. They can also defend your cities from barbs that have been worked down to 50% and increase your line of sight.
Free Warrior- Send him out for close by huts then double back home (unless Germany, then go sack an encampment with him to double up).
Then SCOUT - Send him out one direction for more huts.
Then SCOUT 2 - Send him the other direction for even more huts.
Then Warriors/Military from there on out.
Those 2 scouts will at a minimum find you a hut each (usually 3) and the benefits of those huts are vast. If you get 6 huts, I can almost guarantee you will get at least 1 culture bonus, 1 free tech, and some gold. That is worth 2 scouts any day. Plus, if your scouts live, they fulfill the 25% bonus for having a unit in an adjacent tile so they help out early on. They can also defend your cities from barbs that have been worked down to 50% and increase your line of sight.
Tbh, this is not a very good discussion, why don't you discuss whats better out of steak and chocolate. Their both great, but at different things and for different reasons.
If you want to explore more early on, try to meet the city-states first for +15 gold extra, or find more ruins than everyone else, or just go further to explore, then build a scout.
If you want a barbarian hunter, or a unit to add into your army for early conquering, or a slow explorer who usually survives if attacked, then build the warrior.
There no point trying to decide which is better, they are different and both are better at different things, depending on your playing strategy, you will pick the one thats right for you, I usually build both. Do some exploring and some barbarian hunting.
If you want to explore more early on, try to meet the city-states first for +15 gold extra, or find more ruins than everyone else, or just go further to explore, then build a scout.
If you want a barbarian hunter, or a unit to add into your army for early conquering, or a slow explorer who usually survives if attacked, then build the warrior.
There no point trying to decide which is better, they are different and both are better at different things, depending on your playing strategy, you will pick the one thats right for you, I usually build both. Do some exploring and some barbarian hunting.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Chocolate. Next question.
I know what trolling is, I know how to spot it, I know how to do it ;-) While it's true that someone with a differing opinion is not necessarily trolling, it's also true that someone who posts a differing opinion can certainly be trolling. Posting something that everyone is going to disagree with and then relentlessly defend it to the point where others just walk away is a pretty strong sign of the person trolling. The fact is, I'm not convinced you even believe the strategies you're posting. Naturally, I don't think you would ever admit you're wrong about any of them either. You seem to be under the impression that you're the best player ever and everyone else is doing it wrong.
As far as upgrades go, going from warrior to spearmen to pikemen (double ruin upgrade) is nothing compared to going from scout to archer to crossbows (that also ignore terrain). However, even spearmen vs archers isn't a debate here. Even if spearmen can destroy archers 1 on 1, they would never be able to catch them.
JudgeDeath
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Messages
- 191
Steak. With a nice glass of red wine.
Ahriman
Tyrant
If you get red wine with your steak, then I get a nice dessert wine with my chocolate mouse. Maybe a Riesling?
