Starting with a Scout

[Molybdeus]

I find it interesting that the difficulty level of the game determines whether I would rather start with a scout or warrior. At the settler/chieftan level of play, you can count on getting techs, worker or even maybe a settler from goody huts. Scouts are thus much better than warriors. At noble or prince, however, your chances of popping something game-altering drop dramatically. However on marathon or epic speed warrior rushes are quite viable. Thus I would much rather have a warrior on noble or prince. Once you reach monarch, though, warrior rushes are no longer realistic without Quechuas. But even on deity you can always capture workers with warriors, while you can never capture workers with scouts.

This realization has made me actively avoid playing civs with hunting as a starting tech, especially when I play a weak leader on Prince. Worker stealing is an automatic tactic for me on two player continents, and not being able to use that strategy makes me rule out scout-loving civs automatically. Does anyone else dislike starting with scouts?

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Quite a lot the opposite. I dislike starting with warriors since i like so much about early exploration and hut popping with scouts. I usually build another scout, even if i start with one (and don't manage to pop one from first couple of huts). Woodsman II scouts (well of course you can get those promos for warrior too) are wicked.

Though, yesterday i would have liked to have warrior when barbs captured Rome. Mehmed captured it from Barbs with a warrior but left it empty while my scout was nearby.. upkeep would have killed me though.

 

[oyzar]

I hate starting with a scout and i almost never build them. The fact that hunting is pretty bad unless archers are a great part of your strategy(not likely in sp) makes them even worse. Of course i mostly play with huts off so i might be biased..

 

[marowaker]

On Emporer+, every AI starts with 2+ scouts. Unless you are lucky enough to avoid AI's popping nearby huts(e.g. isolated start) chances are you will get only 0-2. WoodII warriors are the best scouts since they have 2 moves and don't die to barb units easily.

Of course, archers are guaranteed to be available as early defenders while all other early units(not counting warriors) need a resource which you may not have.

 

[DaveMcW]

Even one extra (guaranteed non-barbarian!) hut is enough for a scout to pay off.

 

[madscientist]

I play all leaders, not just the ones that start with hunting and thus a scout. When I do get a scout to start I view that as a bonus since it lets me move faster and get an extra hut or two, plus no hostile barbs.

I also never build a scout of my own.

 

[Kesshi]

This realization has made me actively avoid playing civs with hunting as a starting tech, especially when I play a weak leader on Prince. Worker stealing is an automatic tactic for me on two player continents, and not being able to use that strategy makes me rule out scout-loving civs automatically. Does anyone else dislike starting with scouts?

Molybdeus,

As you probably already know, each one has their pros and cons. As a fan of shuffle maps, I won't know what I'm up against until after I start the game. Great plains map with a size standard or greater? Scouts > Warriors, in my opinion. Rocky highlands on a size small or smaller? Warriors > Scouts.

Though I do have to agree with you in part. If I don't know what I'm facing, a Warrior is more dynamic. For one, they can attack! This serves me well for two reasons. One, attacking nets double the experience than defending, getting you up to that valuable woodsman 2 promotion earlier, in addition it lets YOU control the battle. While most barbarians will attack anything they see, there is no guarantee they will attack you for sure. And two, as you pointed out, they can capture workers and cities. Though there is a possible bug which involves attacking with a scout, but it requires some cheating to purposefully do it, and each time I've accidentally done it, my attacking scout has died...that and it's probably a bug.

In my CivIV time, I have yet to build a scout or explorer, but I don't deny having a scout to start with can be more ideal than a warrior in more than a few situations.

 

[Molybdeus]

Quite a lot the opposite. I dislike starting with warriors since i like so much about early exploration and hut popping with scouts. I usually build another scout, even if i start with one (and don't manage to pop one from first couple of huts). Woodsman II scouts (well of course you can get those promos for warrior too) are wicked.

The problem is that at the higher difficulty levels you almost never get anything game-altering from popping goody huts even with a scout. Even if you get an extra two huts from having a scout, chances are it will just be maps or a small amount of gold. You never get a free worker, and free techs are rare on levels above noble. Conversely I know that if I am on a continent with other civs, my warrior will almost certainly get me a free worker while taking one away from a rival.

Scouts are by no means worthless. It just irritates me that I don't get to choose if I want to accept the "bonus" of starting with one of them.

 

[axident]

Even one extra (guaranteed non-barbarian!) hut is enough for a scout to pay off.

I disagree on Emperor+. I would rather have a unit that can do some light scouting AND return to escort/garrison duty/anti-unhappiness. It allows for REXing much better.

 

[vicawoo]

I disagree that it's not important for REXing. If you want to properly box in an opponent, it requires a lot of careful scouting. I was thinking at some point, if I start with hunting, I might even go scout first (ouch to the economy, though). In a lot of maps, that's at least 2 extra huts.

Especially when you're in the middle.

 

[xanadux]

Actually, while only animals are out, a scout is better for escorting the first settler than a warrior. Since it can move as fast as a settler, it can stay ahead of it, busting the fog to make sure it is safe to move. The scout is just as strong as the warrior against animals. It just can't garrison the new city. As far as the 2 units go, I would rather have the scout. It will reveal more land, and for me, usually the first unit dies eventually anyway. The only thing I don't like about scouts is that means I started with hunting.

 

[MrCynical]

Particularly at the higher levels, I prefer to start with a warrior. Non-animal barbarians appear very early, and after that scouts just die. The other major irritation is that it rather cramps your options for stealing workers. By the time you've built a warrior (tying up your city in the process), the workers are probably out of reach behind expanded cultural borders and/or archers.

The goody hut argument makes a bit more sense now you can get tech from them at high levels, but even then I rarely get much from huts in the face of multiple AI scouts. The only game I felt I did better with a scout than a warrior was the rather curious one where I popped Bronze working and iron working from the first two huts. Was certainly a novelty reaching the classical age before 3000 BC.

 

[Civfan333]

Having scouts is the best since they get better things from goody huts and they move faster.

But on harder difficulties starting with a warrior is better as said above

 

[PericlesOfAthen]

I like scouts also. I play on Monarch and more recently Emperor and I usually can manage one or two huts and sometimes much more depending on the map type. But I think scouts are much better because I can more quickly explore the map and plot out where to settle my first cities and find my AI neighbors. I'm curious if anyone has noticed this and I don't know if it's true and I would appreciate any confirmation from someone who can look at the code but I feel that in the beginning especially the first ten turns I seem to get better results from huts. Am I imagining this? Maybe it's not possible to pop animals/barbs in those early turns so the probability of getting other goodies is higher? It's just been my impression . . .

 

[KMadCandy]

Even one extra (guaranteed non-barbarian!) hut is enough for a scout to pay off.

not if it's a map of ocean tiles

on high levels i prefer a warrior just because i won't beat the AI to many huts, but i don't pick a leader based on that.

 

[Levgre]

Another good thing about scouts is you can explore more of the map before you place your 2nd and 3rd cities. While it is easy to find a GOOD spot just exploring with a warrior, you are more likely to find the best city loc if you have a scout.

 

[alpaca]

Even one extra (guaranteed non-barbarian!) hut is enough for a scout to pay off.

Not only that but you usually get to explore much larger swathes of land in a much shorter time -> better city positions and potential to block off an opponent's expansion.

 

[DragonHawk]

Knowledge is power, including the knowledge of the surrounding area. So the faster speed of Scouts is a big advantage. However, I do not based my civ selection on the type of my 1st unit.