The OP was referring to the very first build and whether it was worthwhile to build a scout or not. I'm not exactly sure how it could have become confused that I was arguing for anything but being in favour of an alternative to that very first build. Why would I, or anyone for that matter completely ban themselves from building different units in a game? It's not logical, different circumstances might arise in which just about any unit might find a use and necessitate a build. I think people can become hung-up on pet strategies for initial policy openers or builds, the best advice mostly being to play the map in all cases. I think you, snarzberry and some others however have strongly promoted this idea of building a scout as the first build, almost like a hard and fast rule. This could confuse new players or those stuck on low levels who might take your advice and apply it systematically to all of their games. I provided a counter option and attempted to make a case for it. I was then offered a competition to compare the strategies, only.. suddenly I was informed that I was expected to have my hands tied in how I play, slanting things heavily in his favour. I think it's a useful comparison to see the results, two players on the same map, taking a warrior or a scout, seeing the results. Who hits more ruins? Who uncovers more map? Who meets citystates/other civs faster/first? The whole argument I've heard for building a scout first is that it can do all of these things better than a warrior. I'm unconvinced and have shown how in most cases the warrior is just as good as the scout at scouting, with the extra benefit of being stronger and upgradeable into a swordsman. I'd enjoy having the opportunity to display this, so that it's not all hot air, or as you have characterised it in the past "fairy tale land".
I apologize for the double post, but I would like to respond to this and I don't want to delete and re-type the old post.
The decision is situational. Everyone should know this because that is what a game is about: decision-making. If there is no decision to be made, either because there is no option or the correct path is obvious, you do not have a game, you have a book or a movie. If one option were clearly better than another in all cases, the developers could/should/would have taken it out or made it balanced. The fact that the scout and warrior exist at all means they have a niche.
You say you are unconvinced and have shown how your argument is correct. Obviously not, or we would have all submitted to your logic. Either we are equally unconvinced, or you have not demonstrated your point. I think it is the latter, but only because, as you said above, we do not have a hard example. Of
either side.
Personally, I do have examples. I have mentioned them in this thread, but it is still just my word. As I have said, I play hotseat vs myself. When I start with a scout, I do much better than when I don't in most cases. Occasionally the warrior is more valuable, as I mentioned in my previous post. The monument is almost never so valuable as to require those extra 6 turns I use on a scout, but very rarely it is. And I never want to build a worker first. Without the scout, the chances of having the tech so that I can actually
use that worker is very small.
As you said, play the map. But play your civilization too! You cannot play the map unless you scout it, and you cannot scout it first turn before you decide whether or not to build a scout. And that is why it is a 'hard rule', as you put it, to build a scout. The only situations in which you should consider not building one is when your civilization has significant changes early game that make warrior a better decision.
While it is true that people can base arguments off of bias, misconceptions, opinion, or outright lies, that is no reason to assume
every person who disagrees with you is doing so. Furthermore, it is hypocritical to not consider that perhaps you could be acting similarly, preferring your warrior strategy simply because you like to play the game that way. And it is perfectly fine to play the game that way! If you want to build a warrior, build a warrior. And the reasons for doing so can certainly include barbarian-slaughtering, early warmongering, and better defenses against enemy rushes. And if you like those things and therefore value them more than normal, then go ahead and build the warrior.
The fact that we can all disagree shows that Firaxis did a good job here.
