The Case Against Using Scouts

[vexing]

more like 2/3 build a scout in that poll. it's the best opening so it's not surprising. the best players consistently are opening with at least one scout, not without reason.
difficulty really doesn't matter - the only things that matter are ruins being on and the map setting not being archipelago, or marathon.

another exception is aztec given jaguar's woodsman trait.

 

[RonMar]

I sometimes produce a scout in the late game for their increased distance visibility so my ranged units can attack "dark" tiles. Alas, they sometime go obsolete and disappear from the unit building listings.

 

[The Pilgrim]

the reason why i started this thread is because the poll had half of the people build a sout and the other half something else. The reasons for building a scout do not seem that advantageous to me versus something else. Now that I am reading a scout opening depends on what diff u play on, which is hardly discussed, so finding out why people swear that a scout is the best opening move will help me understand why its so important to build.

I had no intension to join the argument, because at first this thread looked like another crusade against consensus just for the sake of it. But if you really want to understand why it is so important, that's a different story.

You don't have much of a case, since the thesis it's base on is wrong. You cannot compare starting warrior to hard built scout. They are not interchangeable, but complement each other while exploring simultaneously. By building a scout you get second explorer, not just an explorer. Initial warrior has his hands full too. He explores in different direction, also finds ruins, barb camps, CS's, steals a worker and discovers some of the neighbors and a good portion of close by territory before pulled back. If he is pulled back. This way you meet twice as many civs, twice as many CS's, get twice as bigger chance to hit a ruin, twice as much land explored before settling second city. Meeting other civs is crucial. Due to science bonus and early trade opportunities. Early trade means early cash, which leads to early worker, which leads to early improvements which lead to more early cash -> rush bought settler/libraries/temples etc. Sometimes it also allows to bribe AI into war with each other and save your unprotected behind from upcoming DoW danger.

Let's examine the alternatives.

1) Monuments first
The main argument here - more culture and earlier policies.

2 typical scenarios. The worst case - start on plains/grassland with only food tiles worked at first and an average case - start on hill or deer/wheat hex in immediate ring, second tile is food only.

When you build monuments first it's done by turns 8/10, Liberty opener t13/15, Collective Rule t21/22;
Scout first: scout t5/7, monument t13/17, Liberty opener t17/19, Collective Rule t24/27;

In the worst possible scenario you'll get your settler out 5 turns later than when starting with monument. You have to send him without escort, since the warrior is too far away exploring, or you give up exploration almost entirely until you settle.

The more productive your start is, the more negligible 25 are and hence the lesser the difference between two build orders.

2) Worker first
In average case hard built worker is out around turn 15.
You start working on monument significantly later than when building scout first. Which leads to later policies.
Having both scout and warrior out almost guarantees you meet someone by turn 15 and by taking a loan purchase the worker around the same time. On top of that, some 10 or so turns later with both guys you're almost guaranteed to steal another worker from CS. So by turn 25 you have 2 workers without delaying monument for 15 turns.

3) Warrior first
This one is really silly. Regardless whether the second warrior is used for scouting or for farming barbs. If the former is true - scout is cheaper, pure waste of hammers.
If the latter - how many camps you can grab so early? 2? 50 net gain while sacrificing exploration with all its benefits completely? For the price of one OB? No CS's, no stolen workers, no science bonus. Not even close is a major understatement in this case.


And difficulty, indeed, doesn't matter. Lower difficulties are simply more forgiving for taking non-optimal approaches, that's all.

 

[TW_Honorius]

@pilgrim, i truly want to know why the scout is important because I do not think it is. I am not trying to spam or hate on the people who do, I really want to see some real evidence or rational thought behind this issue as I want to learn why it is important to other people while my train of thought differs.

Also you mention loans and worker steals, which I do not use when playing, so that also adds to my perplexion.

 

[vexing]

I really want to see some real evidence

check out the hall of fame gauntlet competitions. i guarantee at least 90% of the gauntlet winning games start with a scout.

 

[Alpedar]

On lower difficulties it is impossible to steal workers early, because there are not any, no tech discount, no open borders selling soon, AI does not have so much gold, so often its hard to find someone with money to sell things to. (Loan, maybe from more civs would work though).

 

[The Pilgrim]

On lower difficulties it is impossible to steal workers early, because there are not any

This is the only true statement.

no tech discount

Not true. You beeline, AI doesn't.

no open borders selling soon

Not true. 50 is something you can easily get even on Settler.

AI does not have so much gold, so often its hard to find someone with money to sell things to.

Luxes are the bigger problem. But still, if you meet no one the chance you find somebody to sell things to is zero. If you meet all the opponents it's higher than that.

Add this to all the ruins and CS's on the continent that are waiting just for you and again - no case.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

I can see some opening strategies where you don't need a Scout. I also don't play on the highest difficulties, so I'm not sure whether its the best opening move at those levels of play. But for Prince/King/Emperor which I regularly play on, I feel recruiting a Scout first thing is the best first play. You could probably ignore having a Scout if the continent is mostly flat, open terrain. But the Scout's ability to ignore terrain cost, even when crossing a river, is great and allows it to move swiftly. The key to any successful military venture is proper recon and intelligence gathering, and scouts are good at this. They even have a decent melee presence in the early game. At 4 Strength they're not much weaker than Warriors and Brutes, and when fortified especially in rough terrain they can hold off a barbarian unit.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I can see some opening strategies where you don't need a Scout.

Archipelago type maps.

 

[woodshadows]

3) Warrior first
This one is really silly. Regardless whether the second warrior is used for scouting or for farming barbs. If the former is true - scout is cheaper, pure waste of hammers.
If the latter - how many camps you can grab so early? 2? 50 net gain while sacrificing exploration with all its benefits completely? For the price of one OB? No CS's, no stolen workers, no science bonus. Not even close is a major understatement in this case.

By grabbing barb camps in your vicinity you are getting gold and experience for your future army, beyond this however is the other advantage of preemptively removing barbarian spawning camps which will otherwise be constantly making incursions upon your territory, which will hinder your worker from improving tiles while your city slowly kills off the barbarian or suffer from being pillaged or even unless you're checking every single turn which most people don't have the patience for, lose a worker to a barb charging out of the darkness.

You're also not 'sacrificing exploration completely', because your second warrior is serving a function as both barb buster and explorer.

I'd probably build a scout if I had a start with a ton of forest or hills around me, this would be a situation in which it would prove advantageous. Generally tho there's enough grass plains or desert that I can weave a path avoiding most obstacles, meaning the scout would only gain a few movements on my warrior in that scenario.

DIfficulty level definitely does matter and on lower difficulty levels you will find it much easier to find more ruins than on later difficulty levels when the ai spams scouts and there's no chance of beating them to the majority of ruins.

Finally I wonder whether you have tried alternative openings? Or are you another of the mindless mob who just follow the dictates of a few players who establish a strategy that works? It seems people are far too willing to abdicate their own inventiveness to someone elses ingenuity, unwilling to look for something better or on par. I have tried all number of combinations of openers and while I think the scout is a fine opener and superior to both the worker and monument opener, under most circumstances (ie, no massive forest/hill/etc terrain) I find the advantages gained from a warrior to be far superior. Having one extra military unit, a warrior, which will be upgraded to a sword, has so many advantages over a unit that can do a slight bit faster what the warrior is able to do itself.

 

[NotSure]

Also you mention loans and worker steals, which I do not use when playing, so that also adds to my perplexion.

My 2c: Worker stealing is a players choice, but it provides pretty solid returns. If you can snatch one from a city state, snatch an unprotected settler from a spam-happy neighbor, pop a culture ruin, convert a scout into an archer... well, you get the picture. Free workers, bonus culture, bolstered military, and all for the low, low cost of a few cheap scouts.

Honestly, the advise about looking into the gauntlets and games of the month are probably the best advise about proving the worth of scout builds. Those guys constantly do it and have solid results. Fire up a few starts and try it yourself. When it works you can get a very good start.

 

[The Pilgrim]

By grabbing barb camps in your vicinity you are getting gold and experience for your future army, beyond this however is the other advantage of preemptively removing barbarian spawning camps which will otherwise be constantly making incursions upon your territory, which will hinder your worker from improving tiles while your city slowly kills off the barbarian or suffer from being pillaged or even unless you're checking every single turn which most people don't have the patience for, lose a worker to a barb charging out of the darkness.

Sorry, 'people don't have patience' is not an argument for strategy sub-optimality.
As much as I can relate to this on a personal level (I'm lazy and inpatient) it's purely player's problem.

You're also not 'sacrificing exploration completely', because your second warrior is serving a function as both barb buster and explorer.

Of course you do. Either you attack, sit to heal and attack again and heal again or wondering around exploring. You cannot do both at the same time.

I'd probably build a scout if I had a start with a ton of forest or hills around me, this would be a situation in which it would prove advantageous. Generally tho there's enough grass plains or desert that I can weave a path avoiding most obstacles, meaning the scout would only gain a few movements on my warrior in that scenario.

Then maybe you don't explore right. Scout is definitely superior to warrior, he's able to get on top of a hill for better view and move. Cross a river and move. If you're limited by warrior's open terrain only first move, of course your exploration isn't at its best and hence you don't understand why it's so important.

The only thing I can somehow accept, is that when you're planning sword rush you want as many warriors out as early as possible to gain some experience. That's true. That's the case I'd build one scout instead of two and pull starting warrior back after a while. But you need money for upgrade, good fog busting, clear picture of opponents' lands and a bunch of city states in case you don't have iron. No exploration = no trade = no money and possibly less iron. Sacrificing all of this to get one or even two early promotions? Not even close.

DIfficulty level definitely does matter and on lower difficulty levels you will find it much easier to find more ruins than on later difficulty levels when the ai spams scouts and there's no chance of beating them to the majority of ruins.

On higher levels AI has more cash - the same cash you're gonna use for upgrades. No trade = no upgrades.

Finally I wonder whether you have tried alternative openings? Or are you another of the mindless mob who just follow the dictates of a few players who establish a strategy that works? It seems people are far too willing to abdicate their own inventiveness to someone elses ingenuity, unwilling to look for something better or on par. I have tried all number of combinations of openers and while I think the scout is a fine opener and superior to both the worker and monument opener, under most circumstances (ie, no massive forest/hill/etc terrain) I find the advantages gained from a warrior to be far superior. Having one extra military unit, a warrior, which will be upgraded to a sword, has so many advantages over a unit that can do a slight bit faster what the warrior is able to do itself.

Yeah, I'm the mob. And proud of it. I'm just as ambitious as anyone else. Loved to be a smart ass and pretend I know better than players with much more game experience and spare time on their hands to try different things. And then I compared my results to theirs. After initial shock you really have only two choices: to pet your ego, say yourself 'I don't care about finishing time, my play style is different, I have different goals yada yada yada' or to swallow the pride, listen and learn. I'd chosen the latter and didn't feel sorry for a second. So yeah, I'm the mob.

 

[KillingMeSoftly]

Archipelago type maps.

Yeah, exactly! Just goes to show how few absolutes there are in a game like Civ.

 

[woodshadows]

Sorry, 'people don't have patience' is not an argument for strategy sub-optimality.
As much as I can relate to this on a personal level (I'm lazy and inpatient) it's purely player's problem.

Real-world viability is more important than hypothetical viability, so yes taking into account human error can show up a flaw in one strategy over another. I also mentioned the situation of a barb coming out of the dark to grab your worker working tiles on your border, which really is more often the case in losing a worker.

Of course you do. Either you attack, sit to heal and attack again and heal again or wondering around exploring. You cannot do both at the same time.

A scout geting ambushed by barbs will be sitting healing just as long.. assuming it survives that is, which half the time it doesn't. Preemptive attacks give you the advantage, two warriors smashing barb camps, often getting free workers in the process that have been stolen from other civs/city states. A scout is just some eyes wandering around, a warrior is eyes with a club and a bad attitude.

Then maybe you don't explore right. Scout is definitely superior to warrior, he's able to get on top of a hill for better view and move. Cross a river and move. If you're limited by warrior's open terrain only first move, of course your exploration isn't at its best and hence you don't understand why it's so important.

Pot calling kettle black? Who is worse at exploring, if you are incapable of using a warrior to scout, adapting to terrain formations, moving from grassland to finish your turn on a hill, or using your last movement to cross that river, instead using your scout as a crutch for lazy scouting habits?

The only thing I can somehow accept, is that when you're planning sword rush you want as many warriors out as early as possible to gain some experience. That's true. That's the case I'd build one scout instead of two and pull starting warrior back after a while. But you need money for upgrade, good fog busting, clear picture of opponents' lands and a bunch of city states in case you don't have iron. No exploration = no trade = no money and possibly less iron. Sacrificing all of this to get one or even two early promotions? Not even close.

What sort of maps are you playing that you can't get a good view of your immediate neighbours with your initial warrior alone, let alone two warriors? Do you *really* need to know the entire lay of the land for neighbours on the other side of a huge continent whom you likely won't come to blows with for another 100 or more turns? Also, the AI will meet you very soon with their own scouts, saving you the bother of running all the way over to their far-off land, let them take the risks and the expense of building and sending out scouts, while you arm yourself for conflict. Whether you are aiming for an early sword rush (which is usually a very good strategy anyhow), or just want a higher demographic rating to avoid bumrushes, having more and better military is better than a scout which can't be upgraded into anything (unless you get lucky with a ruin).

On higher levels AI has more cash - the same cash you're gonna use for upgrades. No trade = no upgrades.

Huh. I've never played below King and I wonder about the people who do, but the AI I play against never has not enough money for open border exploits or pre-war cash grabs. I always end up with enough money to buy a settler and upgrade a nice sized army of warriors into swords by the time I get iron working (which is very early). 50 gold for each barb camp adds up quickly.

Yeah, I'm the mob. And proud of it. I'm just as ambitious as anyone else. Loved to be a smart ass and pretend I know better than players with much more game experience and spare time on their hands to try different things. And then I compared my results to theirs. After initial shock you really have only two choices: to pet your ego, say yourself 'I don't care about finishing time, my play style is different, I have different goals yada yada yada' or to swallow the pride, listen and learn. I'd chosen the latter and didn't feel sorry for a second. So yeah, I'm the mob.

If you are the mob then that is what you are, I question whether it's something to be proud about however. I just encourage people to exercise a little creativity, I don't believe there is a one-size-fits-all approach to games like this. This is like a more variable version of chess, no one would make the claim that there is only one optimal opening gambit in chess and yet for this game people seem to have come to that opinion. I'm sure there are ways that you could even turn a monument initial build into an optimal stategy, or a settler, especially given the wide range of different map and victory types and different opposing AIs or civs to play, it provides a range of variables. Myself I have tried various strategies and get consistent results with a warrior opener, I don't know that everyone would get the same results, I have mostly honed it into an art and know the pitfalls to avoid, the pros and cons involved, how to optimize it and it fits my play style very well as I generally do take out a neighbouring civ very early in the game. I just hope you'll try to be openminded and explore various alternative methods in this game rather than going through a sort of parroting of other peoples play styles in order to win.. because in that case, what is the value of your win, it has all come through the efforts and insights of others, you have simply served as the automaton who has carried out the function of putting into practice some 'rules' others have created.

 

[The Pilgrim]

You don't really think I'm gonna be involved in another pointless and endless argument with you, do you? After all, it's your thing to piss against the wind, not mine.
So keshiks are inferior to camel archers, Liberty is for n00bs and whoever starts with scout is mindless parroting mob. You see, mindless parroting n00by mob doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. There are GOTM and HoF sections full of hard evidence of how n00by and mindless it is. You, on the other hand, provide no single proof, besides the fairy tales. You miss your target audience.

 

[woodshadows]

You don't really think I'm gonna be involved in another pointless and endless argument with you, do you? After all, it's your thing to piss against the wind, not mine.
So keshiks are inferior to camel archers, Liberty is for n00bs and whoever starts with scout is mindless parroting mob. You see, mindless parroting n00by mob doesn't need to prove anything to anyone. There are GOTM and HoF sections full of hard evidence of how n00by and mindless it is. You, on the other hand, provide no single proof, besides the fairy tales. You miss your target audience.

Is that really what you want your response to be?; an ad hominen questioning character traits to try to win your point? I've made several very valid rational arguments in favour of my point(s). If you want to sink to personal attacks it is more a reflection on you than anything else.

GOTM and HoF is not "hard evidence". Saying "see, look at how good these guys did because they built a scout early on, that's why they got such good scores, all because they built a scout, it's the secret recipe to a good game" is not "hard evidence" in my world. I apologize if I hurt your feelings by suggesting you should try to develop your own strategies rather than relying on other people, but it was not meant as an insult, I just think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you just watch other peoples games and then follow their methods to attain success. It really limits your fun factor and your opportunity to practice some creative problem solving to achieve victory through different means. If you want to continue building a scout and going down Liberty tree and deifying the keshik then be my guest, but it seems like that is a very small and boring narrow little corner of the game you are inhabiting there, occupied with a mass of others who are doing the exact same thing. With a game of this magnitude you could be doing so many other things, creative challenges, discovering different strategies which then you could promote as being 'the best', challenging the orthodoxy.

 

[Mesix]

I never build a scout first. In most games, I start with a monument.

I also never use the Tradition policy to receive four free monuments. I save it to receive four opera houses or even (occasionaly) museums.

I agree with the OP that it is a waste of turns at the beginning of the game. I would prefer to get my policies going faster and spread my borders faster. In some games I build my capital up before setting up a few core cities (especially for culture wins). In other games I build a settler early and have three cities (one from policies) to start rapid expansion (especially for domination games).

When I start a game, I have a victory condition in mind from turn 1. No amount of early scouting will change my overall strategy, only short term tactics (like when to DOW my nearest opponent). This is true regardless of whether I am playing on King or Diety level.

The only time where I would choose to build a scout (and maybe two) at the start of a game would be in multi player. The AI is very predictable. A human opponent is not, so early scouting is of much greater importance.

The initial warrior is generally enough for me to fog bust my region of the map.

 

[The Pilgrim]

@woodshadows
Personal attacks and insults? C'mon, you're the one who called me a mindless mob, because I disagree with you. This arguments is pointless, since you aren't interested in analyzing the issue but only in 'challenging the orthodoxy' for the sake of it. Just as it was in other threads I mentioned. You stay deaf to every reasoning and rationality the vast majority of players see and prove to be valid on daily basis. So I had and still have no intension to give your crusade a stage. You think you know better be my guest as well. It doesn't really change anything. Are optimal strategies narrow, boring, non-creative, brain sucking etc.? For sure. I'm the first to confirm that. But are they optimal? Hell, yeah.

We can go on and on and end up with 'I don't care about finishing time, my play style is different, I have different goals yada yada yada' thing. Been there, done that. Not interested.

 

[Barth]

Is that really what you want your response to be?; an ad hominen questioning character traits to try to win your point? I've made several very valid rational arguments in favour of my point(s). If you want to sink to personal attacks it is more a reflection on you than anything else.

GOTM and HoF is not "hard evidence". Saying "see, look at how good these guys did because they built a scout early on, that's why they got such good scores, all because they built a scout, it's the secret recipe to a good game" is not "hard evidence" in my world. I apologize if I hurt your feelings by suggesting you should try to develop your own strategies rather than relying on other people, but it was not meant as an insult, I just think you're shooting yourself in the foot if you just watch other peoples games and then follow their methods to attain success. It really limits your fun factor and your opportunity to practice some creative problem solving to achieve victory through different means. If you want to continue building a scout and going down Liberty tree and deifying the keshik then be my guest, but it seems like that is a very small and boring narrow little corner of the game you are inhabiting there, occupied with a mass of others who are doing the exact same thing. With a game of this magnitude you could be doing so many other things, creative challenges, discovering different strategies which then you could promote as being 'the best', challenging the orthodoxy.

To get somewhat metaphysical here for a second, the ability to learn from other peoples' mistakes is one of the defining characteristics of human beings. You wouldn't be able to get anywhere in life if you chose to avoid advice and wisdom from anyone else and learn everything the hard way. So the fact that you take such a harsh stance against using the knowledge that other people have worked for and are willing to share is perplexing to me. Now, that's not to say that some experimentation is bad or that the mob is always right 100% of the time. But it would be foolish to disregard all of the advice that people here are willing to share just because other people play that way.

I also think that we need to be clear about what some people find fun in a game like this. It's pretty clear that you enjoy testing your strategies and theories yourself and seeing what feels right to you. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, this is a game and games should be played in a manner that's fun for you. But other people enjoy a game like this for the opportunity to explore every nook and cranny for the most optimal tactics and strategies for victory, either in terms of the probability or the speed of winning. This seemed to be what the OP was more interested in, as he listed and was looking for gameplay reasons why building a scout first is so popular.

Now, is scout first the most optimal strategy to win? In a game as complex as CiV it's hard to make any absolute statements like that. GOTM and HOF players using scout first so often is pretty good evidence. Now you said that we can't assume that the reason those players won is because they built a scout first, and you're right. It would be silly to attribute their successes entirely to the first thing they built in their capital. But at the same time, the fact that top players so consistently do the same thing is probably a good sign that the strategy is pretty strong.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say that anyone who uses popular strategies like building a scout first hasn't experimented with other strategies. I certainly didn't build early scouts when I first started playing, because the advantages of workers/warriors/monuments are so readily apparent. But after playing multiple games with multiple strategies I've come to agree that building a scout first (2 for me since I strictly play on pangea maps) puts me in a much stronger position than any of the other options. So if someone comes to me looking for advice on what the best strategy is early in the game I'd tell them that I have the most success by building a scout first and by putting an emphasis on scouting the map as much as I can as early as I can, because it's been so beneficial to my play.

 

[Optional]

To add to the discussion of woodshadows and The Pilgrim; when I come across a barb camp early game with an exploring unit, I move on. Doesn't matter whether I have a scout or warrior.
If the barb is down to half its hitpoints or thereabouts, then I'll probably give it a shot with my warrior. My level is Immortal; level defines barb bonus, so that's important. The lower the level the easier it becomes. Probably taking out a fully healthy and fortified barb is possible on the lowest levels, but on a higher level it'll become next to impossible with just a single warrior. With a lot of luck and a long time healing it can work, but I don't find it worth it.

Best to move on. A few hexes further you might stumble across a badly hurt barb who has just pinched a worker.

When a barb camp is next to a City State, it might be a good idea to keep it there, and now and then intervene at appropriate moments between the barbs and the City State, for a free worker, influence, some culture points or whatever you might be looking for. A scout can do this as well, although it's not the first thing I want him to do; first some scouting please.

And busting a barb camp is just 25 gold on my level. Where is it 50?