The Case Against Using Scouts

[tibbles]

Yes, I meant those players can easily have played many many sets of the opening turns, not that they bother to replay the opening turns on a specific GOTM map.

Perhaps I could have phrased it better, but this should be common sense. Every Civ game you start has a turn 1. Not every game makes it to turn 300. Thus, there's far more communal experience and optimization applied to turn 1 than turn 300.

 

[qemist]

I don't need such gamble to play well. I may throw a unit some turns before and memorize barbs spawning but not that much. Reloading in HoF and GOTM games to know in advance the map is weak.

I call it cheating. You seem to have missed my point. I'll try to say it differently: there's likely a lot of cheating going on in showcase games and so their tactics are not to be considered exemplary.

I play multiplayer a lot so i'm used to not know the map before starting the game. If you don't trust best games showed, you probably sub-optimally use the most powerful weapon for non-domination games : Research Agreements.

I'm not a good player at all, but that is beside the point.

I have a lot of experience, i play civ games since 1996.

My first encounter with the series was CivRev. When I first came to the CivRev forum here I was a little shocked to find threads openly discussing the best ways to cheat on the game of the week.

You absolutely need to reroll* in HoF games a lot and prepare a grand strategy to have a chance to finish in top3.

That's an odd thing to say because the rules specifically state that it is not allowed.

For GOTM games, it's more balanced since everyone use the same map and only once.

On CivRev they had some way of playing it multiple times.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I call it cheating. You seem to have missed my point. I'll try to say it differently: there's likely a lot of cheating going on in showcase games and so their tactics are not to be considered exemplary.

Fair play is and always was the key concept any serious civ community was based on and definitely this one. Whether some of the players disregard it silently? Possibly. However, besides the fact that everybody considered innocent unless proven guilty, there is no way from that vague possibility to reflect on every submitted strong game. Sounds like another pointless rant due to the frustration from your own weak play. Sorry.

Moderator Action: This is one example of trolling, but there have been numerous throughout the thread. This infraction is for all of them.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

Yeah, GOTM winners usually are those with the best luck, and HOF winners rerolled for the closest to ideal conditions. Nothing is new about it. However, the kind of gambling you're talking about is something that's relevant mostly for deity. Where you can concentrate on building a strong base for the rest of the game staying almost defenseless or to invest in decent defensive units early on and inevitably lag way behind later. Healthy balancing between the two is possible and recommended on any other level. So these strategies are very representative. And deity level does require a high risk play many times. That's how things work in any aspect of our life. If you want to be the best and to beat the best you have to take risks.

My first encounter with the series was CivRev. When I first came to the CivRev forum here I was a little shocked to find threads openly discussing the best ways to cheat on the game of the week.

All of a sudden I have a strong urge to remind you that if the hat fits...
One of the first things that catch your eye in any competition dedicated section is the list of banned exploits. And cheats discussion is banned as well. So unless you can provide a link, you should not throw this kind of accusations.

That's an odd thing to say because the rules specifically state that it is not allowed.

Rerolling a new map is not the same as reloading the current one.
You're obviously trying really hard to see a cheating where it's not present. You should ask yourself why.


And back to the topic. How is your competition going, gentlemen? My popcorn is getting cold.

 

[woodshadows]

snarzberry has mysteriously disappeared. I'm still eagerly awaiting his save file upload to start this thing.

Tabernak, at what level of gameplay do you find research agreements even necessary. In my experience a person can play a very strong game on Immortal and under without even once using a research agreement. I've personally never found any use for them. I tried them a couple times and didn't find any enormous benefit and then I read threads about 'research blocking' which presumably gives you an overwhleming edge, but considering I'm always techs ahead already on Immortal and under what possible benefit could I derive from this; do I really need tanks vs rifleman as opposed to infantry vs riflemen? It's bad enough all the other exploits this game provides for free gold or workers, plus the AI being really really bad at combat, it's not like I need to be two eras ahead in military techs to stay on top. I know you said non-domination game, but the same applies, since two eras ahead militarily will more than likely mean far ahead in the other areas of the tech tree as well.

I'm a very lazy player for many aspects of the game. I automate my workers, I don't sign research agreements. Only recently have I started using diplomacy, tho after the results of my experiment I may not bother with that again either. I do very good however in SP. Unless you are playing Deity to impress someone that you can beat it, I don't understand the point. Seems people are using very specific niche strategies in order to achieve those victories. I can't imagine it's very fun, or even very challenging once you've learned by rote the little 'cheats' that give you the edge. It's like in chess, I really hate playing against 'chess masters', because they have studies opening gambits and know various tricks they've read books about. I'm too lazy for that. I prefer playing against a normal person, with neither of us using 'tricks' to get edges on eachother, just using raw brain power and creativity to see who can come out on top. Far more fun.

 

[Tabarnak]

-snarzberry has mysteriously disappeared.

-Tabernak, at what level of gameplay do you find research agreements even necessary.

-In my experience a person can play a very strong game on Immortal and under without even once using a research agreement.

-I'm a very lazy player for many aspects of the game. I automate my workers, I don't sign research agreements.

-Snarzberry is from an other world. Just check his avatar and his name! (joke)

-For me, every level, even settler. I always aim for the fastest finish time when i play sp. I do check some special beelines for mp sake. When i play sp, it's mostly for GOTM and HoF entries. RAs is the master key to do insane finish dates. But it's only a matter of taste.

-True. If you can do that, you must have some skills.

-For competition purposes, you can't do that. But like i said, it's a matter of taste. At least, you must finish your games very fast! If you don't sign RAs AND automate workers, you must have serious skills. Why not try mp if you like it fast?

What about the principal question? Scouts? I think that from i read you don't really care of what is optimal and such. So, for you, starting with a scout, a warrior, a worker or a monument doesn't change anything for you. It's a matter of taste(and lazyness degree ) i guess(did i just say that it's a matter of taste?)

 

[woodshadows]

-For competition purposes, you can't do that. But like i said, it's a matter of taste. At least, you must finish your games very fast! If you don't sign RAs AND automate workers, you must have serious skills. Why not try mp if you like it fast?

I don't consider myself as finishing my games particularly fast, especially on Immortal. I remember playing King and invading a neighbouring civ and being like 'uh.. why didn't they build any army??'. On Emperor you're guaranteed a bit of opposition at least. Immortal on the other hand is more stressful, requiring more attention to detail, not so much exploiting of niche strategies so much as being more cautious with decision-making both in what you build/research and positioning and utilization of units. I generally prefer Emperor simply because I think a game shouldn't feel like a job, it should be challenging but a challenge which allows me to slack a bit.

What about the principal question? Scouts? I think that from i read you don't really care of what is optimal and such. So, for you, starting with a scout, a warrior, a worker or a monument doesn't change anything for you. It's a matter of taste(and lazyness degree ) i guess(did i just say that it's a matter of taste?)

I wouldn't characterize my sentiments as 'not caring what is optimal'. While I'm unwilling to focus exclusively upon strategies like the NC, or GL, or the HS/PT etc, I do choose certain things at the exclusion of others. I won't build a library in a population 1 city for instance, rather than a granary in order to avoid optimization, but nor will I sit around delaying building a second city in order to get a National College which will pretty much give me so much momentum that the rest of the game has already been decided in my favour. I have lately been seriously considering avoiding exploiting the gold trades from the AI, I did it a couple times when I desperately needed money and now it's gotten to the point where I do it as a matter of course, even when it's just 43 gold from a civ nearly dead. Too much of a crutch really, I'm forgetting how to balance my economy and military without that stolen gold.

 

[snarzberry]

snarzberry has mysteriously disappeared. I'm still eagerly awaiting his save file upload to start this thing.


hey sorry mate, been super-busy IRL and haven't had a minute to myself the last week. Maybe someone else can take up the idea, as I don't think I'll be playing a game of civ for a week or two at minimum. As I said earlier, I don't think there'll be much to be gained since you have clarified your opinion as being that you use scouts, you just don't open with them. take care.

 

[qemist]

Fair play is and always was the key concept any serious civ community was based on and definitely this one. Whether some of the players disregard it silently? Possibly. However, besides the fact that everybody considered innocent unless proven guilty, there is no way from that vague possibility to reflect on every submitted strong game. Sounds like another pointless rant due to the frustration from your own weak play. Sorry.

You should be sorry to make such stupid accusations. I merely pointed out some obvious facts of life. People will wonder why you are so keen to bury them.

All of a sudden I have a strong urge to remind you that if the hat fits...

I have no idea what "hat" you are talking about. Please explain.

One of the first things that catch your eye in any competition dedicated section is the list of banned exploits. And cheats discussion is banned as well. So unless you can provide a link, you should not throw this kind of accusations.

Maybe they don't call it cheating. The method they used on CivRev was to play the game multiple times. First on chieftain to scout the whole map. Then over and over on deity replaying exactly the same moves every time until they reach the point where they lost a combat last time. They must have had tremendous patience and oodles of free time.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I merely pointed out some obvious facts of life. If innocent remark regarding first turns being the most optimized ones triggers thoughts about cheating and from there projects to every showcased game and all top level players, it says much more about you than about those you try to falsely accuse.

 

[vexing]

play the game multiple times.

while some people do this on the GotM, it's less likely in the HoF. players aren't starting with the same initial save there, and some submitted games are done in single sessions which eliminates the possibility of any replay cheating.

 

[qemist]

I merely pointed out some obvious facts of life. If innocent remark regarding first turns being the most optimized ones triggers thoughts about cheating and from there projects to every showcased game and all top level players, it says much more about you than about those you try to falsely accuse.

I think it's obvious who's projecting. I didn't accuse anyone and yet you rush in and try to slime me as a cheat. You should try harder not to conform to stereotypes. I've never even played the GOTM or posted a HoF game, but hey, anyone who thinks there might be cheating in computer game competitions is obviously a cheat. Makes sense, right?

You've taken this quite off topic and abused me personally so I will not respond to you further.

 

[qemist]

while some people do this on the GotM, it's less likely in the HoF. players aren't starting with the same initial save there, and some submitted games are done in single sessions which eliminates the possibility of any replay cheating.

That's good. I'm sure there are many good honest players here, in the GotM and the HoF. I'm sorry if I offended them. I'm also sure there are people who cheat if it's possible. It's human nature, unfortunately.

One way to nerf game replaying would be to modify the RNG to reseed from some random source. That wouldn't stop people seeing the map though.

Let's not speak of this further.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I think it's obvious who's projecting. I didn't accuse anyone and yet you rush in and try to slime me as a cheat. You should try harder not to conform to stereotypes. I've never even played the GOTM or posted a HoF game, but hey, anyone who thinks there might be cheating in computer game competitions is obviously a cheat. Makes sense, right?

You've taken this quite off topic and abused me personally so I will not respond to you further.

Not only you did, you say yourself don't even know anything about GOTM/HOF competitions. Yet it didn't prevent from you to cry out 'cheaters' several times without even trying to understand what the heck people are talking about. And all based on what? Misinterpretation of someones post and CivRev thread where some guy asks his civmates whether they reload or not while playing non-competitively? Speaking about jumping to conclusions. Just admit you got it all wrong and move on. No need to dig deeper.

 

[woodshadows]

qemist: ThePilgrim resorts to personal attacks to try to buff up his weak arguments. Don't take it personally, it's really the level of a caveman retort for someone who lacks sufficient wit to produce something more original or profound. He's a troll and interacting with him doesn't provide any productive ideas.

Moderator Action: Infraction for trolling in this post, and conduct throughout the thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Camikaze]

Moderator Action: The conduct between woodshadows and The Pilgrim earlier in the thread, and now qemist and The Pilgrim, is not acceptable for these forums. Please remember to be civil. Infractions for woodshadows and The Pilgrim.

 

[woodshadows]

hey sorry mate, been super-busy IRL and haven't had a minute to myself the last week. Maybe someone else can take up the idea, as I don't think I'll be playing a game of civ for a week or two at minimum. As I said earlier, I don't think there'll be much to be gained since you have clarified your opinion as being that you use scouts, you just don't open with them. take care.

I can wait. I think since there are such strong feelings on the issue of 'first build' it would still be beneficial to have a comparison take place. The 50 initial turns in a game also shouldn't take very long, 10 mins max? I'm sure we can both spare the time for this, of course letting IRL take priority. If not perhaps ThePilgrim would take me up on it, as he has been a strong spokesman in favour of opening with a scout.

 

[Buccaneer]

Archipelago type maps.

I have only gotten this far in the thread. In my current Archipelago map as Polynesia, I had built 3 scouts. Advantage? Up to 15 ruins popped. But in all other cases, you're right.

 

[The Pilgrim]

I can wait. I think since there are such strong feelings on the issue of 'first build' it would still be beneficial to have a comparison take place. The 50 initial turns in a game also shouldn't take very long, 10 mins max? I'm sure we can both spare the time for this, of course letting IRL take priority. If not perhaps ThePilgrim would take me up on it, as he has been a strong spokesman in favour of opening with a scout.

The strong feelings are on the issue of too strong feelings about puny 25 hammers. The whole subject was blown totally out of proportion, I'm glad we finally agree on something.

No problem, I can take the challenge. However I do agree with snarzberry. What you've written in your last couple of posts is quite different from my impression regarding you stand as well. It wouldn't prove much. Warrior->scout vs scout->scout will not provide any useful information. So if that's you build order - swords down and peace, man.

I have only gotten this far in the thread. In my current Archipelago map as Polynesia, I had built 3 scouts. Advantage? Up to 15 ruins popped. But in all other cases, you're right.

Do they get extra movement when embarked vs warriors or just cheaper hammers? On archipelago maps I usually grab lots of ruins with starting warrior only, since AI doesn't go for them for some odd reason.

 

[woodshadows]

No problem, I can take the challenge. However I do agree with snarzberry. What you've written in your last couple of posts is quite different from my impression regarding you stand as well. It wouldn't prove much. Warrior->scout vs scout->scout will not provide any useful information. So if that's you build order - swords down and peace, man.

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".

 

[TW_Honorius]

I am the OP, just so no one has to look back, but I do see the advantage of scout first on certain maps. I usually play pangea and everyone finds me fast, and I do not really buy CS much so that is why I do not build a scout. So if you have a monopoly of resources, it would be wise to scout first.