Scouting

[Aeson]

I think this topic deserves it's own thread.

--------------

First I'll cover maps. When starting a game you get information about 9 tiles most of the time, and a location from the mini map. This gives you your latitude and longitude right off, and an idea as to what type of environment you're in. From this information it's often possible to figure out what type of gamestyle will work best, where the AI's are likely to be hiding out, and where natural barriers (coastline specifically) are going to reside.

This is all possible because the map generator, while not as consistant as some would like (getting stuck on that small island on a pangaea game will do it for most of us), follows definite rules for tile placement. Understanding these rules can give a generalized knowlege of the map even before it's uncovered. The best way to get a feel for the map generator is to just look at a ton of maps... but here are a few guidelines.

Maps generally follow gradients from tundra near the poles, grassland, plains, desert, plains (not as often), grassland, and jungle at the equator. These are of course horizontal bands, and their widths vary according to the weather settings. When you notice these bands tilted one way or another it's almost always because of a shoreline east or west (roughly mimicing the tilt of the terrain band). If you're on grassland, middle latitudes, with plains showing southeast, it's a good bet there is a northwest coastline nearby. Vertical bands are especially easy to spot. Another tell tale sign is starting where there should be jungle (equatorial) and seeing a lot of grassland/forests. Every once in a while there are gaps in jungles, but most of the time it means you have a coastline opposite the jungle that you do see. It's also a good sign that the Pangaea you're expecting isn't, or is of the long snaking variety.

AI placements are even easier to deal with and predict. Starting near the poles in the grassland belt is very common, as is just north or south of the equatorial jungle. The longitude is anyone's guess, but the latitude in this case seems relatively stable. For scouting purposes this is very important. The sooner contact is made, the more turns you have to buy workers (sounds like it's not such a good deal in PtW), and your starting techs have a better chance of being worth something in a trade. The AI's will do their trading without you if they make contacts first, leaving you out of the loop from the very start.

My first scouts (whether that's a scout, warrior, or whatever) almost always take off east and west, unless bounded by coastline. Once they run into an AI, then they head north or south (whichever has more potential) until they get to the jungle barrier, then follow along that edge to preserve movement points for mobile units, and to make contacts in any case. I try not to run into coastlines too much, and use the aforementioned terrain hints to better direct the scouts.

Like I said though, to really get a feel for the map generator, spend some quality time with an expansionist civ and ctrl-shift-q. I think understanding the map generator is going to be one of the most (if not THE most) important skills for serious multiplayer games.

As for random map settings, they become known very quickly if you know what to look for; latitude and width of terrain belts. So 'random' maps will definitely offer a strategical edge to those who can spot those things

Scouts Specifically:

I find them the most useful non-pop unit in a sedentary or no barbarian game. They won't win a game single handed of course, but they will get you the information needed to win, and do so earlier than any other unit. Jags are nice too, but the first scout beats them by 4-5 turns, and Jags often have to take time to heal up after popping barbarians from huts. Even in barbarian infested games, getting 4-5 Scouts out early should net contacts with all the AI's before they all get wiped out. They can also pass (almost) freely through AI territory, gathering information that might otherwise require trading maps to get.

Scout's movement is what makes them special, so don't waste it. Thats why folowing a jungle border is more likely than trudging up through it. You'll end up hitting more huts along the edge than you'd ever find in the jungle. Hopefully one of those huts will give an already slow moving warrior to do that.

Also when you note a hill or mountain on the first move, move parallel to it instead of towards it on your second move. The idea is to end your next turn with that elevated view, which will end your next turn whether your have 1 or 2 movement points left, so stay 2 moves away.

Opening Huts:

Thanks to information given by Firaxis, it's not a lot easier to get those early settlers (and more of them). Remember that before opening any hut (which you'd like a settler out of), make sure none of your cities are producing a settler, you have no active settlers, and your number of cities doesn't exceed the average number per civ. This really makes building an early granary more viable, as your number of cities will be lower for the first 40 turns or so (a granary starts paying off after the second settler or thereabouts). Being expansionist allows the first non-scout build to be a granary, which can be paying off before 2000BC.

If I run into a hut nearby my core, and think the AI's may not have as many cities as I do yet, I'll put off opening the hut. Also it's a good idea not to open up huts until after making a few contacts. That lets you trade your starting techs for other starting techs (which the AI is going to trade for anyways), and then you have a chance at more expensive, later techs from the same huts. I'll leave all the huts anywhere around me alone if I find a first settler and their aren't any AI's nearby.

Huge Barbarianless maps Specifically:

(that's really all you need to know about Scouts on that setting)

I was asked about how I use scouts in this setting, and it's basically the same as any other, only scale the number of scouts with the size of the map (15 or so on a Huge map). Often my first 10 unit builds end up being scouts, just use the luxury slider to keep citizens in line... finding those luxury resources as early as possible will more than make up for the lost gold later on. I send them out on straight lines, and try to never double back. That first scout should be as far away from the capitol as possible at all times, until the end of land is found in that direction.

[GusSmed]

4-5 scouts!? I'm boggling. Of course, perhaps that's because I generally play with Raging barbarians, but on Standard maps, I find that I might buy 1 more scout, and then I'm too busy with other stuff to waste shields on them.

Your points about proper opening of huts are interesting. I've always popped them open as soon as possible, but perhaps the method you describe will make Expansionist more worthwhile.

These days I typically build a Warrior or Scout to scout, a Warrior to keep the second pop point content, Temple, then Settler. The first Warrior may come back for a few turns to keep the 3rd pop point content while the Temple is building, depending on whether I have a luxury in range of my starting city.

I do this primarily to get that early jump in culture. Typically this lasts until about 300 BC or so, even if I build no more culture generators, so cities I take in my first couple of wars remain mine.

Are you saying you build 4x scout, then granary, then settler with an Expansionist civ?

- Gus

[Aeson]

4-5 scouts!? I'm boggling. Of course, perhaps that's because I generally play with Raging barbarians, but on Standard maps, I find that I might buy 1 more scout, and then I'm too busy with other stuff to waste shields on them.

I tend to not build Temples at all, at least until expansion is over with. 1 temple = 30 or 60 shields, one or two is enough to cover the expense on the Scouts.

Are you saying you build 4x scout, then granary, then settler with an Expansionist civ?

On a huge map with no barbs, yes, and usually about 15 Scouts overall. With barbs, I try to get some Warriors out early as well, though there seems to be enough time before barbs start showing up to get a couple Scouts out first. On small and tiny maps it's probably best to only build Warriors, as the extra movement point isn't going to help as much. The starting Scout should be able to cover enough ground.

[ducki]

Fantastic information about the map generator that I never noticed. Thanks a lot Aeson!

Another option, instead of Ctrl+Shift+Q might be (if you're not on Mac) to repeatedly generate maps in the Editor and look at how the Terrain Bands flow.

I never thought of it other than to realize that if I followed a River, I'd end up in either mountains or a coast. Great insights, thanks again!

[punkbass2000]

Indeed, veryy good info. Aeson
I'll never look at scouts the same way again.

[Sheik]

On a huge map with no barbs, yes, and usually about 15 Scouts overall.

That's interesting. I have always made my number one priority building more cities. What is your timeline for city building look like? At what time do you want to have 3 cities? 4? 5? (Sorry if this off topic).

[Aeson]

In most terrain you're going to be able to produce 2-3 Scouts before the food is available to start the first Settler anyways. That's 3-4 Scouts right off including your starting one. On a Huge map, it's likely you're going to get at least 1 Settler from a hut if you follow the hut opening guidelines. Because of the way it works, you can only get those Settlers if your number of cities is at or below the average number of cities per civ, so overexpanding early on can actually be counter productive. It cuts out your chance to make up whatever production and pop you've saved in the interim.

Use this 'down' time to focus your production elsewhere, and build up some pop in your capitol. The luxury slider is key here. There really isn't anything lost by having 3 pop that requires 2 luxury commerce compared to 2 pop requiring 1 luxury commerce, only gained production and population. The tile worked by the 3rd pop should provide it's own commerce necessary or better. This works until you get to about half the number of optimum cities, where corruption starts to really hurt the effect of the luxury slider. Once I get to that number of cities, it's best to focus on getting a luxury hooked up (happiness unaffected by corruption), or start focusing on some garrison units for those cities. The core cities can continue to rely on the luxury slider, and don't need to be defended as the perimeter cities will do that for them.

As for a timeline, I like to double my number of cities every 16 or so turns. The first doubling is almost always by a Settler from a hut when played this way. In the last 5 maps I've played through that far, I've gotten a Settler every time by ~2500AD. That puts the expansion a little behind, but the Granary will start paying off shortly thereafter, making up the difference. Plus I'll still have more chance for a 2nd and sometimes 3rd Settler from a hut by delaying my number of cities and leaving huts nearby my territory.

It usually works out pretty much even by 10AD, where ~100 cities (7 doublings in 108 turns) is my goal (either through peaceful expansion and/or conquest). The difference is in the number of units and improvements that I've been able to build is more by not wasting chances at Settlers from huts, and in the extra population points (and thus commerce) the Granaries have provided.

I'd have to look at the saves, but in my most recent game, I think I came close to doubling the number of units that I had at that point in my old 1.17f Iroquois game, and that was with 40 shield pop rushes.

[ducki]

Originally posted by Aeson
Because of the way it works, you can only get those Settlers if your number of cities is at or below the average number of cities per civ, so overexpanding early on can actually be counter productive. It cuts out your chance to make up whatever production and pop you've saved in the interim.

Correct me if I misread this: It sounds as though you are trading definite expansion (in the form of built settlers) for potential expansion (settlers from huts) coupled with increased exploration and maximized potential trading.

Put another way, you are gambling on Hut Settlers with cheaper, profitable Scouts. On the off chance that you don't pop any Settlers, you end up having to build them anyway, but with larger populations, they build faster, right?


I'm about to start a game geared at trying to generate 5 leaders and was considering using a Military/Expansionist civ... maybe I can test out two theories at once.

Thanks again for the great info!

[ducki]

A secondary question about Scouts, Huts, and Settlers.
With PtW, you can pop a Town - does anyone know if the Settler-in-production flag has anything to do with this?

[Aeson]

Here's a comparison of the two games. The difference in tech is due to rule changes. The AI used to get a tech bonus, now the player gets an increase in tech cost. That and map size. Huge is smaller now, so less huts available. The difference in number of cities is mostly due to using ICS in one and not the other, and map size again played a role as there's not anywhere near as much grassland in the smaller huge maps.

As you can see, % of the landmass controlled is about the same either way. Number of units, and overall commerce, is where a difference shows up (captured catapults not taken into account). Some of this can be attributed to having Industrious in one game and not the other, but switching to a Republic in the Iroquois game would at least somewhat make up for that. It's not a huge advantage, but an extra 10-20 Knights can make a lot of difference, so why not take it?

ps. The number of Scouts produced was about the same in each case, I just lost a lot of them trying to pillage and cause havoc with various AI's after the exploration was done with in the Orangesoda game.

[Aeson]

Oops, forgot the picture!

[Aeson]

Originally posted by ducki

Correct me if I misread this: It sounds as though you are trading definite expansion (in the form of built settlers) for potential expansion (settlers from huts) coupled with increased exploration and maximized potential trading.

Early on, yes. The 3000BC Settler may or may not be there in this case, but a Granary and extra Scouts will.

Put another way, you are gambling on Hut Settlers with cheaper, profitable Scouts. On the off chance that you don't pop any Settlers, you end up having to build them anyway, but with larger populations, they build faster, right?

Yes, with the Granary, the expansion rate should catch up around the 3rd or 4th Settler produced by that city depending on terrain. Considering that you can have 10 or more Settlers produced in the expansion phase (even if that's including raze/rebuilding) by this one city, it should always pay off in the end.

That should leave other cities able to build more units (and specialize to do so... mining cows ect.)

One drawback of a granary first is you lose a lot more by doing a Palace jump. If it looks like that would need to be an option, you can always build regularly, and let the second city build the granary and start pumping out Settlers. I think having 2-3 granaries in your first 5 cities is a good idea on an uncrowded map (I like my 8 AI on Huge). Just the first one if you're with a lot of AI's or have cultural linked starting locations on.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Aeson
I think this topic deserves it's own thread.

Yes, and the expansionist trait deserves a better reputation!

Aeson, an original, well-thought, experience-backed, and well-written post as usual

Let me just add that your scouts' use doesn't end when you have contacts and knowledge of your continent's map. If it's still early, I put my scouts in galleys and send them exploring overseas after they're done at home. You will often find land with unpopped huts overseas, even later in the game, even on already settled continents. Also, spying on other civs is valuable, and scouts are not perceived as a big threat by the AI.

What about exporing at sea? Have you noticed any patterns of the map generator that could be helpful when looking for another landmass?

[ducki]

Originally posted by alexman
What about exporing at sea? Have you noticed any patterns of the map generator that could be helpful when looking for another landmass?

Actually, I noticed what seems to be a "pattern".

You know how it's generally believed that Earth once had a Pangea, and the tectonic plates drifted apart?
You can look at South America, Brazil specifically, and see how that sort of fits as the "missing" piece in Africa.

Look for things like that on your own continent to give you a guess as to where to start looking for passages. Large concavities and convexities are prime spots to search, I've found.

Nothing statistical, mind you, it just seems to work out that way. Look for the place that seems to be "missing a piece" and then go to the "point" or peninsula to it's north or south. Most of the time I'll find a passage, or at the very least, an Island.


I'm sure Aeson's got more, but that's the thing I've noticed.

[Aeson]

I could only say what Ducki said... it does seem that opposite coasts will mirror each other. As for the width of the gap inbetween, I can't think of any way of deducing it, or even if there will be a mirror shore at any given location. Of course if you're on one landmass near the east/west border (of the mini-map), it's much more likely the other landmass(es) will have a crossing opposite that border. Not always of course... one of the AU games had a crossing through the east/west border didn't it?

In naval exploration I tend to just follow some very basic rules. Mainly, scout the perimeter first, and take off (with much praying) in a likely direction that shows a thicker sea border...

It's a good question though, the map generator certainly may have some sort of tell on that count. I just haven't figured one out.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by ducki
Another option, instead of Ctrl+Shift+Q might be (if you're not on Mac) to repeatedly generate maps in the Editor and look at how the Terrain Bands flow.

The Editor certainly is a great way to get a feel for maps. For me it's hard to visualize exactly what I'm going to be seeing in game though, so actually playing starts blind is still important too.

I like guessing where there nearest coast will be on a start (if one isn't visible of course ), and seeing how close I was. I've ended up passing on some really good looking starts (which was what I was looking for in the first place) by getting sidetracked with these type games... it ends up "Cool, within 2 tiles!"-> Ctrl-Shift-Q-> "Ooops, wasn't that 3 Cows and a Luxury?"

[Sheik]

About the map fitting together

I got this the first time I generated:
It seems to fit together about half the time for me.

[Theseus]

I've often noticed continental "fits" as well... I have always assumed that that was purposefully part of the map generation routine.

[GusSmed]

With all due respect, I think the early scouting strategy you describe works because you're using relatively easy settings: Huge, Pangea, No Barbarians.

I diddled around with this opening on Standard, Random, Raging Barbarians, and I had very mixed results.

One time it paid off quite handsomely, with an extra Settler and all of the second level techs (mathematics, etc.), plus one third level tech, Literature. I had a significant tech lead on the three AI civilizations I'd been trading with, which is quite unusual for 2000 BC.

However, most of the time it failed miserably. More typically I'd only get to open 3-4 huts, getting maybe 50 gold and a conscript warrior. The land masses I started on simply didn't have that many huts to begin with, and the AI players of course was cleaning up any huts that were in their areas.

The barbarian setting didn't seem all that important. The camps don't seem to show up until roughly 2000 BC, by which time you've gotten most of the use out of your scouts. A relatively low Barbarian setting probably does matter on Large or Huge maps, since the amount of space you need to explore is larger, and hence the scouts have a longer lifespan.

My net feeling is that this strategy turns the opening into a crapshoot on Standard maps. If I go for a relatively small expansion of 4-5 total cities, and then start prepping for an Archer or Horseman rush, I have more consistent results. Not anywhere as nice as the best case, but much better than the average case for the Scout opening.

- Gus

[ducki]

Ok, I tried this up until 2070BC.
I like it!

I only got 1 town, no settlers and 1 or 2 warriors from huts, but I'm still not behind on cities yet, so that's probably why.

I got a lot of techs, though.
I have yet to complete research on anything.

I was close on The Wheel, but just traded for it.
Now that I'm close on Ironworking, it'll probably pop from a hut.

[ducki]

Also, I've seen an awful lot of my continent and gained first contact with Ragnar and Isabella.

I have yet to trade for a map.

In all, this is a nice strategy.

I should note, this is Large Pangea with 8 or 10 civs, I forget, and Sedentary Barbs.
I really never noticed the bands of terrain before, but now that you've pointed it out, Aeson, I see them everywhere, and when they don't go horizontally, I know a body of water is near.

Great observations!

[GusSmed]

Originally posted by ducki
Now that I'm close on Ironworking, it'll probably pop from a hut.

My understanding is that huts never give you something you're researching, so as to avoid short-changing you (i.e. getting a tech you'd get next turn anyway isn't much of a reward).

This means it's a good idea if you're doing serious hut popping to be researching one of the 1st level techs so you'll get a more valuable second level tech.

- Gus

[Aeson]

With all due respect, I think the early scouting strategy you describe works because you're using relatively easy settings: Huge, Pangea, No Barbarians.

No doubt these are the optimal settings for using Scouts. Different aspects of what Scouts can do are useful on all sorts of maps though.

However, most of the time it failed miserably. More typically I'd only get to open 3-4 huts, getting maybe 50 gold and a conscript warrior. The land masses I started on simply didn't have that many huts to begin with, and the AI players of course was cleaning up any huts that were in their areas.

Granted that the Scout's hut opening bonuses are closely tied to the size of the landmass and luck, nobody would debate that, but that's not their only purpose. Most importantly, they uncover the map faster than any other unit can, letting the player know where to focus expansion and direct research most effectively, along with getting contacts earlier.

By turn 5 an Expansionist civ (on a standard map) can know pretty much what they're up against on their continent and plan accordingly, whereas other civs are just getting the first scouting unit (most of the time 1 movement) built. The larger the continent, the more advantage the Expansionist civ will have at the end of the scouting period. No use building and researching towards an Archer/Horseman rush just to find out Greece/Zululand is your only neighbor, or worse yet, nobody... Making contact 5-10 turns later may very well mean 5-10 turns of working or researching in the wrong direction. On small landmass starts, Pottery is an important tech towards Mapmaking and for building up population to do serious researching. Scouts will let you know to research Alphabet/Writing earlier, so you can get off that lonesome isle sooner.

Turn advantage of this nature isn't always obvious, but can have a tremendous effect on the course of the game. Often a difficult game is one where if you were in the same position a few turns earlier it would be easy. Missing out on a good Cavalry rampage because your opponents get Nationalism before you can strike comes to mind. Many times an important resource spotted a few turns earlier/later will completely change the game.

Contacts especially are worth more early than late, as an expansionist civ should be able to always get something in exchange for their starting techs. This is in essense as much 'free' tech as it would be from a hut, as the AI's are going to trade their starting techs to someone anyways. If they meet the others first, you won't have anything to offer. The effect is you can determine which civs are left out of the tech trading right from the start, instead of being the one left out. As the Americans, you can give your (non-Industrious) neighbors a very good shot at building the Pyramids for you, which is always nice.

Finding an AI with a worker in their capitol is hit or miss, but the earlier you make contact, the better the chances. This can have almost as much effect as a Settler from a hut, hampering the AI's expansion, and increasing yours. An AI on a river often will have a Worker in their capitol after the first road/irrigation or road/mining is done. By making contact before then it can totally change the course of the game.

It is a gambler's trait in a way (huts, buying workers), but for me it's more about sound planning by having the map information and contacts as early as possible. So often you read about players complaining how they aren't 'in the loop' with regards to the tech race, and it's something that happens at the very beginning of the game, making contacts too late.

If that's not enough, you can still use Scouts for resource denial, which has thankfully been gimped a bit, but can still totally ruin a game (from a difficulty standpoint). I've also fought 'Scout only' wars with distant AI's, which is really a lot of fun, leading Swordsmen around in circles in their own territory (stay away from roads!) until the AI's are willing to pay for peace. Any two movement troops can do this as well, but it's just something to do with 'obsolete' Scouts.

The Settler and techs from huts are really just bonuses. If that's all Expansionist means to a player it isn't going to seem all that great most of the time on smaller landmass games. This thread was meant to be mostly about those less obvious advantages offered by the trait and some ways to take advantage of the obvious advantages better. It's not a "Expansionist is the Ultimate trait" type thread at all (unless it's a Huge/Pangaea map of course ).

[Aeson]

The only time a hut will give the tech you're researching is if it's the last ancient era tech available to research (not blocked off tech tree or last one till middle ages). A good idea is to make sure you are researching the tech you least want to get when opening a lot of huts. The Government techs will be the very last 2, and you can't get them from huts if you make it into the middle ages first, so research Construction or Currency yourself if you ever get to this point and there are still huts around.

For a very quick Monarchy, you could research Alphabet on your own slowly (more likely with no funding at all), to block off most of the tech tree. Can't do this in conjunction with a Chariot buildup though... so it's not terribly useful. If you trade for all the starting techs (besides Alphabet), that would mean only 5 techs from huts needed before hitting Monarchy. I think the order would be Mysticism-> Iron Working-> Horseback Riding-> Polytheism-> Monarchy. If Japan isn't around you'd also need The Wheel.

Might actually be useful for the Iroquois (possibly Aztecs/Egyptians as well) on larger maps, as MW's are too good to pass up using for long, and getting Monarchy quick would allow for a much more productive golden age.

[Dominae]

Originally posted by GusSmed
With all due respect, I think the early scouting strategy you describe works because you're using relatively easy settings: Huge, Pangea, No Barbarians.

I diddled around with this opening on Standard, Random, Raging Barbarians, and I had very mixed results.

I have to agree with this (with all due respect to Aeson!). The two sample maps you posted reflect this: both are Huge, Pangea, No Barbs.

Aeson, the tone of your original thread makes it sound like Expansionist civs are extremly good in any given game, which simply isn't true, IMO. With everything "standard", Scouts are only really worth it about half time (just consider those times when you are alone on a continent, or when the local geography makes for linear exploration). Building 4-5 Scouts as a matter of course may not always be a good idea.

However, the other strategies given in the post is, as usual, excellent. You've certainly made it clear how to maximize the Expansionist trait.

Expansionist is clearly more powerful in multiplayer, simply because the AI is predictable while humans are not. Huts aside, sometimes it just really doesn't matter what "the lay of the land" is in SP games, because you're simply going to REX in a standard pattern anyways.


Dominae

[Dominae]

Originally posted by Aeson
Opening Huts:

Thanks to information given by Firaxis, it's not a lot easier to get those early settlers (and more of them). Remember that before opening any hut (which you'd like a settler out of), make sure none of your cities are producing a settler, you have no active settlers, and your number of cities doesn't exceed the average number per civ. This really makes building an early granary more viable, as your number of cities will be lower for the first 40 turns or so (a granary starts paying off after the second settler or thereabouts). Being expansionist allows the first non-scout build to be a granary, which can be paying off before 2000BC.

Wow, I didn't know...this is HUGE! I thought PTW made Settlers and cities more likely from huts, but I guess I was just really giving Expansionist a shot due to MP. This really helps early aggression, as you can Archer rush with only a few cities and expect to get Settlers from your Scouts.


Dominae

[GusSmed]

Originally posted by Aeson
By turn 5 an Expansionist civ (on a standard map) can know pretty much what they're up against on their continent and plan accordingly, whereas other civs are just getting the first scouting unit (most of the time 1 movement) built.

This is quite true. In my standard opening, I typically know what my immediate area is like, and who is adjacent, from scouting Warriors before I starting building Barracks, but that's it.

With a small force of Scouts, I found that I had seen the entire continent by that point.

The larger the continent, the more advantage the Expansionist civ will have at the end of the scouting period. No use building and researching towards an Archer/Horseman rush just to find out Greece/Zululand is your only neighbor, or worse yet, nobody...

Greece isn't all that bad to rush, it just takes 50% more strength. Zululand locks you into a slowmover rush, preferably Swordsmen, because you get serious attrition with Horsemen, so you might as well buy cheaper Archers or stronger Swordsmen. Immortals are ideal against Zululand.

No neighbor at all, however, completely changes how you should play.

Contacts especially are worth more early than late, as an expansionist civ should be able to always get something in exchange for their starting techs. This is in essense as much 'free' tech as it would be from a hut, as the AI's are going to trade their starting techs to someone anyways. If they meet the others first, you won't have anything to offer. The effect is you can determine which civs are left out of the tech trading right from the start, instead of being the one left out.

This is also a good point. In a typical start, I don't get anything for my starting tech. With the Scout start, typically I was able to trade for a couple of starting techs before the AI's locked me out. Of course, they still want deals weighted heavily in their favor, so often you can't get a deal unless you offer a 2 for 1 trade.

If that's not enough, you can still use Scouts for resource denial, which has thankfully been gimped a bit, but can still totally ruin a game (from a difficulty standpoint).

Er, how? Are you talking about leaving scouts inside enemy territory, standing on resources? I thought the AIs would eventually demand you move or declare war.

I've also fought 'Scout only' wars with distant AI's, which is really a lot of fun, leading Swordsmen around in circles in their own territory (stay away from roads!) until the AI's are willing to pay for peace. Any two movement troops can do this as well, but it's just something to do with 'obsolete' Scouts.

I've never done anything like that, it's hard to visualize that working on most maps I've seen.

Anyway, your points about early knowledge are good, as well as the initial tech trading. I had just assumed from the tone of the first post that the point was to get that extra settler, and what I've found is that you simply can't count on it.

- Gus

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Dominae
I have to agree with this (with all due respect to Aeson!). The two sample maps you posted reflect this: both are Huge, Pangea, No Barbs.

Sorry, I guess I wasn't too clear with my intent on this thread. The examples were in response to a question about when to build granaries, not in regards to Scouts or scouting.

Aeson, the tone of your original thread makes it sound like Expansionist civs are extremly good in any given game, which simply isn't true, IMO.

I did say that Scouts were the most useful non-pop units. I'd stand by that still, as any other function of a unit (non-pop still) can have their function replaced with little or no loss. There is no other unit until Explorers that can stay in other civ's territory peacefully, scouting or denying resources. Mobile attack units could be more useful, but their advantage over similar slow attack units is like a Scout's, dependant on map size.

[Dominae]

Sorry, I thought your thread was about Scouts and huts, not Scouting in general. Perhaps I should have read the thread's title before opening my mouth...


Dominae

[Aeson]

Originally posted by GusSmed
This is also a good point. In a typical start, I don't get anything for my starting tech. With the Scout start, typically I was able to trade for a couple of starting techs before the AI's locked me out. Of course, they still want deals weighted heavily in their favor, so often you can't get a deal unless you offer a 2 for 1 trade.

The way to counteract this is to get multiple contacts early. The more civs you have contact with (that have similar techs), the less those techs will cost to you, the same applies to the AI's. If you can make contact with 2 or 3 civs, and those AI's only have contact with you by that point, then the deals should be weighted in your favor. This can give you a leg up on determining who get's what tech when by knowing what everyone has, and keeping them from being able to trade amongst themselves.

It is possible to maintain the same tech rate (through trading and strategic tech paths) as a Deity AI on any settings, peacefully. It's hard to buy your way back in if you drop out early though.

Er, how? Are you talking about leaving scouts inside enemy territory, standing on resources? I thought the AIs would eventually demand you move or declare war.

It has changed. If you are right next to a city you usually have ~10 turns before they will kick you out. They still will let you stay for quite a while if you aren't right next to a city though, and it seems like staying unfortified (moving off and on the terrain) helps too.

I've never done anything like that, it's hard to visualize that working on most maps I've seen.

You need a bit of open, un-roaded space along an AI's border. If they have Horses they will almost certainly end up killing your scout eventually, but you can still hold out for long enough to make peace again (and depending on your world standing, get paid for it). The AI likes to send it's units to hit your 'threatening' units near or in it's territory. Often you can get some pillaging in too, if they only have 1 movement units on your tail. Explorers can do this VERY well in underdeveloped jungle areas.

A variation of this is to send your Scouts (or Explorers) through enemy territory before a war, cut off vital roads at the first turn of the war, and then draw the AI's military to the opposite side your main attack is coming from.

I prefer to have Scouts in AI territory most of the time, even without resorting to these dirty tactics though. I can leave my cities basically undefended, relying on seeing AI troop movement in their own territory to give away when they are coming to attack. Another dirty tactic is by using a few Scouts (or any quick moving troops) you can also delay an attack by just getting in the way of the AI's stacks. They won't declare war until they are able to get to your territory in most cases, and it will give you at least a couple more turns to prepare. With the right terrain or 3+ units you can delay the attack indefinitely.

In any case, here is an example of scout resource denial in 1.29f. I had to leave their territory 1 time in this span. You can usually get back into place before the AI's can get a worker onto the resource when they force you to move. For a nearby civ, keeping an AI without Iron for 10 turns even is usually enough to guarantee that they won't ever get it... Seems they didn't fix it all that well.