scouts in early age

[fantasma]

Hi all,

the general motto is never to recruit scouts from fortresses, but in many early age games indie scouts are not available, at least not in the early stages. Do you forgo scouts completely or use some of your fortress turns?

Once upkeep kicks in seriously there usually is a fortress left where a mage is too expensive, but before that?

[WingedDog]

I don't think it's wrong to hire scout in a fort if you realise you need scout more than a mage right now. Intelligence is important.

[Calahan]

Originally Posted by WingedDog

Intelligence is important.

This couldn't be more true

Or sadly more lacking in most players when it comes to making strategic decisions in-game

[Redeyes]

I have a suspicion that one of the reasons Caelum often does so well is its flying scouts...

[Warhammer]

The opposite is a big reason why I hate glamour nations. I was playing a friend who had TNN, my Eagle Kings were raining lightning from the sky, when he tried to counter them, my mammoths rode them down, and then when he KNEW I was going to use a storm, I had my archers light him up. But, everytime I pushed him hard or tried raiding, I would hit one of his major armies and lose the force. I wound up losing because even though I won all the big battles, I lost the war of attrition. I wasn't sure where to hit him because I couldn't see his armies. Had he played a non-glamour nation, I would have won.

EDIT: Intelligence is HUGE in this game.

[fantasma]

But what do you do, then? Let's say in the second/third year when you did not cover up any scout province?

[Warhammer]

Recruit from a fortress.

[Gandalf Parker]

Ive never been big on that. Why would scouts be less available in early age? It seems to me that a scout is about the simplest unit for a province to be able to provide. Knights, longbowman, chariots, and maybe elephants I could see as a later developments. But scouts?

As far as using them...
As in every absolute answer in this game it could be followed by a tiny print disclaimer at the bottom "NOTE: Tested in (solo or mp) with xxxxx mods, on a ##/player prov ratio, and only if not starting next to xxxxxxxx nation"

But having said that, Ive never been big on the "dont get scouts" thing. The efficiency of use has been laid out in unarguable spreadsheeted displays. I cant argue the math. But PLAYING the game for fun, for me, tends to want scout reports. What I do is try to make a mage, or a commander if I need one. But if I am building up an army to go out then sometimes and I put everything into units with just enough left over to get a scout then I will get one. I never want to waste that. A scout might be my last choice (in some cases), but its never a non-choice.

I might mention that the lack of scounts in early age is one of the reasons I love playing Pangaea or Arcos in that age.

[fantasma]

So you really do that instead of a mage? I usually find myself in a position where everything else is more important to get done at that stage, but so is scouting.

Gandalf, it is more that there are many more tribal nations around than the standard scout/commander/priest type.

[Gandalf Parker]

Usually I wont take a scout instead of a mage (USUALLY).
But there are times when I want to build up an army fast and I dont have enough for the mages I want, and no immediate need of another commander or priest, so I get a scout.

As far as Early Age games, I really cant see the never a scout thing. BUT I can see the suggestion that new players should look really hard at using other provinces to make commanders. Until later in the game when I want thugs, I can often skip getting elite commanders for some indept version. Or at least, my armies can stand to have a ratio of 1 to 5 for elites traveling with indepts. That makes sense to me, to create commanders outside the castle in a steady flow to the castle in order to pick up and move around troops.