Jump to content

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Genava55 said:

I don't see why scouting should be related to hunting. It seems to be two contradictory activities.

I can't imagine a better scout than a hunter... Hunters need to scout all the time. It's their speciality. Scouts need to able to live off the land more effectively as well, as they can spend many days away from any supply line. Perhaps not a job you'd entrust to an urban recruit.  

 

1 hour ago, borg- said:

Well, it also doesn't have much to do with cavalry being able to hunt, since cavalry was generally the most noble part of soldiers (I think).

Aside from specialized hunters (often on foot), mounted nobility actually did quite a bit of hunting (usually accompanied by footmen, and dogs of course). More than the regular Joe. Hunting was usually a privilege, not a major source of sustenance for the regular people, in most societies at least. The act of hunting was often a status symbol in itself.  

I guess pairing the unit with hunting dogs for authenticity and recognizability wasn't a popular suggestion? 

 

21 hours ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

I gave them simple daggers.

I've always thought that daggers for any kind of mounted unit looked like an awkward choice. Spears, javelins and even bow and arrows in specific cases seem a lot more appropriate. I'd defer to my dog-suggestion for recognizability. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Here are DE's scout actors: I gave them simple daggers. They aren't based on any specific references, just made them look like basic units of their own culture, so if y'all want to improve t

Perish the thought.

Quotes by borg ^ Conditions: 1 per match (starting unit) I personnaly dislike the fact that only it can gather. Potential issues: - It's a lot like AoM - It furthers make

Posted Images

22 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I guess pairing the unit with hunting dogs for authenticity and recognizability wasn't a popular suggestion? 

I could see the hunting dog choice work particularly well for the Britons.

23 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I've always thought that daggers for any kind of mounted unit looked like an awkward choice. Spears, javelins and even bow and arrows in specific cases seem a lot more appropriate. I'd defer to my dog-suggestion for recognizability. 

Any more complex armament would imply a much more militaristic purpose and defeat the purpose of it being a dedicated scouting unit.  That said, daggers are still awkward; the question is whether or not it is too problematic. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I've always thought that daggers for any kind of mounted unit looked like an awkward choice. Spears, javelins and even bow and arrows in specific cases seem a lot more appropriate. I'd defer to my dog-suggestion for recognizability. 

My reason was as Thorfinn says below:

5 minutes ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

Any more complex armament would imply a much more militaristic purpose and defeat the purpose of it being a dedicated scouting unit

Essentially, no other unit uses a dagger as their primary weapon, and since the scout is the weakest military unit a dagger seemed appropriate. I understand it's now the best tool for their job, but for recognizability it made sense. :) Them using a bow for hunting could work though if we ever got dual attacks implemented. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

Them using a bow for hunting could work though if we ever got dual attacks implemented.

But don't let them use their bow and arrow for hunting and a dagger for defending, AoE-II did that for villies and it looks really weird ;)

Perhaps we can give hunters a pelt over the back of their horse or something?

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Freagarach said:

But don't let them use their bow and arrow for hunting and a dagger for defending, AoE-II did that for villies and it looks really weird ;)

Perhaps we can give hunters a pelt over the back of their horse or something?

Honestly, as I play DE I don't ever think about how "silly" it is for the scouts to have a dagger. For me, gameplay takes over and their recognizability as a scout is more important. So, them using a bow will always look like a basic horse archer rather than a scout. EA doesn't have to do it like DE though. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Sundiata said:

I can't imagine a better scout than a hunter... Hunters need to scout all the time. It's their speciality. Scouts need to able to live off the land more effectively as well, as they can spend many days away from any supply line. Perhaps not a job you'd entrust to an urban recruit.  

Have you heard of shepherds? They are more numerous and as much able to scout as hunters. They must endure the weather and have the habit to defend their animals. Furthermore, there is a huge difference in getting your own food in the wild and providing food for your community. Finally, you fell in a false dichotomy with your urban example. Even an urban society like the Roman mainly employed men from the countryside for the military service.

For a historical view, it seems that for the Greeks and the Hellenes, any cavalry could be employed as scouts, but it was mostly the prodromoi in the majority of the accounts.

Quote

Already in fifth century Athens there existed a unit of horse archers who had the privilege of charging the enemy first. They were replaced in the 390s by cavalry known as prodromoi, which was not a change in name only since the prodromoi were armed with the javelin, as were the regular Athenian cavalry (hippeis). Yet whereas the hippeis had some social standing, the prodromoi seem to have been recruited from the Thetes, the lowest socio-economic census class. Unfortunately, the absence of literary evidence on these cavalry units prevents a clear understanding of their tactical employment. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to suggest that the term prodromoi could be used for a generic type of cavalry whose function was consonant with its etymology—running or going in advance. This might apply to scouting as well as to leading the attack on the right wing, and—given the tactical importance of this latter role in the major battles of Alexander—it should at least be included, if not emphasized, in a definition of its meaning.

Source: Cavalry Operations in the Ancient Greek World, by Gaebel.

Link to post
Share on other sites

We are evolving this conversation :D
What I see for now:

Scout can hunt, same efficiency as another cavalry
Scout can build outpost. Can discover / collect treasures and quickly convert nomad camps (when implemented)
Cavalry should still be able to hunt
Scout costs only food, 80/100, training time, health and attack less than other cavalry, higher vision range. Limit of 3/5 scouts, to have no imbalance in hunting on maps with elephant for example
Dagger seems to be the most suitable weapon for scout, unlike any cavalry
Can have animal skin clothes.

Brit scout can accompany a dog, increasing its efficiency in collecting meat.

CCs can train only women and scout.

Edited by borg-
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

As a slightly related topic; Spies in Ancient Greece, 15 pages. This is not a topic I know well but it is maybe worth exploring.

 

643204.pdf 2 MB · 1 download

what do you know about the same subject but with the Celts?

 

 

 

@borg-

-My appreciations with what you have said.

I agree with the dagger, But it could be another low-level weapon even a wooden maze.

 

It should definitely have some cover like animal skin camouflage. Much like a velite in the Roman case.

Yes it should be very bad at fighting.Santa who should be very slow and with very little damage level.

 

-Do not forget that the fauna is going to attack him, so he must have a bonus against animals. 

 

-Later he could switch between melee weapons and ranged weapon.

 

-I do not know if you agree that in some civilizations it must have been a foot unit. (For now mounted I'd just fine).

 

 

 

 

Edited by Lion.Kanzen
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thorfinn the Shallow Minded said:

I could see the hunting dog choice work particularly well for the Britons.

Hunting dogs were important to hunters in most cultures. To illustrate, the reference examples provided so far here were Roman, Greek, Kushite, and mainland Celtic. I'm sure Britons used hunting dogs as well, but why only them? 

 

1 hour ago, Freagarach said:

Perhaps we can give hunters a pelt over the back of their horse or something?

I was also thinking that the units themselves could wear something like bearskins or something hanging from their shoulders, depending on the civ? 

 

52 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Have you heard of shepherds?

I have :) 

 

53 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

They are more numerous and as much able to scout as hunters. They must endure the weather and have the habit to defend their animals.

Sure, shepherds, could work as scouts as well. Never denied that. Though, they usually stay around their flocks and tend to avoid overly difficult terrain (animals breaking legs  is a costly thing). Hunters just seem less restricted.  

 

56 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Furthermore, there is a huge difference in getting your own food in the wild and providing food for your community.

Yes, I know. I specifically remarked that hunting wasn't a major source of sustenance for the average Joe in most societies. 

 

57 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Finally, you fell in a false dichotomy with your urban example. Even an urban society like the Roman mainly employed men from the countryside for the military service.

That was my point. Who better to use as scouts than people who are already accustomed to it. Your average farm boy probably won't cut it either. While those that were accustomed to hunting would be far more adept at the task. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lion.Kanzen said:

-Later he could switch between melee weapons and ranged weapon.

 

-I do not know if you agree that in some civilizations it must have been a foot unit. (For now mounted I'd just fine).

 

Perhaps we can give the possibility of a scout upgrade for the common cavalry of civilization?

I am in favor of some civilizations with scout on foot, that would bring differences between civilizations.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sundiata said:

That was my point. Who better to use as scouts than people who are already accustomed to it. Your average farm boy probably won't cut it either. While those that were accustomed to hunting would be far more adept at the task. 

Sadly, historical sources clearly suggest the prodromoi were from the lowest-class of citizens, the Thetes are also described as a work force in the fields/farms. This is an example but it clearly demonstrates it is not that much simple.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, borg- said:

Perhaps we can give the possibility of a scout upgrade for the common cavalry of civilization?

I am in favor of some civilizations with scout on foot, that would bring differences between civilizations.

Yes. That's the idea.

In Genava's answer, Most of the explorers and shepherds are of a very low social class.

Now with the idea of dogs I do not see it bad. But it should be limited to a few to train.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Genava55 said:

Sadly, historical sources clearly suggest the prodromoi were from the lowest-class of citizens, the Thetes are also described as a work force in the fields/farms. This is an example but it clearly demonstrates it is not that much simple.

As I said, shepherds can function as scouts as well. And if there are clear references to farm hands being used as scouts in certain civs, I don't have a problem with that either. I'm just brainstorming here, not trying to oversimplify things. I'm just looking at how we could to integrate current gameplay (1st cav unit is usually used for hunting and/or scouting) with this new proposed scout unit, and how to flesh it out and make the units recognizable.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

If one wants to go for the Scout-is-a-Hunter idea instead of the Scout-is-only-a-Scout idea one could also
 - give the Scout better hunting stats

 - or reduce the hunting stats of normal civ (but not remove the hunting ability)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 04/03/2021 at 1:22 PM, borg- said:

CCs can train only women and scout.

I don't think this is a good idea. At best, I think this creates an extra step where one is unnecessary. Players will have to basically immediately build a barrack or else a handful or archers will win games at minute 2. It would also make it nearly impossible to comeback if you are rushed before you build a barrack and produce units. It would also require you to build barracks within the cc range or else a quick barrack capture would similarly mean GG.

Even if the foregoing doesn't prove true, it would provide players that get a lot of wood close to their CC a major advantage because they can women boom without fear. 

It would also create weird civ imbalances with civs having 5 unit houses potentially being able to get a quicker barrack/boom much more quickly. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

 

I don't think this is a good idea. At best, I think this creates an extra step where one is unnecessary. Players will have to basically immediately build a barrack or else a handful or archers will win games at minute 2. It would also make it nearly impossible to comeback if you are rushed before you build a barrack and produce units. It would also require you to build barracks within the cc range or else a quick barrack capture would similarly mean GG.

Even if the foregoing doesn't prove true, it would provide players that get a lot of wood close to their CC a major advantage because they can women boom without fear. 

It would also create weird civ imbalances with civs having 5 unit houses potentially being able to get a quicker barrack/boom much more quickly. 

How about scout, women and basic melee infantry?

Scout can have a weak damage however considerable to hit some ranged infantry units.

Edited by borg-
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, borg- said:

How about scout, women and basic melee infantry?

Scout can have a weak damage however considerable to hit some ranged infantry units.

How about CC trains Basic rank units, while barracks/stable trains Advanced rank units?

(I'd prefer the CC don't train any military units by default, but that's a different discussion).

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, borg- said:

How about scout, women and basic melee infantry?

Scout can have a weak damage however considerable to hit some ranged infantry units.

Assuming everyone still stats with their initial military units (2 melee, 2 range, and 1 cav), I think that might address my concerns. Starting with only range military units would be even better.

I think it should be rigorously tested against quick archer rush, though, especially if the melee units are slow pikes. 

9 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

How about CC trains Basic rank units, while barracks/stable trains Advanced rank units?

I think this is a decent alternative, but that will create a lot of level 2 units in the game. 

 

Another good alternative could be something where the CC can only make a limited number of military units (something like 10-15 units so that if you can't survive a rush after the initial push and get a barrack up in the meantime it is your own fault). 

Edited by chrstgtr
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Another good alternative could be something where the CC can only make a limited number of military units (something like 10-15 units so that if you can't survive a rush after the initial push and get a barrack up in the meantime it is your own fault). 

I really like this alternative.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, wowgetoffyourcellphone said:

What if everybody starts with some free (weak) Sentry Towers (see: Age of Mythology; Delenda Est)? This can be a toggle option in game setup.

I prefer just to have some men. 

Also, a capture of the tower (which is currently quite easy) could be a disaster and nearly impossible to defend in some cases.

Maybe I'm missing it, but what is your opposition to CCs making men? It seems like something only a few people want but those that do really want it. I don't particularly care one way or the other, so long as it doesn't create abusive rushes. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would personally prefer the barracks only producing advanced units.  

17 minutes ago, chrstgtr said:

Maybe I'm missing it, but what is your opposition to CCs making men? It seems like something only a few people want but those that do really want it. I don't particularly care one way or the other, so long as it doesn't create abusive rushes. 

The point I think that is being made is that from a functional perspective, Civic Centres are no different from much more militarily themed structures.  The point isn't about men, it's about military.  That said, this is getting off topic.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...