"Where are the scouts?"

[thunder]

I was on a Festival where the crowd was singing the follows " Where are you now?" and "where are your scouts?"...
Seriously.

I use to listen and read conversations about balances and mostly hear that this release 6720 has the best balance until now. I would gently agree.
We can say seems the units are balanced and their costs are quite fair too.
Then where are the scouts? Why isn't really part of the peacetime armies?
Well if you would ask players then mostly would get these answers:
-The scouts are su..s.
-The scouts are useless.
-The scouts are weak.
-The scouts are lategame units. -Gently say no reason to make it before PT.

Hm..I'm sure lot players have similar answers. But are these statements true?
I would repeat the first statement: the units are balanced. So maybe scout is really a lategame unit?

There are several ideas to bring the scuots back into the game. But almost as always it is dividing the community about the how question. WE know there is already a test version with fast scouts, faster than the knights. In this case the vagabond should be faster than scouts, because lighter?
There are some other ideas to make the scouts better. For example giving larger vision to them. Not bad idea. But ...
Why the scout should be stronger? Why not make the knights weaker? The knights are heavier ->moving slower, the knights have helmet-> vision less etc...

In my opinion these changes would break the current unit balance and I even not think that the faster scout version was a very popular idea.

But still where are the scouts then? Why almost only in the late games can see them or on tactical maps?
Of course it's depends of many things and as always lots of depends from the map, by the selected building strategies, the mood of the players, the campy factor of the map, the level of the food. Nah...it is blablablablabla....
The real reason is the players think to showing size of the jewelery of the body needs to make as much knights and swordmans as possible. And this is already determinated the future of the scouts in the game. Easy? (Makes swordmans set stable/-s and mass bowmans with few lancers. Horses for knights--->no scouts...EZ..)

Nah, I think to this is still not the real reason maybe just a part of it.

Then sing with me "where are the scouts?"
The problem is there is no other strategy which could offer similar strengh army as short time as swordman-knights combos. (I know the game is not only about the 60minutes...) What could be really stronger than knight+swornam under the same set up time with same set up costs? Axefoghter+scouts? This could be something but it would need a way better spam. Or pikes+bows with few scouts?-I don't say any news but pikes vs swordman is the cleverest thing. Yes, positions...So under the same village set up time you can not spam as strength army what really could handle swordman-knights+bow combo. Easy to set up, easy to spam and still have time to act on the fightin zone, not have to hang in the vilalge to build and build more and more...

Then really...."where are the scouts?"
You can find them on maps where only 2 ironmine slots avaiable per location.

Why?
Because it is offering real strategies which can be compared vs swordmans+knights combe. 2iron mines slot reducing amount of iron ore(comparing thm with 3 and 4mines strats).
We can say on these maps can train the same amount of leather troops(maybe a bit more) and a litte bit less iron troops. The swordmans are not the best spammable units on these maps with these conditions. So players rather choose the other two main strats- Pikes+bow and Xbow+AxeF. What does it mean? The scouts are fitting well for these two strategies. (By the way still making few knights are better option.)

I'm not iron hater, but if the units are balanced and the scouts are not in the game than would have to watch further to see why? And it is one of the reasons too. Not only because the scout is weaker and offers nothing. We can say the same to the lancers/pikes/milities/(Xbow) too...useless troops...Compared them with whom?

Personaly I disagree with any scout strenght changes. No need faster speed and no need larger vision. Only make slower ironmining time and gets the heavan


And yes, Thundy again with this idea...


t

[Tiank]

What kind of festival it was? The only song I can think of where there are lyrics "where are you now" is Faded by Alan Walker, and I don't recall that scout part in the lyrics .

About Scouts in KaM - main reason, that players aren't using them, is that they are too expensive in comparison to other units imo. To have decent amount of Scouts at PT, you should have at least 2 Stables and all other Farm structure and good iron production to have decent amount of xbows and maybe some pikes. It might work, it might be a stronk strategy, but we won't know, until someone tests it. But in theory, it's a harder way than standard combo (more effort and probably not that good outcome).

And also, it depends on map. As you wrote, we would see more Scouts on maps with only 2 iron mines.

I'm not sure about slowing iron production, it seems good as it is now. So what else we could do - boosting farm prodcution? OP leather production. Boosting Stables? Too many knights. So I think the only solution when it comes to Scouts, is to make map that makes them worth making. A map that gives player less focus on iron and more focus on leather. A map that could use you the mobility of Scouts.

[thunder]

Maybe one of the reason why scouts are out of PT games?
http://www.knightsandmerchants.net/foru ... f=5&t=3164

[vovets1]

Scouts are bad not only because of their big cost. They are bad in fight for their cost. So, there are two decisions: make them cheaper or make them stronger.

Making cheaper has two ways as well: making scouts cheaper directly, or make their iron competitors more expencive, as suggested here.

I totally disagree with making iron more expencive, because it ruins short-pt games. I know that 60 pt is golden standart for you, and the others pt sets are not serious, you told that on github somewhen. But i can't agree with you, and my position is that every pt should be playable, even 0. Now playable is 35, maybe a bit less if you have some resources on the storehouse. If we reduce iron producing, when we catch militia rush on low pt, you won't defend your city with iron, like you can do it now.

Another economical variant is make 2nd type of horses in stables, which need less corn, and this type will be used for scouts, and current for knights. This is better, because this doesn't touch units, only balansing between scouts and knights. And this is even possible to implement. But the main disadvantage is that this balance will be like sword and axe. You usually create axes when you have enough bows, and something like that will be here. Bowman is good not because of economics, but because of his fighting statistics.

I am for upgrading fighting characteristics. But when we up vision, players will create 1-3 scouts for game just for scouting, and then scouts will be forgotten until the next game. I am for upgraging movespeed. This includes upgrading vision, because when you run faster, you discover the map faster. But it also add some good features for fighting, better attack from behind, sabotages in enemy's town. They will stay in low amount and weak in open fight, but useful.
As for that why scout is faster than vagabond - i can say that vaga's horse is weaker, because it looks so. But i don't think that this is necessary to find logical explanation in game where you can keep 10000 horses in storehouse and where serf dies with bread in his hands. Fast scout is just good for gameplay.

[Tiank]

I don't like idea of making Scouts (and Vagabonds) faster. It's too big of a change. I think an option to select in Stable which horse you want is better. It would make sense - Knights have white horses, so it's special breed, so it needs more corn/more production time. Horses for Scouts are different, so they would need less corn and/or less production time. Now, what about icons for horses in Market, Warehouse ans Barracks? They remain the same. The only trick would be to balance time production so it's not possible to abuse trading horses in market. Or maybe slightly change trade ratio for horses...

The way I see it, Scouts and Vagabonds should have 3 corn to be produced, and Knights 4 or even 5 corn.

[vovets1]

I don't know why did you decide that vagabonds will cost corn (will be added to barracks?), but anyway that's not a good idea, because vaga will be too weak but requires a horse. If TH will be implemented, then fast vagabonds will be imba cuz of their low cost (now 3 gold, i supposed it must be 4), and making them even faster is stupid.

I can't find idea with cheap scouts as bad as expencive iron, but high amount of scouts will rarely help in fight. Now if you will place 30 swords/knights against 90 axes/scouts in a passage with 15 tiles width, 90 leathers win, but lose about 70 units. That's very unefficient. And if the passage will be even narrower, e.g. 10 tiles, 30 irons can even win.
I just can't find strategy to play e.g. 60 pt. We can say that scouts+xbows can be good. Maybe. But everytime we should keep in mind that we can try to swap type of armor and type of units, and there will be knights+bows, and that's will be equal economical. But who will win in battle is a rhetorical question. Or ok, then we should make bows slower again, and finally admit that iron is more powerful, and leather is weak but numerous. But i don't really like that type of balance.

[thunder]

I don't know why did you decide that vagabonds will cost corn (will be added to barracks?), but anyway that's not a good idea, because vaga will be too weak but requires a horse. If TH will be implemented, then fast vagabonds will be imba cuz of their low cost (now 3 gold, i supposed it must be 4), and making them even faster is stupid.

Actually there is already script for implementing these troops to barrack
You want to make he scout more usefull...But my question is why not make the knights more useless? REducing speed, vision, hitting speed etc...The knights are heavier than any other troops. Poor horses carrying fat monsters

I was asking really good players who told me, no worry because the scouts are good in late game. I can not arguing about this. It is true they are good when the iron is starting to be already out of game. I don't see that the scout's strenght balance changes would give more chance for scouts for short PT games either. Even if they would riding on speed of light could not help them or would see the whole map-actualy no fog of war available.

-changing price of the horses I'm afraid of would make more knights, of course making a new type of cheaper faster horse could make difference.
-Personally think to the knights has priority in the production. I'm working on statistics where comparing strategies. I see that when there is less iron until the PT then the players making less swordmans, creating them only for that few knights and rather focusing on making axefighters as main meele with some pikes. But there are some cases when players making rather mass Xbow and pikes and next to these the scouts fitting well. But I'm sure less iron gices the rock paper scissors feeling stronger, than mass iron.
One small thing, doesn't matter what strategy checked, one common is there---THE MASS BOWS.

*I think to multiple twice the hitting speed could help more effectivly for the scouts than speed up or bigger vision.

// But at first I want to see 30% slower ironmining time...That would be a real gamechanger which would give real mixed armies at PT and more chance to bring back scouts.

[Strangelove]

#NerfBows ??? xD

[vovets1]

I won't repeat why slowing ironmining time is bad.

Speed upped scouts won't be used on low pt like every type of leather units are bad there now. 35 minutes is not enough for leather, that's all, and that's ok. In case of scout i thought about 60 pt mainly.
As for scripts, there is also script which allows building TH in 6720, and where serfs bring gold there. But we aren't speaking about dynamic scrips.

Making knights weaker is not a good way, because we don't have really good possibilities to do that. Slowing them means that storming infantry will be faster (now horses are slightly faster than storming infantry). Vision doesn't make sence at all, as well as upgrading scout's vision. Hitting speed and hit chanse are similar things, both of them reduse knight's DPM, but that damage will be enough to kill bows, so knight will continue to be used as universal unit, whick can tank in middle, attack flanks very fast and attack bows, like now, but maybe slightly less efficient.

What will you get with scouts will high attack speed? That will be something like barbs on horses: have rather weak defence but powerful attack potential. I think that's not needed, because if TH will be implemented (i suppose that TH and solution of scout problem will be both added at once), then we will have 2 similar units, and only difference is: one are even more powerful, but the others are fast and slightly more defended.

In case of fast scout, players will choose knights for tanking, barbarians for flank attacks, and scouts for sabotages and attacks from behind, expecially bows. That's the idea.

[vovets1]

#NerfBows ??? xD

Or ok, then we should make bows slower again, and finally admit that iron is more powerful, and leather is weak but numerous. But i don't really like that type of balance.

[Strangelove]

If TH is really going to be implemented, their unit strenght would certainly have to be adjusted. The Values seems pretty all over the place to me tbh.

On the actually topic of scouts and what should be done about them I don't really dare to comment since I do not play multiplayer. If there is gonna be a balance change I hope it won't be a big one tho, since alot of single-player maps and campaigns would need adjustment too. (Balance changes apply to mulitplayer and single player, right? xD)

[vovets1]

If TH is really going to be implemented, their unit strenght would certainly have to be adjusted. The Values seems pretty all over the place to me tbh.

On the actually topic of scouts and what should be done about them I don't really dare to comment since I do not play multiplayer. If there is gonna be a balance change I hope it won't be a big one tho, since alot of single-player maps and campaigns would need adjustment too. (Balance changes apply to mulitplayer and single player, right? xD)

Is there any good topics with TH discussion, or even siege weapons and how could they affect on SP? I have some words to say about that as well.

[Tiank]

I just want to point out one important thing. Most MP maps are made in the same way. There is one single warehouse with standard set of wares. What changes is amount of those wares and resources' layout, so it's bit harder to get something. Just a bit harder. What I'm saying is, that if maps are designed in different way, they could force certain set of armies. So, to see more Scouts, make a map that would encourage that, like make early stable possible with less effort than it's in most maps, place mountains with place for only 2 iron mines and/or far away from starting base. Allow some buildings at start with amount of resources that make it possible to make them early. Same goes for slowing iron mine production thunder - why are you so eager to change the whole game balance instead of making map(s) that make players focus on something else than usual? I think that it's bad, that most maps are designed in same way, with same standard starting resources and I think that it's where the problem really is, not problem with scouts or iron.

[vovets1]

I just want to point out one important thing. Most MP maps are made in the same way. There is one single warehouse with standard set of wares. What changes is amount of those wares and resources' layout, so it's bit harder to get something. Just a bit harder. What I'm saying is, that if maps are designed in different way, they could force certain set of armies. So, to see more Scouts, make a map that would encourage that, like make early stable possible with less effort than it's in most maps, place mountains with place for only 2 iron mines and/or far away from starting base. Allow some buildings at start with amount of resources that make it possible to make them early. Same goes for slowing iron mine production thunder - why are you so eager to change the whole game balance instead of making map(s) that make players focus on something else than usual? I think that it's bad, that most maps are designed in same way, with same standard starting resources and I think that it's where the problem really is, not problem with scouts or iron.

This works now, but like a crutch. You don't want to equip scouts, you HAVE TO. Not because they are more powerful on these maps, or something like this. Similar situation with scouts on 3rd hour of a game. You just have to equip them, because knights are unavailable.
E.g. now mass xbows can work on 60 pt, and that really depends on map. But i can't say the same about scouts.

[thunder]

I just want to point out one important thing. Most MP maps are made in the same way. There is one single warehouse with standard set of wares. What changes is amount of those wares and resources' layout, so it's bit harder to get something. Just a bit harder. What I'm saying is, that if maps are designed in different way, they could force certain set of armies. So, to see more Scouts, make a map that would encourage that, like make early stable possible with less effort than it's in most maps, place mountains with place for only 2 iron mines and/or far away from starting base. Allow some buildings at start with amount of resources that make it possible to make them early. Same goes for slowing iron mine production thunder - why are you so eager to change the whole game balance instead of making map(s) that make players focus on something else than usual? I think that it's bad, that most maps are designed in same way, with same standard starting resources and I think that it's where the problem really is, not problem with scouts or iron.

Well actually I made several maps only with 2 ironmines;) Because I wanted to see how the game would change with slower "ironmining time". The ironmining time is only one parameter what is changed and the PT armies already changed. You wont see mass swordmans there because you would have significantly less iron. So rather will produce only knights and take some pikes or xbows, meawhile will focus more on the leather. (Anywaymade The Last port with 2-3-4-5 ironmines to see the differences. That is a real map for reseching )
Check please the useless topic about maps.(http://www.knightsandmerchants.net/foru ... f=5&t=3164 ) I checked more than 100locations on 3mines locs and there were swordmans in every PT barrack. There was not other main strategy, really seems the game offers one effective strategy. The pikes,xbows and lancers was used as secondary units. Only few players trying to force to make mixed armies. (I will extend this researc in the future)
Here are average PT barracks. Base on real games by average and good players on 60minute 1 and 1,5speed. I'm not sore there are similar references out there at this moment.

Here is two tables

3mines.jpg

2mines.jpg

I was surprised the slowing down ironming speed would not cause real changes. Still making swordmans would be priority for knights. But there are some changes.
Of course a bit less produce Ironarmor. Of course checking on the average vaues. This would be 6 pieces less at PT. It is not huge and still acceptable change. But the real difference is the minus 10 sword and minus 10 ironshield. Seems at 2 mines locations (or slow mining time) the players are using different strategies too.
So less swordsman are there. A slightly bit nmore Xbow and Pike. Of course can not really abuse the swordmans so why not make alternative troops from the secondary line. Becasue ess swordman is there need mass meele so will focus the only one 'well' shielded troop the axfighter. It is visible also +6woodenshield and +6axe in 2 mines loc compare it with 3mine's avg. Interesting to see the average produced leather jacket is almost the same amount in each cases. The funny thing is the piggies and farms are abused in 2mines and still less horses are on 2mines. But Xbow+pike+axefighter+stable give more chance for scouts at PT. See scouts more frequently on 2mines maps.
These tables have lots of datas but here are two diagrams which present interesting situation at PT. These are about the now valid theories and REality.
PLease check that on 2mines maps the players have enough recruits at PT to train the units. OKay it is something what can catch up after PT, but interesting to see this too...
in two mines case the barrack has 38leather and 23 ironarmor and can train every single pieces because there is enough recruits too. It means in every case almos 1irontroop+2leather units trained.

2miness.jpg

But in 3mines case where 35leatherjacket and 29ironarmor and 55recruits there and in the reality the player will follow train the strongest units first rule, so will train 29iron troops and only 25 leather.
It means approximately 2 irontroop+1leather.

leather iron at PT.jpg

And why the scout is good in lategames? Well because many ironmines out at the end of the game scouts then can bee a good option.


Anyway This Topic about scouts and not the Townhall, so only few notes, we was asking Rey to Implement the townhall on original way but the building would be avaiable only with dynamic script. Personally I dont think the goldchest is good solution for tbhose units. and still think TH won't solve the problem of the missing scouts. But implementing these units into barrack is okay. It is tested out, there price would be okay fr barrack. And still their power is not imba. Oh anf there is a strategy which could based on mass scouts

Making Leather more 'massy' rather slowing down ionmining time. Hm, yes I had this though too, and I'm working on a script where every piggy would give 3 leather(as gives 3 sousages). It is +1. It could catch up the iron at PT and could offer similar quality change as slows down the ironmining time...or no, because the mass wood production could not catch up. But I could imagine some more market strategy with the leather.

This scout question is not so evident. I see that would need change, but if you would ask 10 players eachone would say 10 different way to try to fix it.
I beilive the ironmining time, somebody in the vision, somebody in the speed, somebody in the hitting spped etc...hard to find the golden way.
But if we say that the units are balanced now than the balance problem is somewhere else

At this moment the game is about who can make more knights and swords. Leather is only about the bows as the other troops does not have power vs mass iron after PT.

I would say would be nice to scripting and testing the other versions to. AS the speed up was tested too. What if there would be a version with 1,5speed knights? would be easier target under the dance phase etc...Little change would be but why not. Then scout would be immediately better ption for danceing too?

I really opened this topic to discuss these things seriously.
Anyway where are the scouts?