Let's consider the fact that Dawnseeker apparently has only a cursory understanding of real world scouting.
1. Riding ahead and survivng to return and report is not necessarily "successful". In the US Civil War, a major battle (Gettysberg) had one side almost totally without scouts at the beginning of the battle [Jeb Stuart had ridden off on his own and returned too late to warn Gen. Robert E. Lee of the numbers and disposition of troops he faced. Definitely a case of too little too late.]).
2. 100% accurate reports are rarely possible in the real world.
3. Infomatics and beacon level have now been rendered moot in that they are equally effective regardless of the number of scouts sent/used in counter-surveillance. I don't think the medieval era armies had ground-tracking radar consequently they relied on numerous scouts to overcome the lack or inaccuracy of information returned by sending out insufficient scouts.
4. If the randomness factor of being detected is too small, then what others have complained about is the result - an apparent and quite obvious advantage is given one side (too much information) while taking away a real bit of information when counter-intelligence is considerd on the defender's side (investing in lots of scouts to DETECT and DISCOURAGE scouting by attackers. I'm not saying that we should eliminate the possibility for a single survivor to return with information - however, the defender SHOULD be able to detect being scouted if he has made the investment in counter-surveillance, a perfect example of why strategy choice must ALWAYS BE A PLAYER'S OPTION, not something dictated by the dev's/coders.
So, there, Dawnseeker, some non-rant reasoning on why the implementation and your apparent defense of it doesn't hold up to logic from my perspective (at least).





Bookmarks