good points.

I would add that you can simply limit the number of sensors allowed on a ship... lets say 4.... and the more powerful sensors need Elerium or something like that.

Then you can have a dedicated starbase  - sensor array,,, It will map out all the assets which moved that turn in a huge area but it won't give you visual or any information toward whom it belongs or what it is.

I can imagine a lot of ways sensors could be more exciting. Imagine passive stealth which can only be detected if your sensors exceed actual distance to the ship by X where X is their tech value. So fog of war might be pushed back and planets spotted,but warships could be invisibly defending until you get too close. Then active cloaking for invisibility until attacked.

Or scramblers where your ships appear offset to a tile X squares away from your actual location, the more ships with sensors on the target the more accurately you know where it is.

And since you mention AWACS, remember we do have two types, the other being things like the growler that jams enemy sensors: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_EA-18G_Growler

This was previously discussed in great depth.  Personally i see no problem with diminishing returns.   Note it is not terribly unbalanced as the AI will use your sensor boat designs in future games unless you delete them (several precluding factors not withstanding).  I stopped using them a long time ago but truth be told i modded starbase sensor range a bit

Yeah I am not worried that it is unbalancing because everyone can do it. I just think its moronic. I would like to see one of the developers that is "winning the argument" with Brad come here and defend the idea that you should be able to build ridiculous sensor boats and run your fleets with no scout or sensors on any ships.

And why do I need to put sensors on a ship anyway? There is a lot more space on a planet since one tile easily has about 5 million times the space of a single cargo ship, so I should be able to plant enough sensors on my homeworld to see out to 5,000,000 hexes. This should cover both my insane map and any other maps that are being played in other people's games at the same time.

I want to point out that physically, diminishing returns is a certainty with this type of equipment similiar to the inverse square law of gravity. Granted, the gal civ 3 universe is effectively 2d, but the same principle applies.

For example, lets say for simplicity you only have visibility of the hex you are in prior to installing a sensor array. Lets say your first sensor array lets you see out to all the adjacent hexes, which is 6 new hexes. Now in order to extend your range out one more hex, your sensor will see an additional 12 hexes, so logically it should take twice the power. In other words, one sensor array for one additional hex diameter, and 2 sensors arrays to extend it out one more hex.

Of course, physics should be the handmaiden of play-ability in games. Precisely my point then, since I think the game is improved with the addition of diminishing returns, so I argue that diminishing returns is not only more realistic, but also more fun for the player since he now has to include sensor ships in his fleets or he will be blind as a bat, which conforms more to player expectations for how a galactic empire building game should work. Q.E.D.

I tend to prefer diminishing returns but to be honest I'm not that fussed.  Debate away.  

The real issue IMO is that if you are going to give the human player the ability to wipe out an empire in a turn, then you need to give the AI the same capability.  Unfortunately, as it stands, the AI doesn't use stacking well at all, nor do Mercenary Ships (with engine stacking that is) ... which makes all military Mercenaries totally and utterly useless past the early game, and turns the mid to late game into a formality.

Before release we heard about how designs/strategies of good players would be mined to improve the AI, and well, that clearly hasn't happened yet.

The thing of it is that on the really really big maps if you do not have sensor stacking or engine stacking it becomes almost impossible to explore and then conduct any sort of real war that does not take a mass number of turns higher than my boredom level.

I've suggested this many times but they really truly need to make a "map size" variable into a lot of the techs.

Base = Map Size *X + Bonuses    

If this were applied to things such as Life support (something that oddly the AI has no issue stacking), Sensors, and Engines.  they could then effectively do what have done with the Torian life support and limit the number of each to "one per tech"  and still allow a ship on a super large map to move a fair clip, see a decent amount, and have a decent range...  while making the same ship on a small map not be able to travel all the way across the map in one turn, see everything, and have no range limits...

... my comment about it being odd was sarcasm.    my point being if the AI can stack one thing, it should be able to stack other things... or should know enough to value the stacking of things.

That the system uses "filler"  rather they a weighted value for each component is itself an issue.

lol, you summed up a lot of points(or at least similar ones) of my expanded intel systems expansion suggestion I made months ago(minus diminishing returns, imo they are horrible. I'm more in favour of % of cap cost or an energy cost system) but really you should take a look at it. I think you would like it and I could finaly get some feedback and get the motivation to continue to expand that post.

I was arguing for diminishing returns in beta.  The opposing arguments were many, loud, and full of vitriol.  "Freedom!", "Its a sandbox.  You play your way- I'll play my way.  There is no problem so leave it alone.",  and "Shut Up!  Quit trying to screw up MY game."  were the gist of the most common arguments I remember.

Yes, the exponential bonuses received through the linear stacking of sensor and engine ship components ruins the game- for me, and for many others.  It obviates exploration, tactical scouting, and gives non-combat ships so great an advantage in mobility that they gain almost complete tactical immunity.

I don't even play GC3 anymore [e digicons]

I'm worried that Stardock is still too shell shocked over the fallout of the Wheel fiasco to venture dealing with this festering issue.

A hardcap, like GC2, would be a cop out solution.  I don't want that.

Yes, base values for many game stats need to be scaled to map size or the game doesn't work right.

Suggestion: Along with diminishing returns on sensors and engines and scaling of vision, speed, and range to map size, add accuracy bonuses to sensors and evasion bonuses to thrusters.  These don't have to scale symmetrically with the sensor or tactical speed bonuses.

Glad to find a thread to gripe on [e digicons][/e] .

I find that on the larger map settings if I cannot stack at least Engines..  I grow bored very quickly...

I fail to see whats fun about ships that can blast through 22 star systems to get to someones homeworld in one turn, or sensor ships that can see then entire galaxy from the homeport. All I see is it ruining the game. How is the 200 radius sensor ship "fun"? Do you bother to build extended sensor range on your starbases? 

But at least now I see who has muscled in this idea...people who start insane sized maps and then lack the patience to actually play on those scales, and want it to resolve as quickly as a tiny map. I dunno, if you want the game to be over in 40 turns, play a small map maybe?

Smaller maps are utterly ruined by current stacking rules. They will work much better with dimishing returns, and insane maps will be the lengthy struggles they are supposed to be. So you get to play whichever way you want...a quicker game or a slower one.

Allow Stacking/Don't allow Stacking  for Engines and Sensors      then you can be happy   and I can win a game before my wife gets annoyed that I'm ignoring her.


OR you know...    eventually Stardock will add one more line of brain logic to the AI and the AI will start building better ships.     
They Already DID this in the fact that the AI uses our designs.   However some people have found that if they delete their designs every game the AI cannot use their designs.   

I happen to like it when I see something I made being used against me.  and i HAVE seen my sensor boats and fast picket ships being used by the AI.. it makes the game much more fun.    

And heck...  if the AI can fly 30 hexes in to attack my planet it really does add an additional level of stratigery in the game and yes I have seen that happen.

But only when they are using MY ship designs.



GC3 is something of an organic living game...     it will continue to improve as people add thoughts, ideas, mods, and other things to it.  But there is and will never be ONE single RIGHT way to play the game.

Please remember that before you mock or belittle others again.