Currently, I don't see the point of sensors on most ships.
What I generally do is create "sonar buoys", basically cargo ships with nothing but sensors on them. A few of these can see who quadrants of a medium map, ensuring nothing gets through my territory without my notice, and its far more efficient than placing sensors on all of my ships.
In addition, because of the buoys, I never feel the need to get strong sensors. Even the basic ones provide plenty of distance when massed on a cargo ship.
I think sensors need a change to make them more generally useful (some combat bonus), or allow only so many sensor modules on a given ship.
Nailed it.
Maybe the solution would be to have different classes of sensors. So you have your normal operational ship sensors for normal and small scouting craft and then large-unwieldy sensors for large exploration ships.
I agree to a point. This is true of RADAR, I assume, but it is not necessarily true of telescope technology. For example, increasing the breadth of an array by adding another component can increase resolution (this is used with radio telescopes on earth). Or increasing the frequency range might produce increased sensory data. You could also argue that increasing the overall mass of a sensor system could increase its effect (I know that sensors are added as individual components, but if you think of it as total sensor mass, it makes sense that if a larger amount of the ship's capacity is devoted to sensory equipment, it will see farther).
That being said, however, I agree that the technology level should limit the maximum sensor range depending on the size of the platform (a small ship could not employ a sensor array on the same scale that a starbase could, for example).
I agree to a point. This is true of RADAR, I assume, but it is not necessarily true of telescope technology. For example, increasing the breadth of an array by adding another component can increase resolution (this is used with radio telescopes on earth). Or increasing the frequency range might produce increased sensory data. You could also argue that increasing the overall mass of a sensor system could increase its effect (I know that sensors are added as individual components, but if you think of it as total sensor mass, it makes sense that if a larger amount of the ship's capacity is devoted to sensory equipment, it will see farther).That being said, however, I agree that the technology level should limit the maximum sensor range depending on the size of the platform (a small ship could not employ a sensor array on the same scale that a starbase could, for example).
Good points. However it is not a linear progression. Also those arrays are MASSIVE. It doesn't make much sense when a ship has more sensor range than a planet or star base.
The problem is that adding additional sensors increases the power linearly. Fix that and you are golden. You don't need to have any artificial limits.
I've used sensor ships since at least the early GC2 game, and it was pretty easy to get a 15-range ship there rather fast. Mid-game in GC2, I'd have a sensor ship with 15 range and 5+ engine movement and ultra-long range for less than the cost of a typical small ship armed to the teeth.
Personally, I'd like to see it turned down a bit from GC3's current level. Maybe only allowing one copy of each technology per ship, or just limiting the number of sensors per hull time to some modest number (e.g. 2 on a small, 3 on a medium, 4 on a large, etc.).
I really don't view it as a problem. Its a fun and rewarding ship to build.
My only real complaint is that the scanner upgrade on starbases are ludicrously underpowered in comparison and that there's no way to build long range sensors on planets.
It's all good...
Blaze, I see your point and I am certain you have the best interests of the game in mind. It seems cheesy and you want the game to be free of cheese. It is the nature of all good men to stamp out cheese and corruption wherever it is found.
I often find myself often wondering, one of the X's stands for exploit and as long as an exploit is available and the devs haven't seen fit to remove it, why let it bother you. They will never get them all. Just don't use them yourself and it is as if they do not exist. I don't use this exploit to the extent described. I build the biggest I can from turn one, and that is it for me.
What about building 12 or more econ bases around a planet? Is that not an exploit. I don't do that one either. I could but I don't. It is just too much for me and it detracts from the casual nature of the game as I see it. I try to play the game in the way I tend to my business, Pragmatic, with an occasional lapse into Benevolence Hell, I love this game, but I don't even finish 90% of the games I start. I play until it gets tedious or stops being fun. The few exploits I use and how I bamboozle the minor races should be of no interest to anyone as long as I am not bragging about my high scores
If they start recording high scores like they did with GCII, I will be more on board for attending to details like this.
I hope you appreciate the good humor in which this was intended.
Yeah, but the ones I build are huge and look more like a star base than a ship
Putting multiple telescopes in parallel allows one to create an interferometer that gives greater resolution. Although the visual range is the same it becomes possible to resolve smaller features (ships, planets, starbases) with more sensors.
Sensor range is, in theory, infinite. We already have telescopes that can see almost to the edge of the observable Universe. But we lack the resolution to directly observe planets near us. Improvements in resolution, not range per se, is what sensors should be viewed as.
The way I picture it is that sensors see faster than the speed of light, due to "technology reasons". Ships can move faster than the speed of light so it makes sense that sensors could do so as well.
As such, the normal physics behind telescopes need not apply.
The way I picture it is that sensors see faster than the speed of light, due to "technology reasons". Ships can move faster than the speed of light so it makes sense that sensors could do so as well.As such, the normal physics behind telescopes need not apply.
The location of the sensors can move faster than light, but necessarily the sensor scanning range? Not a criticism, just a thought.
The maximum amount of time that it takes for whatever the sensors detect to travel from the detected object to the sensor cannot exceed 1 turn (or 0.5 turns, if the sensors are active rather than passive). Since sensor ranges are measured in the same units that ship movement range per turn is measured in, this implies that if a ship moving across that distance in one turn is moving at a superluminal velocity relative to unwarped space, then so is whatever the sensor detects.
As far as the realism argument goes, I'm not really seeing it. The game's sensors have ranges measured in the same units as the game's warp drives measure per-turn travel distances in, which means that sensor ranges, in terms of unwarped space distances, are not constant for a given sensor power. This implies that the sensors are at least in part an application of the game's space warping technology, which means we don't really have a good basis of comparison. We do know that warp drives exhibit the same kind of behavior that sensors do, namely that (range per turn) = (base range per turn) + (number of components)*(component rating), which when you get down to it seems likely to be just as unrealistic as (sensor range) = (base sensor range) + (number of components)*(component rating).
Furthermore, (base) + (count)*(rating) is easy to understand. (sensor range) = R such that 0.25*(sensor power)/R^2 = (detection threshold) for active sensors or (sensor range) = R such that (emitted power)/R^2 = (detection threshold) for passive sensors is a bit more of a pain, and even then you're going to have further arguments that this isn't really a realistic model - you need to take the size of the target, its reflectivity, its total emitted power, etc into account, use the actual formulas rather than a simple inverse square law to determine the actual detection ranges, and so on. Making sensors behave realistically is nice for verisimilitude, but it's not necessarily a good model for gameplay. Nor, for that matter, are we guaranteed that the sensors used in the game actually behave like real-world EMR sensors. Objects that might reasonably be expected to be capable of concealing things don't create sensor shadows, for one thing, and for another thing the size of each tile scanned by the sensor is not generally consistent, nor is the sensor's range uniform in all directions.
Maybe they need to add a tech that addresses FTL communication, scanning, etc. The Ansible, (Ender's Game), Hyperspace Communication, whatever. There could be modules that stack, if one insists.
The problem with sensors is that you generally don't want to put them on any warship because this will reduce the chances of you winning the battle as you'll be producing less ships for the same amount of production. Especially when there are way better option available, such as non-combat sensorships who accompany warfleets, and which are far more effective in granting sensorrange.
First, a sensormodule should give a ship an attack bonus on a low scale. This should be a one-per-ship bonus, unstackable. This would give a true reason to put sensors also on warships. Next, in a fleet all sensor-modules should be able to work together and thereby, increasing the sensorrange additively, but with a heavy diminishing at higher numbers.
Sensormodules on starbases need to be heavily buffed. Such a huge and stationairy object has a much better foundation for long-range observation than moving ships.
Further, I'd like to see sensors that give range only in a single direction. These could be powerful listening posts aimed towards hostile territory, maybe even rotating with the starbase each turn. The advantage would be that these sensor could peer farther, however not in all directions equally.
Coming from a physicist - the whole game is unrealistic - so don't worry!
But Maiden666 is right - sensors should have a combat bonus. I think the whole targeting sensors thing should be taken out, and have accuracy added as a bonus to standard sensors. The counterpoint to accuracy should probably be jamming and sub-light speed. This makes clear sense lore-wise and also gives a practical reason to put sensors on war fleets. After all - you cannot shoot at what you cant see/track.
Cloaking should just be an advanced version of jamming and be very strong in battle, but countered by sensors. It would encourage people to invest in the sensor route, and watch out for opponents getting too far ahead. In the same way you do planetary invasion etc.
Diminishing returns on sensor range would sort this out.
I agree but in game terms I don't really care all that much. But who knows might depend on how the sensors actually work, I mean they clearly have to be FTL sensors so they aren't radar.
The issue of assuming that sensor range represents a number of probes being sent out is twofold. One, it requires that you have the ability to launch large numbers of probes in short periods of time. Two, it requires that the probes move very, very rapidly. If you assume that your ship has a sensor range of R tiles and a speed of S tiles per turn, and that each probe has a scanning range of r tiles, then the probes will need to move at a minimum speed of (R - r)*S/(1 tile) to allow the ship to scan out to its maximum sensor range in the time take by 1 move action, and you will need to launch (6*R)/r of these probes in the time taken by a single move action to fully cover the area within your ship's sensor range. If you increase the sensor range of the ship by N tiles, then you increase the minimum speed required by N*S/(1 tile) and you increase the number of probes required by 6*N/r. If a sensor module represents a probe-launching device, then it likely has the ability to launch X probes per time unit, with each probe moving at some speed s which is independent of the number of sensor modules. If each sensor module represents a part of a kind of probe catapult, then you're likely to see each sensor module increase the speed at which each probe moves by some amount but adding additional sensor modules is unlikely to significantly affect the launch rate of the probes. Either way, you're only halfway there - you need both the launch rate and the probe speed to increase linearly with the number of sensor modules installed, but you can only reasonably expect to see at most one of these terms increase linearly with the number of sensor modules installed.
Assuming that the probes have their own warp drives does not help this (and there's a reasonable case to be made that the probes could not be equipped thusly, at least not while being capable of the speed required), as then you run into the issue of requiring the probe launch rate to be proportional to the square of the number of sensor modules installed, which is unreasonable.
Diminishing returns has its own problems. Namely, it can be quite a bit of a pain when you get bonuses and discover that your ships are now wasting space because that 10% bonus to sensor range means you now need 5 modules rather than the 6 you previously needed for your 8 sensor range, and that those 6 modules are not currently enough to push your sensor range out to 9 with the 10% bonus, so you ought to redesign the fleet to take advantage of the extra space you've managed to obtain from that bonus. It can also be a bit of a pain to figure out how much of a bonus you'll get for something with diminishing returns, which could become rather annoying with the upcoming mutually-exclusive technologies. +10% sensor power per sensor module isn't so useful when sensor power is converted to sensor range as R = 0.5*sqrt(B + S), where R is the sensor range, B is the base sensor power, S is the total sensor power of the sensor modules equipped, and sqrt(y) is the square root function. It also makes comparisons a bit more of a pain; maybe instead of an inverse square law we have R = B + sum(s/n, n = 1, N) where R is sensor range, B is the base sensor range, s is the bonus per module, and N is the total number of modules added. Is it better to increase s by 10%, or reduce the size of each module by 20% (=> up to 25% more modules can be installed for a given amount of space)?
Be careful what you ask for, or you might find yourself playing Spreadsheet Civilizations or Galactic Spreadsheets rather than Galactic Civilizations.
I have no idea how probes would be helpful here considering these probes will have to transmit their data back to the mainship and EM signals travel maximally at the speed of light. It will take years for such a signal to pass from one solar system to another, and with those absurd high sensor probes which can show half the galaxy it would take +10.000 years.
Yes, it's true we can almost see at the edge of the observable universe, but what we see lies 12 billion years in the past and none of these quasars exist anymore. A sensor simply registers what travels into it, and that is at max speed of light. A ship traveling FTL will have to travel blind and most likely pulverize itself by hitting into space debris in regions that haven't been cleared by planets (eg the Oorth cloud in our own system).
What needs to be developed is a radar that emits quantum (or else) particles which travel way faster than light, and which is reflected by matter, although generally, the more fast something is the more likely it is for this thing to be of less and less mass, and the more likely it is to be not reflected at all...
<snip>Be careful what you ask for, or you might find yourself playing Spreadsheet Civilizations or Galactic Spreadsheets rather than Galactic Civilizations.
This is exactly why I play a TBS strategy game, so I have time to make my own calculations. You have the same mechanics already installed on weaponmods/defensemods in conjunction with racial bonuses, changing buildcost might influence time to build as does increased military racial or additional planetary perks etc. Optimally you'll have to go through all fields that were subject to a change, every turn.
Or you simply don't play 100% optimally and then it shouldn't be a problem that your ship might have a 6.7 sensor range which the game truncates to 6. Because that's happening with all numbers in the game. But it shouldn't be a factor for real concern. In time, you'll maybe get additional racial increases or upgrade your shipmods etc and then you might stay at 9.2 = 9. If you plan to play the game having all your number to show a n.0 - that's totally impossible.
Re OP, in GC II I never added sensors to combat ships either. However, I built a couple specific sensor ships, that also had long range, and good move rate. These were used to scout ahead of my combat vessels, and withdrew when encountering enemies - those would be dealt with by my strike fleets. They also had survey capability, so during peace times, they were used to hunt anomalies, or as "early warning" ships, guarding my borders.
So far I used the same method in GCIII -unless sensors do have a direct impact on combat though now (dunno) it works for me.
It is clearly (in my opinion) boring and gamey to use super sensor ships... makes the game WAY too simple for the player. I also think it makes the game less fun overall if you can just cram 10 sensors into a freighter hull from turn one... just not fun...
Currently I simply relegate myself to a maximum of two regular sensors and a survey module for maximum effect by survey vessels. I also play exclusively on insane size maps.
I also think that sensors should give some good battle bonus such as accuracy bonus to weapons so it is useful to put at least one sensor on a bigger ship.
It is clearly possible to use diminishing return of sensor ranges... just a simple -1 range for every sensor above the first would fix the issue. So if you have 3 range sensors and you put three of them on the ship you get +3+2+1=6 sensor range and a forth simply don't add any further range. This way you would probably get a maximum of around 20-25 range on sensors in the late game.
tech range 2 maximum range 3 (2,3)
tech range 3 maximum range 6 (3,5,6)
tech range 4 maximum range 10 (4,7,9,10)
tech range 5 maximum range 15 (5,9,12,14,15)
Any bonuses just extend that total range with whatever so a 10% bonus on a 10 range sensor is 11 range...
This would make much more sense and be allot more fun, especially if the AI actually used sensor ships as well and sensors gave a small accuracy bonus in combat so putting at least one sensor on most ships is not a waste of space. It would make the AI more competitive at least.
Gamey? In a game? Unbelievable!
And in the end it's a trade off. Sure you can build a sensorships from turn one, but it's rather unwise, as you don't even have a survey module at this pont, and it means you put less resources into other fields (like colonization) at this point. Later building a sensorship means you don't build a combat vessel at this point.
I agree it would be better the AI was capable of utilizing sensors (and a couple of other things) better, but having artificial limits does not seem to be fun for me either. I also found the mega-event in GC giving supersensors to everyone a rather weak replacement for incabable AI (in this field) and overall rather annoying (why invest in research when it's given for free by event later).
this....
It is gamey in that it is unbalanced as hell in comparison with planetary and station wide sensors... that... and the AI never use the tactic which make it a gamey tactic. A HUGE benefit the players don't need against the AI.
And how do you define "artificial" limits?
It is a balance issue... either strengthen planetary and station sensors to be in line with ship borne sensors and have the AI use it to or limit how we can attach sensors or how they scale. It is rather simple really.
You can't be serious when you say that building a sensor ship take away from building a combat ship?
Knowing where the enemy is, his size and capability is THE best defense you ever will get as a human player.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
