One common complaint I have seen through the forums has to do with things like "sensor Stacking" and "engine stacking".
I have even seen a MP game advertised as "no cargo sensor ships"; I dont think anyone believes this type of thing is actually good for the game.
This seems to me to be a relatively straightforward problem to patch. I think it should be possible to just have diminishing returns on sensor boats; each sensor after the first drops dramatically in value (like maybe by half, but always atleast 1), and/or simply declare some maximum sensor range. If its moddable then that should lessen complaints of people who actually like to build one sensor ship for the whole game....
The game feels a lot less realistic to me when I have one little cargo ship with a sensor range of like half the galaxy, and all my fleets running around "blind".
This seems easy enough to do technically...I have to wonder what the reason is for not doing it.
Brad is definitely in favor of diminishing returns. Some others are winning the argument right now though.
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.
Let them stack... but also build techs that counter them...
Cloaking.. Sensor jammers etc if a cloaked ship can only be seen if it is "triangulated" by several ships... or if it can only be seen if it is within x many hexes of the sensor ship.. that VASTLY limits the effectiveness of having sensor boats with all the sensors while leaving sensors off normal ships.or even better... can only be TARGETED by a ship with sensors dear lord that would end the sensor boats.I build sensor boats for map exploration... I like being able to quickly FIND planets etc... but I'm all for limiting their OPness in AWACS type situations
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
The problem is its so much more than just enemy ships...its everything. All the planets to settle, all the anamolies, all the resources. You just need to build one big sensor boat and exploration becomes trivial. I dont think a game lie this should work that way....it doesnt feel right for my one sensor ship to see everything while basically sitting at home.
I am curious what the arguments are for the opposing view. I cant think of a single good argument. Hell I cant even think of a BAD argument!
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.
Tickbox for Fog of War for those that hate it.
Sensors with realistic range for those that play as standard.
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.
I would like to see planetary and space station sensor ranges boosted, particularly for sensor stations. Then add in a disincentive or outright restriction on sensor stacking.
Disclaimer: I make significant use of sensor boats in order to observe/control my borders.
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...
It's not at all odd if you look at ShipBlueprintDefs.XML and understand how the computer handles creating designs from the templates provided therein. The blueprints are simply component lists; the computer will add a component of the type specified for each entry in the blueprint in the order in which the entries appear, and will then cycle through the FillerComponentType entries and add the components specified therein until the hull no longer has sufficient hull capacity to fit another filler component. Many of the templates specify life support as filler component types, and so the computer will stack life support components on those designs if it finds that sufficient hull capacity is available after putting in all the other components; only the Freighter and AwardFreighter templates have hyperdrives (listed as InterstellarDrive) as filler components and only the small-hulled Explorer and DreadLordsExplorer templates call for sensor components as filler (making it less obvious that freighters stack hyperdrives and explorers stack hyperdrives is that the templates also call for life support as a filler component, and also that many players probably prefer to use their own designs built on cargo hulls for exploration and surveillance vessels and likely don't make obtaining small hulls a priority until getting ready for the first major war, at which point they don't need or want the small explorers).
I would furthermore suggest that the computer's stacking of life support components is an issue; life support components lose value as the game progresses due to how ship range mechanics function, due to the greater range offered per component by more advanced life support components, and due to the range bonuses from technology, events, or planet improvements that get applied to the base range of the hulls. Most designs will not need more than perhaps three life support components and can probably reasonably use fewer in most circumstances (particularly on smaller maps), and so stacking life support components beyond that point is mostly just wasted hull capacity, manufacturing points, and maintenance. This is particularly bothersome for construction ships, which are mostly dispatched to extant stations or to the vicinity of one of your own colonies and so frequently don't need even one life support component but would benefit from being faster and are designed from a template which calls for only a single hyperdrive and uses life support components as filler.
... 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.
Technically speaking, Diminishing returns is the easiest to do. The problem with trying to say... force triangulation is that if you have hundreds of sensor equipped objects (planets, shipyards, starbases, ships of all sizes) in an insane sized map, the calculation would bog down the system horribly. I'm actually in favor of a combined solution of using diminishing returns and possible different sensor types. A base sensor might be good for basic detection of a fleet (but not its composition) and spotting large objects like stars, planets and asteroid belts. A specialized military sensor would be good for picking up actual ships and hull size composition within a fleet (3 smalls, 5 medium, 1 huge etc), but has more limited range. Really advanced sensors picking up the full details of enemy ships.
Stacking sensors would create a more realistic scenario where two passing fleets at the edge of their sensor ranges would know there's a mass of ships out there but the details are obscured until they come closer to each other. This also has the interesting side effect of making sensor boats relevant. including one in every fleet would expand fleet capabilities immensely.
Just a thought.
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.
realistically speaking, diminishing returns actually do make sense. When you stack 2 sensors, on top of each other, you're not actually boosting the signal... but it could be explained as having essentially a small radio antenna array that stitch together what they can see together and using computational algorithms to extrapolate more detail... it has advantages, but it's not necessarily going to suddenly double your detection range. on a programming level, I think diminishing returns is easier to do than trying to have triangulations. Also, you can do "cloaking" tech more similar to how stealth works... by reducing your profile. Each type of object will simply be assumed to have a "size number" extrapolated based on things like hull size or whether it's a starbase etc. and then cloaking can reduce that to a smaller number (or a profile increaser to inflate the strength of the ships). imagine your surprise when what you think is a small fleet of medium size ships turned out to be a hulking carrier strike force of 4 massive carriers. Or you sent a huge fleet to intercept what's supposed to be a fleet of huge ships only to find out it was a decoy operation while a cloaked fleet assault your colony because you diverted your attention elsewhere.
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 . I just prowl the forums in the hope that some remedy to these deficiencies will be worked into the game.
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 .
*raises hand*
It's certainly good for my playing and enjoyment on large maps.
I find that on the larger map settings if I cannot stack at least Engines.. I grow bored very quickly...
QFT.
I shudder to think about traveling on an Insane Map with engines that had "diminishing returns".
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.
You might find your points falling on more sympathetic ears if you didn't try to belittle those with differing viewpoints.
Just sayin'.
EDITED:: You see that icon in my avatar? One doesn't get that cheevo if one doesn't have at least a tiny amount of patience when it comes to the game.
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.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Who are you to proclaim that you are the end all be all of GCIII?
I must have missed where I proclaimed this...
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
