I did the same for engines... if it becomes too little for the maps just add in a map modifier to the sensors so lets say insane map (MapSizeDefs.xml) give a +10-15% bonus to sensor range. There already is one for range where an insane map give +100% range. Or add a device that require Thulium that give say +25% sensor range in the late game.

You can also lower the modifier to say 8% so the fall is not as bad, but it is perhaps more intuitive to go with 5% or 10% steps.

I also like how Transport hulls are crap as sensor boats, you need at least a Medium hull to get a decent sensor ship, but the Large/Huge hull is the best.

Transport now also need more engines to go somewhere which I personally like... all transport hulls will be slow and blind...

After looking at the math and playing with it some I might also suggest using -5% per sensor module instead of -10%, but for engines I find -10% to work pretty well. Those -5% will add up pretty fast as well...

Quoting JorgenCAB, reply 126

I did the same for engines... if it becomes too little for the maps just add in a map modifier to the sensors so lets say insane map (MapSizeDefs.xml) give a +10-15% bonus to sensor range. There already is one for range where an insane map give +100% range. Or add a device that require Thulium that give say +25% sensor range in the late game.

 

You can also lower the modifier to say 8% so the fall is not as bad, but it is perhaps more intuitive to go with 5% or 10% steps.

 

I also like how Transport hulls are crap as sensor boats, you need at least a Medium hull to get a decent sensor ship, but the Large/Huge hull is the best.

Transport now also need more engines to go somewhere which I personally like... all transport hulls will be slow and blind...

 

After looking at the math and playing with it some I might also suggest using -5% per sensor module instead of -10%, but for engines I find -10% to work pretty well. Those -5% will add up pretty fast as well...

Just made a graph of 8% penalty.

This results in 6 max possible sensors, before your sensors start giving negative range, because of how GC3 cumulatively adds things up.

10% seemed too harsh. Note: the 2.22 (2.0 is default) is a value I'm currently using for my starting sensors.

Jorgen: this is without any ship hull sensor penalties, or racial bonuses like you used.

Oh, and I didn't know about MapSizeDefs.xml; I'm gonna use that to make sensors scale according to map size.

It warms the cockles of my heart to see you guys working this out to your satisfaction. I might dl it and try it if I am ever feeling particularly S&M.

BTW, GCII had a blind exploration option. Y'all should add elimination of stars from the map while you're at it.

Yes... I agree 8% seem like a better start. You will get almost a maximum range of 8 with six sensors that way and after that a diminishing return.

Will you add the same diminishing return on engines as well in your mod?

I might go lower with engines tbh, maybe 5%. I'll make some more graphs to see how it would play out. Will also make that map dependant, definitely.

I need to figure out some hexagon math, so I can make maps follow an accurate curve, and grant bonuses according to this curve, based on their size.

Don't go to crazy on the scale thing, we still want the insane map to be epic in scale... anyway good work so far.

Quoting Franco, reply 128

BTW, GCII had a blind exploration option. Y'all should add elimination of stars from the map while you're at it. 

actually that option took away the display of the AI zone-of-influence from the minimap

Quoting JorgenCAB, reply 131

Don't go to crazy on the scale thing, we still want the insane map to be epic in scale... anyway good work so far.

You're right, no point in making everything too mathy.

no? I was gonna giggle at looking through like 40 graphs and lines and lines of math... would have been a fun time ;p

Link to Function to play with (hope i did get it right),

has examples for 8% and 7% degradation:

No clue how to post a link here....