I brought this up myself a few weeks ago (with other things) but im going to talk about it again here because so far in my experience, people just don't play ridiculously long games like I do. to the point of max tech and every planet claimed on an immense map. scary things happen with max tech, but first lets start at the beginning.

Firstly Ive noticed in several games of which I purposely set up teams (3v3v3) that the AI doesn't use fog of war at all. constructors go off solo into unexplored space to magically find clusters of 3+ resources. combat ships with 2 sensor range follow my ships in circles when I have them circling at 10 hexs. since I have my sensor probe ships I can see all this... but why does the AI do that? simply put... the AI isn't that good, it needs that advantage of no FOW to even attempt to keep up with you and that's fine. coding an AI isn't easy and slipping in extra perks for it to make things harder is a simple way to improve.

Which of course leads to my argument on the issue, having both the AI and the player able to see the whole map (yes on immense map) is crippling to the AI.

http://puu.sh/hTkGe/d824eaa089.jpg  (can look at the mini map to see no FOW)

http://puu.sh/hTkRo/90afaf9ef4.jpg  (931 sensor range on that ship, I don't know how big the immense map is, but it apparently isn't 931 lol )

if you can see all the resources early you can send ships out to take them fast (you can see my huge amount of relics in the screen) which boosts your tech/industry/income/morale to levels far above that of the AI, allowing you to outgun, outmaneuver, and outlast them in any war.

multiplayer is in the same boat, whoever gets their vision first just has that much of an advantage over the other players. the effect in multiplayer is less in that other players know to destroy your vision and starbases, but the advantages vision gives you is still quite large.

I do like arumba's solution, maybe not so harsh a decline at the start. getting around 20 range should be easy (at least on immense maps) but going past like 30 should be absorbingly expensive.

 Another Idea I had was sensor jamming. The ideology perk of -25% sensor range -25% range while in ZOC tells me the coding already exists and could be implemented in a module. depending on tech level having the module would jam sensor range at a flat % and each added module would increase the AOE. falloff should be similar to sensors if implemented. that would make entering your territory a legitimate risk for enemies as they have no idea what they will encounter, which makes a hell of a lot of sense. I shouldn't know what I will encounter when I go parading in enemy territory lol

probably something like... 5 tech levels: 25% 35% 45% 55% 65%, that would put a pragmatic with max tech at 90% sensor range jamming when enemies enter your zoc if you have a jamming ship. unfortunately  this wont effect the AI much....at all. 

I am too stingy with my BC to rush build a sensor boat. I wait until I have a couple of factories and I can build one in 8-9 turns. In a recent game I did so and it was picked off by pirates within the next 10-15 turns

If they also fix sensors on stations to actually be useful you would not need to spam tiny hull sensor ships. If stations could get really powerful sensors then ships would only be needed to see in far away places. This would make the game more fun and more strategic with more choices to make.

Engines is as bad as sensors but life support is fine. If you want to waste space to be able to take ships around half the galaxy that is fine by me. Engines do get very silly and can be exploited in ways that simply break any AI competition.

The research argument is a bad one, that can be fixed by a better AI handling their economy and by plugging the exploits in micromanaging worlds. I know the devs think it is a good idea you can swing a planets focus from one end of the spectrum to the other on a dime, but it only function as a catalyst for exploitation which the AI can never keep up with. These are mechanics that could easily be changed and also would reduce micromanagement over all.

The upside with tapering most of the exploits in the game is that it would be much easier to build a competitive AI which would benefit all players. The only way to challenge yourself now is to play by your own house rules and avoid the worst exploits, things the AI is not able to cope with. I really don't get why one should even need to do that. I also don't see how one can feel satisfied if one beat the AI by essentially exploit obvious weaknesses in game mechanics. If you sit down and abuse them all you have practically won the game after 10-30 turns, the rest of the game are just cleaning up. You might as well just leave an "I want to win now" button in the upper screen.

I don't use sensor boats BUT I did use a tiny hull design it as a starbase and load it up with sensors and send them out and dot them along my borders with other races as listening posts so I knew when and where someone was invading my territory in GC2.

All I can say is - A lot of people will be upset if the devs get rid of them.

Way more than the relatively few ( zealots ) who campaign against them.

I doubt most people want the game to remain broken. 

How about Stardock fix the sensors, and those who want a broken game can mod in all the OP gimmicks they want?

It is pretty normal for me to be about 50-100% above normal AI after about 50 turns when I follow these house rules...

* Only use the Empire Govern page to govern the focus of worlds (except my home world).

* Max 50% focus in any area (Manufacturing, Research, Wealth) while not at war.

* Max 70% focus in any area (Manufacturing, Research, Wealth) while at war.

* Minimum 20% focus in any area (Manufacturing, Research, Wealth) while not at war.

* Minimum 15% focus in any area (Manufacturing, Research, Wealth) while at war.

* Max 30% focus in Military Manufacturing while not at war.

* Max 70% focus in Military Manufacturing while at war.

* Max three economic star bases on any one planet.

* No exploitation of weaknesses in ship combat mechanics allowed.

* Max one sensor on tiny, small and cargo hulls and two on the rest plus a survey module.

* Max one engine on any ship hull.

* Disable tech trading.

(might have forgotten some rule though...)

My current game on Gifted difficulty using the above rules actually produced a decently challenging game, one which I enjoy. Insane map with 24 AI opponents. I have also modded the map generation files so most habitable planets are of lower class so the race for the good ones is always hard.

But why do I need to enforce these rather harsh house rules to get a real challenge?

Power gaming is pointless as is raising the level much above Normal, the AI does not get smarter just more bonuses. It is still super easy to beat at the max difficulty if you abuse the system. It just entails horrible micromanagement and you spend 90% of the game just mopping up the map. This is no "real" challenges, just work. 

Then you did not see Brad's stats on the player skill level distribution.  The fact that you look at any of these factors at all, let alone enough to argue about them vehemently, shows you are indeed a power gamer whether you claim the title or not.  Very few people on these boards seem to recognize how unrepresentative we are in our collective way of the actual player community collective play levels and patterns.  None of us have the one true way of any one game, let alone something as wide spectrum as GalCiv.

Face it, you're a gamer geek like the rest of us, and normal people think we are a crazy obsessed bunch of people.  I think they're right.

Quoting JorgenCAB,

reply 40

 It just entails horrible micromanagement and you spend 90% of the game just mopping up the map, these are no "real" challenges, it is just work. 

What some call "work", others call "Farmville".  

<<I say that because Paul once joked in a devstream, IIRC, that one can turn GC III into Galactic Farmville by playing after you win the game.>>  

Slightly more seriously, I have always maintained that one puts in as much micromanagment as one wants into the game.  Nothing says one must improve all starbases to maximum ability.  Nothing says one must be able to see every tile on the map.  Nothing says one must make all planets as perfect or near as perfect as possible.  That a player is "rewarded" for micro is more like a spectrum on how much one is willing to do said micro.

Take me for instance.  I see the people who talk about putting 13 starbases around a planet and just shake my head.  I could never ever ever put up with that level of micro.  Just thinking about it makes me break out in hives.  I find it tasking enough to have two fully upgraded eco starbases around my planets.  I usually just have one period. Maybe a second or third on overlaps for systems that are close enuf.

Why?  Even though I could make Super Death Planets if I just optimized a little more (OK, a lot more )?  Because the micro would crush my spirit, that's why.  Yet, I realize other players do it differently and I wouldn't take their playstyle away from them.

For me, I play for the thrill of exploring the map.  Getting to a tech before other races.  Scattering their ships and hearing the lamentations of their significant others.    That sort of thing.  I'll move up the difficulty levels as I get bored. But, ultimately the above is what I want to do.  eXplore, eXpand, eXploit, and eXterminate as it is put by some.  Catchy term, not that I think about it.

Oh, I am a "gamer geek".  That I never denied. What I said is, "I am not a power gamer". Certainly not as described by this board nor by the greater gaming community, I would think.  And I also said in my post I just made this is this more of a spectrum than a simple is/isn't equation.

More to the point, I absolutely saw Brad's post on current usage.  In fact, I posted several times in that thread and argued why I think it's a bit premature to take anything out of that quite yet.  Why you presumed I hadn't seen it, I wouldn't care to guess.  

But let's say you're right.  Let's say that the vast majority of the peeps will always play on Tiny and Small (and Terran faction).  Let's say the vast majority of casual gamers never ever step outside of that small confines.

Point taken in advance.

What makes one think that these casual gamers will actually employ a [so-called] power game tactic in the first place? Seems to me the stereotypical "casual gamer" is more likely to go all blaster-wizard and try to get pewpewpew ships as soon as possible.  

Near as I can tell, it is a subset of power gamers complaining about this. When and if so-called casual gamers complain about this, that might be something.  Until then, well, maybe they don't need us to speak for them.

Or the few (zealots) who campaign for them.

LOL, I got em, I don't have to campaign for them. 

You should learn to like them.