The AI have to scout out habitable planets, etc.
Yep, and I've already written that the AI needs to scout out habitable planets; see here:
The AI needs to scout out planets before he can send colony ships to these.
but I'm pretty sure he can, for exampe, send constructors right to resources without making them known beforeahead. At least, this is what I see within the game, there are multiple forum posts from other users who described this, and Brad's post here
Instead, we are able to ping objects (like planets) as to whether they have come into sensor range of an AI player and tag them. Similiarly, your ship is "known" if it comes into sensor range and occsioinally a job is run to check to see if it is still "known". (humans actually have a tremendous advantage here because we can make an intelligent guess where a ship is even if it's gone out of FOW, the AI may not know this).
While this can be done for other things (like ressource) but it won't be done in the near term until we come up with a new algorithm for exploring with scouts.
indicates it as well. But I get your point and if this comes in the near future, fine with me.
Why does the exploration phase have to be slow and inefficient? Just because you like to play that way doesn't mean I do. If you get your way that just means I have to do mor modding to play the way I want to. How is it fun to restricted to scouting 1 system at a time when I can build a ship to learn more faster? I'm assuming you mainly play on smaller maps but I play on Insane ones and even putting diminishing returns on my sensor ships is a big hit even my second generation sensor ships don't cover some of the gaps between clusters and spiral arms. Play the way you want and let me play my way. Stop trying to hamstring me because you don't like it.
First off, I'm sorry, my post was in no way ment to offend you or personally attack you, I'm just expressing my opinion of what I feel would be good for the game.
I play all sorts of different setups. If you just stay within a single one (preferred) setup you might miss things that might be off or OP only under specific circumstances. The problem here is that the gap you can create from going minimalistic to max is tremendous; therefore it's best to start from medium/average settings and work upward/downward. If you take the most extreme setup as starting point for balancing stuff it will totally break the game in the diametrical corner.
(Another reason why I rather prefer minimalistic setups for testgames is that, there, errors or other stuff like AI mechanics, are more easily observable. Because it really doesn't matter if an error, or a bug, appears multifold in a game - the thing that is important is that IF it happened 1 time, then it can always happen again.)
This is why I would like to have sensory gameplay changed in dependance of mapsize, so that even in small maps there is still something left to explore, while retaining this relation also onto insane maps (ie. you'll need much more sensory range on large maps in order to able to get an overview).
On the other hand, there are people who like to play very long and epic games. Even a decade before the manual of GC2 stated that the game offers the player the possibility of creating maps that might take MONTHS to resolve. Back then gigantic was the largest size, we now have insane, and we have alot of additional features. All of these factors should naturally prolong the game, so maybe now a game on all max settings should last about half a year. Folks that start such games would probably want a long exploration phase, although "long" here is rather relativ if you keep in mind the total length of such a game.