"Building tall" as opposed to "building wide" is a bad meme

[mudcrabmerchant]

I understand the allure of keeping a small, focused empire, without the hassle of a large unwieldy empire. I love to play that way myself.

However, I do not think that this style of gameplay should be a competitive alternative to expansionism. The idea that building tall should be just as viable as (and stands in contrast with) building wide seems to be very prevalent in this community, but it's a bad idea.

There is no reason that a large empire should not be able to develop itself, per capita, as much as a small empire, and if you design game mechanics around letting small empires with small fleets (in terms of fleet power, so this includes tech) reliably stand up to large empires with large fleets, you will end up with a military system that is full of arbitrary limitations, because there isn't any good reason why a small fleet should consistently be able to stand up to fleets that are significantly larger.

Design philosophy-wise, reward should usually be commensurate with risk, and an empire that constantly risks its own security by initiating wars should see greater rewards than one that just sits on its ass looking inward. Small (not tall, because there isn't good reason for a large empire to be significantly "shorter" than a small one) empires should be viable, but not in the same way as large empires.

A small empire should always be less secure than one which has a large competitive fleet of its own. You should either have to ally with other empires to pool your might into your own large fleets (i.e. federations), or you should have to find some way to make yourself useful to the large empires that could easily conquer you (i.e. subject status or frequent bribes). You might survive, and with allies you may even conquer the big boys. But your security will always rely on others.

 

[AdamantineFist]

I have to agree that they should not be balanced towards one another completely, but I'd like to see more options for internal growth. Basically just some more options so that "rabidly expand as fast as possible" isn't 100% the best strategy always.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

I have to agree that they should not be balanced towards one another completely, but I'd like to see more options for internal growth. Basically just some more options so that "rabidly expand as fast as possible" isn't 100% the best strategy always.

Rabidly expanding as fast as possible, as of now, could lead to rapid degradation of relations and formation of rivalries, which could potentially lead to a war which you can't win because you haven't had time to develop your gains.

And IMO that's enough. Expansion should always be the #1 way to grow your empire's power. It's balanced by the inherent risks of going to war.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I'm not sure I've ever actually seen suggestions towards the idea that an empire with a much smaller fleet should be able to stand up to one with a much larger one and be competitive in that regard- mostly I've seen suggestions that "Tall" empires should be able to leverage more finesse when it comes to diplomacy, internal security, espionage, etc...

Which all seems perfectly good to me, and which doesn't disagree with what seems to be one of your main points (that a small empire's security should be dependant on allies).

You're calling an argument which hasn't been made bad, as far as I can tell.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

I'm not sure I've ever actually seen suggestions towards the idea that an empire with a much smaller fleet should be able to stand up to one with a much larger one and be competitive in that regard- mostly I've seen suggestions that "Tall" empires should be able to leverage more finesse when it comes to diplomacy, internal security, espionage, etc...

Which all seems perfectly good to me, and which doesn't disagree with what seems to be one of your main points (that a small empire's security should be dependant on allies).

You're calling an argument which hasn't been made bad, as far as I can tell.

It's what I assume is behind a lot of the criticisms of doomstacks. A doomstack isn't a problem if you have your own comparable doomstack. And there's at least one example in the recent doomstack thread arguing that small fleets should have a chance to defeat much larger fleets.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

It's what I assume is behind a lot of the criticisms of doomstacks. A doomstack isn't a problem if you have your own comparable doomstack. And there's at least one example in the recent doomstack thread arguing that small fleets should have a chance to defeat much larger fleets.

Doomstacks are bad for a lot of reasons. Again, I've never actually seen anyone suggest a smaller military should be made directly competitive against a larger one.

I have seen doomstacks criticized because they make for very boring wars and basically no tactical consideration, and because it'd be more interesting if you actually had some incentive or restriction that made multiple fleets managing multiple targets viable instead of "throw your doomstacks at each other, whichever one wins has won the war and it's just a waiting game from that point on".

 

[Xoatl]

With the traditions the aim is that small empires will auto-fill all the traditions much faster than large ones. This means all the little modifiers like % increase mineral, energy, naval capacity, damage, whatever will be unlocked sooner than the wide empire. So it's not necessarily that small fleets will beat big fleets but that small empires will be able to build big fleets.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

With the traditions the aim is that small empires will auto-fill all the traditions much faster than large ones. This means all the little modifiers like % increase mineral, energy, naval capacity, damage, whatever will be unlocked sooner than the wide empire. So it's not necessarily that small fleets will beat big fleets but that small empires will be able to build big fleets.

Which is a problem in and of itself, IMO, because you shouldn't be rewarded for doing nothing.

 

[Xoatl]

Which is a problem in and of itself, IMO, because you shouldn't be rewarded for doing nothing.

That's a bad way of looking at it. You are doing something, you are putting on hold your colonization efforts so existing worlds can develop some form of shared tradition faster.

 

[shadowclasper]

I understand the allure of keeping a small, focused empire, without the hassle of a large unwieldy empire. I love to play that way myself.

However, I do not think that this style of gameplay should be a competitive alternative to expansionism. The idea that building tall should be just as viable as (and stands in contrast with) building wide seems to be very prevalent in this community, but it's a bad idea.

There is no reason that a large empire should not be able to develop itself, per capita, as much as a small empire, and if you design game mechanics around letting small empires with small fleets (in terms of fleet power, so this includes tech) reliably stand up to large empires with large fleets, you will end up with a military system that is full of arbitrary limitations, because there isn't any good reason why a small fleet should consistently be able to stand up to fleets that are significantly larger.

Design philosophy-wise, reward should usually be commensurate with risk, and an empire that constantly risks its own security by initiating wars should see greater rewards than one that just sits on its ass looking inward. Small (not tall, because there isn't good reason for a large empire to be significantly "shorter" than a small one) empires should be viable, but not in the same way as large empires.

A small empire should always be less secure than one which has a large competitive fleet of its own. You should either have to ally with other empires to pool your might into your own large fleets (i.e. federations), or you should have to find some way to make yourself useful to the large empires that could easily conquer you (i.e. subject status or frequent bribes). You might survive, and with allies you may even conquer the big boys. But your security will always rely on others.

See this isn't totally true. Please compare and contrast Singapore versus China. China is far wider, but if you look at how much influence it wields compared to Singapore it's actually surprisingly similar. Singapore is an economic powerhouse that controls trade through most of South-east asia despite it's size, using diplomacy, finance, and connections to punch far outside of it's weight class in terms of both population and military.

Should a small nation be able to stand against a large one by itself militarily? No. But it should be able to leverage it's unique position, technologies, and similar to at least compete in the same field as the larger nation.

 

[mudcrabmerchant]

See this isn't totally true. Please compare and contrast Singapore versus China. China is far wider, but if you look at how much influence it wields compared to Singapore it's actually surprisingly similar. Singapore is an economic powerhouse that controls trade through most of South-east asia despite it's size, using diplomacy, finance, and connections to punch far outside of it's weight class in terms of both population and military.

Should a small nation be able to stand against a large one by itself militarily? No. But it should be able to leverage it's unique position, technologies, and similar to at least compete in the same field as the larger nation.

Singapore's economic and geopolitical influence doesn't come remotely close to China's, even if it does punch above its weight. And it'd be ridiculous for an empire in Stellaris to compete in any way except technology (and even then that's only while the larger empire is still developing new conquests) with another empire that has the same advantage in size as IRL China.

 

[Frederick III]

It should not always be the optimal strategy to expand. The way I see it: small empires are at risk of being gobbled up, but it's easier to manage their domestic affairs. Large empires have an easier time not getting gobbled up, but they have more trouble managing their domestic affairs.

I can think of all kinds of reasons for really large, multi-system star polities to have internal cohesion problems which could lead to secession (or increased autonomy). Ideally, the sector system should evolve in this direction.

 

[shadowclasper]

Singapore's economic and geopolitical influence doesn't come remotely close to China's, even if it does punch above its weight. And it'd be ridiculous for an empire in Stellaris to compete in any way except technology (and even then that's only while the larger empire is still developing new conquests) with another empire that has the same advantage in size as IRL China.

And at the same time, China would be hard pressed to actually invade and take over Singapore without SIGNIFICANT risk to itself simply because of how much economic clout that Singapore has.

Singapore can't effect change elsewhere in the world on anywhere near the scale that China can, but at the same time, China would need exactly the right circumstances to invade, and take over, Singapore, without significant counter attacks by those around it.


edit: to be clear. A tall built empire shouldn't be able to take on a wide empire and win. But it should be able to hold it's own defensively provided it's leveraged what it -does- have into varied defensive alliances and trade pacts around itself.\

Israel to Iran or Saudi Arabia might be a more apt comparison. Or Germany to Russia.

 

[Risa]

With the traditions the aim is that small empires will auto-fill all the traditions much faster than large ones. This means all the little modifiers like % increase mineral, energy, naval capacity, damage, whatever will be unlocked sooner than the wide empire. So it's not necessarily that small fleets will beat big fleets but that small empires will be able to build big fleets.

Not so, if what we've seen now is the whole picture. To have small empire filling tradition faster than big empire, at least one of following must be true: 1) Majority of Unity come from per-empire sources, rather than per-planet sources; or 2) penalty to tradition cost per additional planet is big enough, comparable to +50% or up.

If you have played Civ V, these shall be very familiar: Before available of writer/artist/musician guild (unique-per-civ source of culture), each new city, when its monument (early one-per-city source of culture) is built, makes you closer to next policy, despite additional cost per city (+10%, IIRC). When those guilds are built, however, new expension will slow down your speed of acquiring policies. By the late game, when landmarks (late spread-out big source of culture) arrives, big civs will once again sky-rocket in number of policies.

 

[Xoatl]

I can think of all kinds of reasons for really large, multi-system star polities to have internal cohesion problems which could lead to secession (or increased autonomy). Ideally, the sector system should evolve in this direction.

I think that's what the devs are shooting for with sectors. If you look at the faction dev diary you can see factions being led by leaders. So sector governors could rebel like vassals in ck2.

Not so, if what we've seen now is the whole picture. To have small empire filling tradition faster than big empire, at least one of following must be true: 1) Majority of Unity come from per-empire sources, rather than per-planet sources; or 2) penalty to tradition cost per additional planet is big enough, comparable to +50% or up.

If you have played Civ V, these shall be very familiar: Before available of writer/artist/musician guild (unique-per-civ source of culture), each new city, when its monument (early one-per-city source of culture) is built, makes you closer to next policy, despite additional cost per city (+10%, IIRC). When those guilds are built, however, new expension will slow down your speed of acquiring policies. By the late game, when landmarks (late spread-out big source of culture) arrives, big civs will once again sky-rocket in number of policies.

We don't know if the penalty is big enough, but I'm assuming it is. I agree traditions need more work than the dev diary showed.

 

[BIGTEX285]

Well, building tall won't be a viable option until Paradox adds a deeper trade and diplomacy system. The addition of traditions, will only help an empire create a better navy faster. Yes, they'll help with ethics divergence and happiness, but the only end-game goal is to have a powerful navy currently. You can't win through trade, and winning through diplomacy (federation victory) is hollow at the moment. There's almost no reason to build tall, except for RP and dealing with less micro...

 

[Teodosio7]

Civilization V manages 'tall vs wide' without problems (won multiple games as tall) so I can't see what is the problem in principle.
Civ V does that by mixing powerful unique buildings, size-related unhappiness and social policies.
Of course in Civ V there are victory conditions great for tall empires (culture and science) while there aren't really victory conditions in Stellaris...

 

[xe2s]

I really dont like posts like this, when one player tells everyone else that his way of playing should be the only one.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

I really dont like posts like this, when one player tells everyone else that his way of playing should be the only one.

That he's arguing against a strawman ("Tall empires should be just as competitive with their tiny military as a Wide empire with their huge one!" said pretty much no one, ever) doesn't help. See also that they seem to think this is why people dislike Doomstacks, and not... all the reasons people say they hate Doomstacks, like them being boring as all get out.

 

[krios41]

Civilization V manages 'tall vs wide' without problems (won multiple games as tall) so I can't see what is the problem in principle.
Civ V does that by mixing powerful unique buildings, size-related unhappiness and social policies.
Of course in Civ V there are victory conditions great for tall empires (culture and science) while there aren't really victory conditions in Stellaris...

The main reason why tall empires work in CIV5 is because there is no unit 'cap' just maintainance.
A wide empire and a tall empire can field the same number of units as long as they have the coin. the benefit of a tall empire in VIC5 however, is that you can pile a ton of production in a single city and pump out a unit every single turn.

In stellaris you have a soft fleet cap, you can go over it, but by doing that your upkeep vastly increases. something that doesn't happen in CIV5
You also can't pile production on a single planet, there is a fixed time that's the same for every empire to produce ships.