Is it possible to play tall?

[The Wholly Thoc]

Well as I see it the penalties are in place to keep large Empires from steamrolling the smaller ones, not to make them inviable for play. It makes little sense to me, that an empire would be weaker for having more recources at its disposal. If you want to play tall, theres always expensive terraforming tech and such you could focus your attention on, rather than having to spread your recources everywhere, thereby creating your little Utopia in your small corner of the universe. If by that combined with some turtling and careful diplomacy you can defend yourself from being overrun at a whim, I'm fine with that, but you shouldn't be able to take on the galaxy on your own because your homeworld is space Venice.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

I think "tall" empire means that you will only take control of the most important/valuable colonies and develop them as much as you can.
A "wide" empire plays like the good old blorg: Just conquer and colonize everything in your path.

Note: I'm not saying that tall is as effetive as wide in the game. I would need to play the game first to know that.
I'm saying that theoretically there are ways to stay relevant as a tall empire.

I think so, but he's probably thinking about "wide" as in colonizing and conquering populated planets instead of peacefully calling dibs on empty systems.

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought of tall vs wide as being about footprint on the map, rather than density within that footprint. Under that definition a "tall" empire with a large area inside its borders would have as many stations as a smaller one, they just wouldn't have colonised the planets properly.

That's a weird definition to be asking for parity under though: if you have the planet within your borders and you choose not to colonise it then you are opting not to make full use of your own resources. Is that not literally the definition of poor play, in any game?

 

[QDI]

Ah, I misunderstood. I thought of tall vs wide as being about footprint on the map, rather than density within that footprint. Under that definition a "tall" empire with a large area inside its borders would have as many stations as a smaller one, they just wouldn't have colonised the planets properly.

That's a weird definition to be asking for parity under though: if you have the planet within your borders and you choose not to colonise it then you are opting not to make full use of your own resources. Is that not literally the definition of poor play?

It's a common distinction in 4x/grand strategy games: do I have a few worlds completely upgraded (tall) or do I have a lot of words (wide) barely upgraded.

Wide has generally been the best strategy but many people like to play tall. In Civ III, the ICS (Infinite City Sprawl) strategy was made profitable because fixed returns on investment of newly colonized cities were higher than what you could get by investing in your existing cities. This has been more or less been the case with most 4x or grand strategy games.

Here, it should be the same because frontier outposts cost influence to maintain so you will need worlds to claim territory and get space stations. At least, thanks to the scaling tech cost, the difference won't be too high

 

[Zaku]

That's a weird definition to be asking for parity under though: if you have the planet within your borders and you choose not to colonise it then you are opting not to make full use of your own resources. Is that not literally the definition of poor play?

Well if a planet is full of worthless "slots" with no resources and/or low habitablity for your species you may want to think twice before colonizing it, considering the cost of building up a colony and the increased tech cost after each pop. (plus the potential unrest on the colony because of the lack of food/poor climate)

 

[ahhheygao]

@TheBeautifulVoid I agree with your interpretation. Generally playing tall means you're focusing on developing your core territories and not diverting resources on rapid conquest or colony race... so I suppose it can be argued that staking claims peacefully on uncontested star systems doesn't make your empire wider since they're just empty resource planets you aren't developing. Territory grabbing--even empty lots--still sounds like colony race to me, though.

 

[beckermt]

Sadly, the scaling does not seem strong enough to make a tall empire better than a wide.

You only gain +2% tech cost per pop above 10. To break even, a 100 pop empire would need to produce 25% more science per pop than a 300 pop empire.

100 pops is quite a few.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Thanks for the clarification, @QDI, @Zaku, @ahhheygao.

At the risk of sounding like a parody of an astrophysicist, I think we probably need to be more precise about our terminology in order to avoid confusion. I can see two different situations which might be labelled "wide":

Type 1 Wide: I have a huge, undeveloped space within my borders, full of stations and frontier posts, which I use to gather resources. This will be limited by how much influence I can spare for frontier posts; this will stop from investing my influence into my home planets.

Type 2 Wide: I colonise lots of planets, only improving them slightly before grabbing the next one. This will be limited by how much population I can spare for colonised planets and how much dissent I can tolerate; this will stop me from exploiting my home planets fully.​

Are these two different things entirely, or am I misunderstanding?

 

[999realthings]

Federations should allows players to play tall and allow them to defend themselves.

Hopefully in the future, the pops system can be more fleshed and perhaps we can try to apply the development mechanics of EU4 to pops. Maybe we can have one tile containing more pops or something which increase the production of that tile. I like to seem how pops is handled in-game and hope it can be expanded on to allow for tall play style.

 

[Belty]

Thanks for the clarification, @QDI, @Zaku, @ahhheygao.

At the risk of sounding like a parody of an astrophysicist, I think we probably need to be more precise about our terminology in order to avoid confusion. I can see two different situations which might be labelled "wide":

Type 1 Wide: I have a huge, undeveloped space within my borders, full of stations and frontier posts, which I use to gather resources. This will be limited by how much influence I can spare for frontier posts; this will stop from investing my influence into my home planets.

Type 2 Wide: I colonise lots of planets, only improving them slightly before grabbing the next one. This will be limited by how much population I can spare for colonised planets and how much dissent I can tolerate; this will stop me from exploiting my home planets fully.​

Are these two different things entirely, or am I misunderstanding?

I guess I'm Type 3 Wide: I have a huge developed empire that expands in waves, taking as much as my fleets can hold, while dedicating the entire effort of my economy to developing the new worlds into core worlds before expanding again.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

I guess I'm Type 3 Wide: I have a huge developed empire that expands in waves, taking as much as my fleets can hold, while dedicating the entire effort of my economy to developing the new worlds into core worlds before expanding again.

That's indeed a different strategy, yes.

Do we have a term for an empire which starts tall and then develops into Type 3 Wide when they have the tech for it, or for an empire which starts wide and then doesn't expand any further?

 

[wergy]

Federations should allows players to play tall and allow them to defend themselves.

If you can call the fact that you're periodically in control of a huge alliance of planets, then yes, it's tall
Anyway, as soon as the game is out I'm going to test out if playing tall is a viable option.

 

[Kyle Lionheart]

Does having only the core 5 planets(or even less), plus a frakload of vassalized subjects count as being tall? It's not something you can do in Civ, but it should be viable in Stellaris.

 

[Belty]

That's indeed a different strategy, yes.

Do we have a term for an empire which starts tall and then develops into Type 3 Wide when they have the tech for it, or for an empire which starts wide and then doesn't expand any further?

I am not sure but I almost always play as a hybrid between tall and wide. Which leads me to the Type 3 wide, although now I begin to think about it perhaps it is not Type 3 wide at all. Perhaps "type 3" is the end-point or balance between both strategies. A wide empire that can logistically cannot expand any further and becomes a "tall empire" or a Tall empire that has become so strong that it easily begins to expands to become a wide empire. Perhaps it is just the "Type 3" form of empire?

 

[Kayden_II]

You only gain +2% tech cost per pop above 10.

Good to know in the Case, It is correct and I like the overall Idea ...

So if a tech costs 100 points:
It would cost a 100 pop empire 280 points
It would cost a 300 pop empire 680 points

Helpful ...

An other Concept, to push a tall Empire could be, that the Costs for Upgrading of Buildings could decrease ...
What is the Concept for Ugrading Buildings at the Moment - Is the next Stage of a Building more expensive or more cheaper in Comparision to the One - before ?

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

I am not sure but I almost always play as a hybrid between tall and wide. Which leads me to the Type 3 wide, although now I begin to think about it perhaps it is not Type 3 wide at all. Perhaps "type 3" is the end-point or balance between both strategies. A wide empire that can logistically cannot expand any further and becomes a "tall empire" or a Tall empire that has become so strong that it easily begins to expands to become a wide empire. Perhaps it is just the "Type 3" form of empire?

I think a hybrid between tall and wide is just called "the game as it's meant to be played"

The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that "tall" and "wide" are unhelpfully vague terms.

 

[Belty]

I think a hybrid between tall and wide is just called "the game as it's meant to be played"

The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that "tall" and "wide" are unhelpfully vague terms.

Yeah I'm starting think you're right.

 

[QDI]

100 pops is quite a few.

Sadly, the situation is worse if you're smaller (you need to produce even more science per pop to break even with a big empire).

100 pop is approximately just filling your 5 base core worlds.

 

[Cynical Dreamer]

Wiz said in the last live stream that the best MP strategy was to do a colony rush early-on. Which makes sense : a two or three planet empire should not be able to compete on equal terms with another that has ten or more.

 

[Zaku]

I think a hybrid between tall and wide is just called "the game as it's meant to be played"

The more I think about it the more I come to the conclusion that "tall" and "wide" are unhelpfully vague terms.

Most strategy games like this have a tall or a wide playstyle. Players don't have them figured out yet, but I'm sure both will be viable in Stellaris because it is one of the basic elements of 4x games.
Look at how important this is in Civ 5 for example: http://www.carlsguides.com/strategy/civilization5/empire/tall-wide.php

 

[Monphat]

Why do people play Paradox games?

There are two main reasons and goals. Either you try to win and dominate the Clausewitz map or you RP and try to build your little personal utopia.

In the latter case you just do what you like with few "tall" options you have. Customizing realm and RPing, according to ruler's traits in CK2. Developing lands and painting beautiful borders in EU4. Making ideologically homogenous über rich nation with 100% literacy in Vicy 2. Doing crazy things in HoI 3. If it's not about winning but about your vision, then playing tall is viable if little unsatisfactory because game is wired for conquest and "tall" features are not that well developed.

If you try to win, however, tall gameplay is completely worthless. Conquest gives far more profit than building or development or technology. Wide gameplay is so much more utilitarian that it's not even a competition.

This seems like Paradox strategic mindset in general - conquer and you win. Everything else is supplementary. Do I agree with this mindset? Not really. Precedent shows that tall nations can easily beat and dominate wide ones while Paradox blobbing itself is very questionable in terms of realism. That's why I always advocate for more tall gameplay in their games and more potency to those features.

Stellaris needs tall options even more than other games because of it's focus on technology. Small, but technologically superior realm should be able to beat large but underdeveloped one. If you are small on all accounts but you have developed a Doomsday weapon capable of obliterating every single nation in the Galaxy in a second's notice - victory should go to you.