Is it possible to play tall?

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

Well PDS games reward blobbing, so wide playstyle will definitely be viable.

We don't know that that will be true of Stellaris, though. It may be that Stellaris's ethos divergence and faction system destroy blobs worse than kingdom titles in CK2 do. It may be that the optimal size for a Stellaris empire is 5 planets.

Are we just assuming that wide will always be viable, or do people not care because they don't plan to play it?

 

[Zaku]

We don't know that that will be true of Stellaris, though. It may be that Stellaris's ethos divergence and faction system destroy blobs worse than kingdom titles in CK2 do. It may be that the optimal size for a Stellaris empire is 5 planets.

Are we just assuming that wide will always be viable, or do people not care because they don't plan to play it?

The blorg stream shows us that wide play style is viable.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

The blorg stream shows us that wide play style is viable.

Does it? The Blorg had only three proper worlds and three (?) more in sectors for a long time. They won the Tebadoran war with only three planets plus one in a sector, and won the Just League war with only a total of six. Much of their power comes from their vassals.

Would you count that as wide? I'd argue that if so, the word has lost all meaning.

 

[Zaku]

Does it? The Blorg had only three proper worlds and three (?) more in sectors for a long time. They won the Tebadoran war with only three planets plus one in a sector, and won the Just League war with only a total of six. Much of their power comes from their vassals.

Would you count that as wide? I'd argue that if so, the word has lost all meaning.

The blorg are constantly eating their neighbours and expanding. If that's not wide play I don't know what is.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

The blorg are constantly eating their neighbours. If that's not wide play I don't know what is.

I think, therefore, that the word has lost all meaning.

"Tall" and "wide", the way the terms were explained to me earlier in this thread, refer to whether you want to invest in a few densely developed planets or a large number of sparsely developed planets.

This has nothing to do with militarism: the Blorg have conquered planets, yes, but they have kept their total number of planets quite low and have preferred to keep vassals whenever possible. They've invested intensively in those planets and have only settled new planets when they're really suitable, rather than settling every place they can find.

I think either I massively misunderstand the term, or you're conflating pacifism with a small number of planets, which is not necessarily the case.

 

[Zaku]

I think, therefore, that the word has lost all meaning.

Why? Expansionism is always considered wide playstyle in these kind of games. The blorg are very expansionist.

This has nothing to do with militarism: the Blorg have conquered planets, yes, but they have kept their total number of planets quite low and have preferred to keep vassals whenever possible. They've invested intensively in those planets and have only settled new planets when they're really suitable, rather than settling every place they can find.

I think they have one of the biggest empire in the game, so I don't see your point.

"Tall" and "wide", the way the terms were explained to me earlier in this thread, refer to whether you want to invest in a few densely developed planets or a large number of sparsely developed planets.

That is the most basic explanation of it yes, but we can't be really sure if it's even a thing in Stellaris. This is ususally not a simple binary choice of do this or do that and then you are playing wide/tall. Most 4x games have both playstyles but each game is unique in this regard. Players will need time with this game to figure this out.

 

[Daetrin]

I think, therefore, that the word has lost all meaning.

"Tall" and "wide", the way the terms were explained to me earlier in this thread, refer to whether you want to invest in a few densely developed planets or a large number of sparsely developed planets.

This has nothing to do with militarism: the Blorg have conquered planets, yes, but they have kept their total number of planets quite low and have preferred to keep vassals whenever possible. They've invested intensively in those planets and have only settled new planets when they're really suitable, rather than settling every place they can find.

I think either I massively misunderstand the term, or you're conflating pacifism with a small number of planets, which is not necessarily the case.

Yeah, Tall and Wide don't work the same way in Stellaris because taking other people's territory is not the only way to get more worlds, and map area isn't directly equivalent to resources exploited.

 

[cold warpgates]

You know, it's occurred to me that we have not had a single thread asking about whether Stellaris will support wide play, whereas we've had, what, four asking about tall?

I wonder what this means. Are dense, small-population empires just more popular with players?

There have been posts asking about if factions and internal strife will end up limiting outward expansion. After the Blorg got an independence faction on one of their first colonies in the first stream, people were wondering if rebellions would get out of control when you have hundreds of systems to look after.

edit: whoops, forgot to say, i think that playing wide will be possible if you build your species/empire for it.

The problem (if you see it that way) with tall vs wide in paradox games is not just that going wide is a better return on your invested resources, but that a wide country can often get just about as tall as a country attempting to go tall.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

That is the most basic explanation of it yes, but we can't be really sure if it's even a thing in Stellaris. This is ususally not a simple binary choice of do this or do that and then you are playing wide/tall. Most 4x games have both playstyles but each game is unique in this regard. Players will need time with this game to figure this out.

Okay. Until we have a rigorous definition of what "tall" and "wide" mean in Stellaris, I'm going to stay out of threads on the topic since I feel that there can be no meaningful discussion without it.

 

[Ulzgoroth]

I'm dubious about the idea that Stellaris really has a setup that makes leaving territory under-developed useful. From the Blorg-streams it really doesn't look like sticking the best available buildings on every space you can get costs that much, and the number of tiles of colony space you can readily grab is relatively limited. It might be worth passing up colonizing low-habitability planet types,

Really I'm not sure there's room for something that matches the traditional conception of 'wide'. Big blobby empire, sure, but it'll be just as tall as Space Venice.

Being small does have a couple virtues. You can do it while easily maintaining homogeneity, which should be good for stability and especially for pandering to xenophobes. And it seems like you'll have a lot more Influence and Leader slots available compared to your number of planets (and potentially more Influence outright due to not using frontier stations), so you can use those to push your internal efficiencies up a bit. I doubt this will put you ahead of somebody with a much bigger base for mineral and energy income in terms of fleet size, though.

Does it? The Blorg had only three proper worlds and three (?) more in sectors for a long time. They won the Tebadoran war with only three planets plus one in a sector, and won the Just League war with only a total of six. Much of their power comes from their vassals.

Would you count that as wide? I'd argue that if so, the word has lost all meaning.

Sectors are fully part of your empire. They're not vassals.

 

[Pro]

I don't think the ability to play "tall" is really positive for a grand strategy game. There is no reason to try to beat your opponents to gain access to new planets and resources if you can succeed just as much without those resources. The result is games like Civ5 where it's often in most civs interest to ignore each other almost completely.

 

[Ziffallo]

If you stand is that playing tall?

 

[TomBombadil]

Why not? Try a game starting in Sol (a particularly rich system from what I can see), and never expand outside. Instead, build a federation, and lead it to greatness from Earth. Have your fleet lead the charge in every battle, organise the galaxy's defence against end game crises.

Also, consider that the sectors system basically lets you play tall while you're playing wide. You focus on the enrichment and development of your core worlds while leaving the rest to the sector governors.

 

[King of Malta]

Hmm. Well for Stellaris i am sure we will be able to come up with new strategies and ways to play with Stellaris.

I plan to first play the Tau Empire style. Tall then Wide then Tall then Destroy Farsight

 

[TheDungen]

You know, it's occurred to me that we have not had a single thread asking about whether Stellaris will support wide play, whereas we've had, what, four asking about tall?

I wonder what this means. Are dense, small-population empires just more popular with players?

Honestly ethernal snowballing is something that has never worked in history. I would love to see a strategy game that actually aknowledges this. Where maintainign a huge empire is something that basically is just postponing an eventual decline, from which you will have to work to rememerge and then expand outwards again.
Because of a mod not updated to the recent eu4 patch i played the game with 5.000% cost for reducing corruption and it was actually really intresting since empires were falling like like cardhouses and only recently emergent powers who had not yet gone into the debt spiral could actually blob.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I agree that the word Wide and Tall are many times hard to define.

I personally see no reason for why any empire would ever choose to go either way, it is just something that happen based on the circumstance they find themselves in.

There obviously are a large difference between an empire that attack and conquer territory rather than liberating areas to reduce threat to themselves, both could be described as wide or not... I don't know?!?

There should not be any problem with making a high research small empire viable by finding good research resources and focusing on research buildings with vassals, alliances or federations to secure their borders and keep buffer zones between them and any potential enemies so they actually don't have to waste resources on a large military complex. Military are only wasting resources if you can secure your borders more easily in other ways.

A small empire with low population will obviously benefit much more from outposts since they can have as many of them as a large empire.

When expanding you might go for research rich planets and systems and less for mineral rich systems. Minerals might be important in the beginning, but after that concentrate more on energy and research. If you can gain a serious tech advantage early you can also get a good military advantage as well as production etc...

I also don't see why an empire should artificially stop expanding, just because... you just might be more selective in the way you priorities to expand. If you don't focus enough on research you will fall behind with that +2% per pop, you must constantly build more and more labs just to keep up pace with more efficient empires.

I see no reason why more efficient small or medium sized empires with good diplomacy could not be the number one power in the galaxy by the end of the game.

Isn't this whole debate about Tall versus Wide a question on play-style and sort of ill defined in the first place?

 

[TheDungen]

I agree that the word Wide and Tall are many times hard to define.

I personally see no reason for why any empire would ever choose to go either way, it is just something that happen based on the circumstance they find themselves in.

There obviously are a large difference between an empire that attack and conquer territory rather than liberating areas to reduce threat to themselves, both could be described as wide or not... I don't know?!?

There should not be any problem with making a high research small empire viable by finding good research resources and focusing on research buildings with vassals, alliances or federations to secure their borders and keep buffer zones between them and any potential enemies so they actually don't have to waste resources on a large military complex. Military are only wasting resources if you can secure your borders more easily in other ways.

A small empire with low population will obviously benefit much more from outposts since they can have as many of them as a large empire.

When expanding you might go for research rich planets and systems and less for mineral rich systems. Minerals might be important in the beginning, but after that concentrate more on energy and research. If you can gain a serious tech advantage early you can also get a good military advantage as well as production etc...

I also don't see why an empire should artificially stop expanding, just because... you just might be more selective in the way you priorities to expand. If you don't focus enough on research you will fall behind with that +2% per pop, you must constantly build more and more labs just to keep up pace with more efficient empires.

I see no reason why more efficient small or medium sized empires with good diplomacy could not be the number one power in the galaxy by the end of the game.

Isn't this whole debate about Tall versus Wide a question on play-style and sort of ill defined in the first place?

Yeah I think this is a good point. It's not about tall for talls sake it's about prioritising other things than expansion to be an equally viable stratetgy, if expansion was free or even cheap then yes there should be no reason not to expand, if the cost is lower, say you have a perfect planet close by and only have to get a colony ship to grab it, it's still fairly easy choice. That is why war is such an important factor of wide because war is (or atleast should be) a heavy investment into expansion (and at a lower return since those you conquer will have diffrent ehoses and there will be racial tensions and stuff), and the choice of going to war just to expand should always be a difficult one.
And quite frankly if you look at reality war has seldomly proven to be worth it as an investment. But there's the other factor, where going to war is to limit you enemies or you competition rather than simply a landgrab of your own.
I have never felt that paradox GSGs have accuratly portrayed these difficult choices. War is almost always about aquiring provinces, and usually a far superior way of growing your power. The possible exception is victoria, where blobbing will quickly rake up infamy and where spending your money on industry is as far as I can tell (I'm not super good at it i'll be the first to admit that) is a great way to expand you power. I'm not sure it really portrays the need to keep your enemies and compatition weak though, I'm guessing most wars waged by playes in vic are still aquire state.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

In Stellaris you can at least "liberate" planets rather than conquer them. This mean your rivals get weaker and you get a reliable ally or even vassal in the process.

This should be a viable way of spreading your influence without having to incorporate every little world or system around you.

In my opinion... if you just curl up in your corner of the galaxy and don't engage with the politics or deal with potential threats you are sort of not doing yourself a favor. It does not mean you have to expand and take over the Galaxy or even become the greatest empire, at least where military are concerned.

I even thin that fanatic xenophobic but peaceful empires would need to care, if just for purely self preservation, when it comes to dealing with threatening powers in close vicinity. Alliances are just a necessary evil.

You obviously should try to do as much peaceful expansion as you can, then keep expanding through diplomacy, trade deals or whatever other things possible to make sure aggressive rivals are dealt with.

There are nothing wrong with military conquest if that is the sort of Empire you are representing, I only hope the pop mechanic really will reflect realistic problems with such strategies. I really think the game as a whole would be that more fun if it did.

 

[Murmeldjuret]

Well problem in almost every 4X game is the snowball effect.
The wide snowball: Grow wide->get production->get more troops->grow wider.
The tall snowball: Get tech ->get fancier things to build->get further ahead in tech

They always cap early wide with exponential maintentance cost for empires or troops. This works early, but after a point, when they inevitably hand out things that mitigate this, or stuff that gives enough bonus to push the maintenance cap further away. EUIII had a small countries get most tech system, but only 1-2 tech tiers over blobbers, and 1-2 techs did not even come close to offseting 5:1 numerical superiority. Civ4 had exponential costs on everything, but % reduction available so you always profited from growing bigger. A dead neighbour is a friendly neighbour as the saying goes. Wide wins over tall as tall is not even close to able to defend themselves.

Civ5 with all expansions offset this with insane stacking limits of troops, massive increases in military tech relevance, slower tech per pop, tech based limit of trade, and happiness braking down expansion. In that game, you did not profit from growing wider unless you really got something worthwhile like resources or above average cities. It was better to level enemy cities than take them for yourself after you reached a critical number of cities. To rush victory, land was not useful. You still suffer a snowball effect, but it is from tech->more tech rather than land->more land. Thus, it is a tall beats wide system.

Now this is a PDX game which is why I hope the snowball effect will be mitigated by reasonable mechanics. Factions are a long overdue addition to a good 4X game, as dynamic internal problems should be the limit of snowball effect rather than meaningless numbercaps. Overcoming internal inertia should be what enables growth, and it should not be automatic and continuous, it should be a struggle worth fighting. It seems the snowball effect might not be the central decider.

As for tall vs wide in Stellaris, I would say it is very wide biased. The planets are heavily capped on slots, and it seems rather cheap to fill them up if you are not mineral starved. My guess is that it will be like EU4 in that wider empires always win, but a wide empire will profit from slowing down widening to build a bit tall now and again. A very tall but very small empire is not going to come close to competing with a big blob, it might put up a proportionally stronger fight, but it won't survive a war with a wide. The only offset is diplomacy and the AI diplomacy seems rather competent for a 4X game, so anti-wide might be forced into being from the diplomacy, rather than from tall being a better choice. Note, diplomacy should also stop tall if someone grew too tall. Remember, the bad mechanic is snowball, not wide/tall.

 

[KonradKurze202]

I think a multi-species empire has great potential to 'Play tall'. The Blorg have quite a few worlds in systems they control that they cannot effectively colonize as they don't have the species for it. They already have 4-5 different species in their empire (Blorg, Owl People, Tebadoran, Quell, Penquin peeps) and they can't even colonize all their own worlds. Imagine an Empire that just opened migration treaties with every empire around it, they could colonize everything. Even though their territory might be half the size of their aggressive neighbors they might have 2x the worlds.