Is playing REASONABLY TALL viable, especially in MP?

[Zak Preston]

Hello! I've been wondering if playing a reasonably tall viable in more or less competitive environment in I:R?

I'm not talking about RP-ing small city-states or OPMs, but rather small to medium-sized countries that can't or don't want to expand (paint map) for some reason. Obviously that playing tall would and should be sub-optimal in a game that was originally designed for conquests, but I think everyone encounters situations when expansion is blocked for some reasons:

• EU4: regency council, aggressive expansion and coalitions, being surrounded by huge blobs.
• CK2: lots of threat, playing merchant republic, playing as a vassal in a larger empire, roleplaying.
• Stellaris: playing pacifist, roleplaying, being sandwitched between an advanced AI start blob and a fallen empire.

All these games have a different approach to tall mechanics:

• EU4 is all about map painting. Playing tall is possible, but it's incredibly boring: you turn speed-5 on and click development button mostly with occasional defensive wars calls.
• In CK2 you can actually roleplay a tall nation of a size of a respective de-jure kingdom (Ireland, Denmark, Jerusalem, Africa or Brittany, for example). Tall nations can be incredibly powerful and punch way above their weight because of high vassals loyalty and no internal factions threats. It doesn't mean that a tall Kingdom of Sicily can take on Abbassid Empire (which is quite reasonable), but it will be more than capable of defeating an invasion of a decentralized empire which has to deal with frequent uprisings.
• Stellaris is another example of how a relatively compact empire can build megastructures (habitats and ring worlds) to increase it's pops and punch way above it's weight.

https://i.imgur.com/lDmeNMi.png
These are examples of tall nations (1 is for the smallest and 5 is for the largest).

So here are some questions:

1. Is playing reasonably tall considered a valid option at all?
   
2. Which one of 5 provided examples is considered reasonably tall?
3. What benefits might small nations have over large blobs?
4. Are there any specific game mechanics that may work better for smaller peaceful nations?
5. Will a tall and peaceful trading nation be more attractive for migration (if there is any) and perhaps will it attract possible raiders as well?
6. Sometimes a player has no options but to play tall eventually (lost a series of wars, for example), and are there any catch-up mechanics?

These questions are even more important to MP community, because players used to quit the MP campaign after a series of lost wars (a couple may be enough in EU4), and there is little to no way to return lost lands and playing tall may be not an option at all (EU4).
Tagging @Johan and @Trin Tragula

 

[Denkt]

Is playing reasonably tall considered a valid option at all?

Yes it is considered viable.

What benefits might small nations have over large blobs?

Aggressive expansion is far less issue as tall nations tend to be more monocultural and aggressive expansion hurt the happiness of foreign pops. You capital province is always loyal and if you have few provinces having one always loyal province is more impactful. You generally need less armies and governors and as each character take a % of your income as wages so if you pay 20% wages you will pay 20 gold if you earn 100 and 200 gold if you earn 1000. Less characters mean you keep a large portion of your income and it is easier to keep few characters loyal than keeping large amount of characters loyal.

Small nations may have far easier time to keep good tech as they tend to have a larger % of their pop being citizens.

Are there any specific game mechanics that may work better for smaller peaceful nations?

Technology probably will work better as it is easier to keep high % of citizens while all conquered pops except for special case will always demote on step so you won't conquer many new citizen pops. Aggressive expansion is a major issue for large aggressive nations while not an issue at all for small peaceful nations.

Will a tall and peaceful trading nation be more attractive for migration (if there is any) and perhaps will it attract possible raiders as well?

There is no migration mechanic except for events but if you want to be very wealthy you probably need alot of slaves which you have to go to war to get, however you do not need to conquer land, simply raid cities and make costal raids to get more slaves and these slaves can later on be promoted to freemen and citizens. As population is power, it is important to make sure you have good amount of people.

Sometimes a player has no options but to play tall eventually (lost a series of wars, for example), and are there any catch-up mechanics?

No but stuff such as aggressive expansion may stop the powerful from expanding to quickly and there are ways to encourage their armies and governors to defect if they missmanage their loyalty. Also if they get into a civil war, you may have chance to grab a large part of their land.

 

[Zak Preston]

@Denkt This sounds extremely promising. Thank you for your reply!

 

[vicbus]

Johan said in the recent Q&A video that playing tall is doable as long as you are willing to be protected by a big empire.

 

[Zak Preston]

Johan said in the recent Q&A video that playing tall is doable as long as you are willing to be protected by a big empire.

I think he mentioned a city state or something like that in terms of scale. In this case he is 100% correct, but I'm worried about something larger (like a size range of Sardinia to Ireland, perhaps).

 

[vicbus]

I think he mentioned a city state or something like that in terms of scale. In this case he is 100% correct, but I'm worried about something larger (like a size range of Sardinia to Ireland, perhaps).

I wonder at what measure that wouldn't also be the case with a medium power, especially in the middle to the late game, where there is bound to be more blobs. Maybe you could pull it off with tags like Armenia (due to the caucasian terrain) or Sardinia and a Britonic tribe (since you will be protected by the sea), but if there are powerful blobs around you, you could indeed have to eventually rely on bandwagoning with one great power for survival.

 

[Zak Preston]

I wonder at what measure that wouldn't also be the case with a medium power, especially in the middle to the late game, where there is bound to be more blobs. Maybe you could pull it off with tags like Armenia (due to the caucasian terrain) or Sardinia and a Britonic tribe (since you will be protected by the sea), but if there are powerful blobs around you, you could indeed have to eventually rely on bandwagoning with one great power for survival.

It remains to be seen. In Stellaris and CK2 a small-medium tall player may be a completely independent entity on par with larger but less developed neighbors.

 

[Denkt]

Pop is power and you can stack buildings and resources to get some pretty crazy bonuses. Like a city with 200 freemen pops with 20 training camps may produce 100k manpower or something like that over 10 years.

Here are some math: A freeman give 3 manpower each month at 100% happiness and each training camp increase the amount of manpower the city produce by 20%. 10 years are 120 montth so you should get this amount of manpower from 200 freemen and 20 training camps during 10 years:

3*200*5*120 = 360 000 manpower

If you don't have any training camps you would only get 72 000 manpower in 10 years from 200 freemen.

 

[ultrahigher]

i was also wondering about this, and how pop growth works

 

[Denkt]

i was also wondering about this, and how pop growth works

Pop growth work by the game selecting one of the pops in the city and start "cloning" it. When progress have reached 100% the new pop is added to the city and the process starts over. Pop growth is mainly increase by certain resources as well building granaries while pop growth is decreased by the number of pops in the city.

 

[Reman]

What does "viable" mean in this context?

If viable means "a smaller empire can compete militarily with a somewhat larger empire", the answer will almost certainly be yes. If a nation specializes in military as much as possible, they'll be able to punch above their weight. This is similar to the case for EU4, where a nation that picks 4 military idea groups out of the gate will destroy a larger nation that picked Admin, Diplo, Humanist, and Influence as its first 4.

If viable means "can provide engaging gameplay at a similar level to blobbing", the answer will be "probably not". I hope the devs don't try to emphasize it either. I hope they put all efforts into making the core gameplay loop of expansion as interesting as possible rather than diverting attention to gimmicky tall play. Any tall-based systems will probably end up being failures like estates were in EU4. Tall-based systems should be reserved for games like Victoria 2 (or 3) where internal development is the bread-and-butter of the game.

If viable means "can compete at a similar level to larger empires", possibly through scaling costs or punitive empire size penalties, I really, REALLY hope the answer would be "no". Some patches of Civ 5 had this, where the optimal path to victory involved only having 4 cities. It was completely and utterly terrible.

 

[Denkt]

If viable means "a smaller empire can compete militarily with a somewhat larger empire", the answer will almost certainly be yes. If a nation specializes in military as much as possible, they'll be able to punch above their weight. This is similar to the case for EU4, where a nation that picks 4 military idea groups out of the gate will destroy a larger nation that picked Admin, Diplo, Humanist, and Influence as its first 4.

Imperator: Rome don't have national ideas like EUIV have so you don't have the same military specialization going on. But it is possible to build a strong economy if you stack goods and buildings like my training camp example above.

If viable means "can provide engaging gameplay at a similar level to blobbing", the answer will be "probably not". I hope the devs don't try to emphasize it either. I hope they put all efforts into making the core gameplay loop of expansion as interesting as possible rather than diverting attention to gimmicky tall play. Any tall-based systems will probably end up being failures like estates were in EU4. Tall-based systems should be reserved for games like Victoria 2 (or 3) where internal development is the bread-and-butter of the game.

They have clearly sold it as an empire building game and expansion is a strong part of that.

If viable means "can compete at a similar level to larger empires", possibly through scaling costs or punitive empire size penalties, I really, REALLY hope the answer would be "no". Some patches of Civ 5 had this, where the optimal path to victory involved only having 4 cities. It was completely and utterly terrible.

From what I have seen I would say that a small nation can not compete with a large one. But unlike 4x games, Imperator: Rome you need to make sure you keep your empire stable as aggressive expansion will greatly hurt the happiness of all pops not of your culture. Also it is pops not land which are the main source of power so a smaller nation with larger population will likely be much stronger than a larger nation with smaller population. However this should not in any way be compared to how stuff work in Civilization V mostly because Imperator: Rome don't punish you from expanding and once you get rid of your aggressive expansion you have no penalty at all.

 

[Zak Preston]

If viable means "can provide engaging gameplay at a similar level to blobbing", the answer will be "probably not". I hope the devs don't try to emphasize it either. I hope they put all efforts into making the core gameplay loop of expansion as interesting as possible rather than diverting attention to gimmicky tall play. Any tall-based systems will probably end up being failures like estates were in EU4. Tall-based systems should be reserved for games like Victoria 2 (or 3) where internal development is the bread-and-butter of the game.

If viable means "can compete at a similar level to larger empires", possibly through scaling costs or punitive empire size penalties, I really, REALLY hope the answer would be "no". Some patches of Civ 5 had this, where the optimal path to victory involved only having 4 cities. It was completely and utterly terrible.

Did you know that if you place each human being currently alive 1m from each other, they will form a square with a side of ~87km or a circle with only ~49km radius? Even now the there is plenty of space to settle, to say nothing of antique era. So even a relatively small territory could house a large urban population (depends on climate, terrain and resources, ofc). Greek city-states are the best examples of "tall" model here:

• they were relatively populous
• "generated" lots of cultural, military and administrative "research" points
• spread their culture all over Mediterranean
• defeated overwhelming Persian invasions
• Macedonia united the Greek region and as a result was able to subdue overwhelmingly larger Persian Empire

So theoretically speaking, tall gameplay should be more than just viable.

Personally I love the phrase "to each their own", so if someone loves painting the map, I'm perfectly fine with that, but since I mostly prefer playing "tall", I would really like to have valid tools to do so. Your approach is more like "I love pizza, so none as allowed to eat pasta".

 

[Reman]

Did you know that if you place each human being currently alive 1m from each other, they will form a square with a side of ~87km or a circle with only ~49km radius? Even now the there is plenty of space to settle, to say nothing of antique era. So even a relatively small territory could house a large urban population (depends on climate, terrain and resources, ofc). Greek city-states are the best examples of "tall" model here:

• they were relatively populous
• "generated" lots of cultural, military and administrative "research" points
• spread their culture all over Mediterranean
• defeated overwhelming Persian invasions
• Macedonia united the Greek region and as a result was able to subdue overwhelmingly larger Persian Empire

So theoretically speaking, tall gameplay should be more than just viable.

I don't know what you're getting at here. All of Paradox's games feature provinces where some are worth more than others. But this is different from making tall "viable" or giving tall gameplay developer priority.

Personally I love the phrase "to each their own", so if someone loves painting the map, I'm perfectly fine with that, but since I mostly prefer playing "tall", I would really like to have valid tools to do so. Your approach is more like "I love pizza, so none as allowed to eat pasta".

I have never seen a strategy game where both tall strats and wide strats feature interesting gameplay. I have also never seen a strategy game where both are well-balanced and "viable". The Civilization series probably comes closest with its victory conditions, but the facade of balance falls apart when you start digging through the mechanics and play optimally. Tall play and wide play are fundamentally at odds with each other to the extent that meshing them is practically impossible.

If we're using food analogies, a more accurate one would be this: Say you want a smoothie (tall) while I want pizza (wide). The solution would be for us each to get separate food items. The solution would *not* be to put a pizza in a blender and give it to both of us with the claim that it's the best of both worlds.

 

[Zak Preston]

I don't know what you're getting at here. All of Paradox's games feature provinces where some are worth more than others. But this is different from making tall "viable" or giving tall gameplay developer priority.

Tall states existed in I:R timeframe and were quite successful. Spending money on land development (roads, irrigation, aqueducts) should give a decent pay off instead of waging multiple wars.

I have never seen a strategy game where both tall strats and wide strats feature interesting gameplay. I have also never seen a strategy game where both are well-balanced and "viable".

Stellaris and Crusader Kings 2 have both extremely viable and interesting tall options. Victoria 2 as well, but the game is a bit too old for my taste.

The Civilization series probably comes closest with its victory conditions, but the facade of balance falls apart when you start digging through the mechanics and play optimally. Tall play and wide play are fundamentally at odds with each other to the extent that meshing them is practically impossible.

Civ-1 and Civ-3 have actually made me love tall gameplay because it was a sheer reduction of micromanagement. I think you are confusing "viable" with "optimal": IMO map painting should be optimal for I:R, but tall should be a viable option as well.

If we're using food analogies, a more accurate one would be this: Say you want a smoothie (tall) while I want pizza (wide). The solution would be for us each to get separate food items. The solution would *not* be to put a pizza in a blender and give it to both of us with the claim that it's the best of both worlds.

I enjoy smoothie over pizza. So when I'm thirsty, I drink smoothie; and when I'm hungry, I eat pizza. But too much smoothie or pizza alone may be unhealthy =)

 

[Denkt]

Tall states existed in I:R timeframe and were quite successful. Spending money on land development (roads, irrigation, aqueducts) should give a decent pay off instead of waging multiple wars.

Wars is how you get more pops but you do not need to conquer cities, simply raid them for slaves.

Stellaris and Crusader Kings 2 have both extremely viable and interesting tall options. Victoria 2 as well, but the game is a bit too old for my taste.

I say that tall in Imperator is going to be more powerful than CK2 because of pops but you need to get large population and the best way to do so is to go and raid for slaves as population growth is simply too slow and you don't want to build granaries everywhere as you really need training camps and Marketplaces.

If you can stack goods and buildings you can build extreamly powerful cities but these are going to need enormous population. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ity-specialization-in-imperator-rome.1131917/

 

[CaptinObvious]

I'd image a 'tallacuse' sort thing, where you use your massive grain production and trade income to fund a large merc army, and a giant navy, 'tall' is only ever really viable on an island, such as Sicily, or Britan.

 

[Denkt]

I'd image a 'tallacuse' sort thing, where you use your massive grain production and trade income to fund a large merc army, and a giant navy, 'tall' is only ever really viable on an island, such as Sicily, or Britan.

Egypt is a good start, you have alot of slaves as well as some excellent goods and a large population that is rather concentrated.

I think Egypt even have gems so if you Place all your slaves in you country to work on gems you can probably be so rich you can have basically all your mercenaries on your payrole all the time. Having like 1000 slaves working on gems with like 100 gems resources stacked to give something like +1000% tax modifier is completely insane amount of Money.

 

[CaptinObvious]

Egypt is a good start, you have alot of slaves as well as some excellent goods and a large population that is rather concentrated.
I think Egypt even have gems so if you Place all your slaves in you country to work on gems you can probably be so rich you can have basically all your mercenaries on your payrole all the time. Having like 1000 slaves working on gems with like 100 gems resources stacked to give something like +1000% tax modifier is completely insane amount of Money.

I would not call one of the largest behemoths in the Mediterranian a 'tall' nation, IMO tall means relatively compact, and relying on quality and trade, rather than 3nd biggest nation in the game.

 

[Denkt]

I would not call one of the largest behemoths in the Mediterranian a 'tall' nation, IMO tall means relatively compact, and relying on quality and trade, rather than 3nd biggest nation in the game.

In terms of quality Egypt is probably at the top at the start as it have one of the highest population density if you discount the desert wasteland it Control. Egypt is much taller than most small nations in the game.