Is Unity still for playing Tall?

[Radically Right Wing]

Soo... I was under the impression that only a maximum amount of Unity could be produced by a given Empire, then the larger that Empire got the more it would cost to unlock new Ascension Perks with Unity. Eventually once you got to 20 or 30 planets your Unity would slow down to a crawl and smaller Empires would be able to continue to unlock Ascension Perks thus outpacing you in Unity and becoming "Tall" in that way. This would mean that an Empire does not just spiral out of control and snowball to unstoppable sizes as is the case right now. But I just noticed in this past stream, that in fact a building that produces Unity, the one that upgrades into the Heritage Foundation that produces 5 Unity, that building is not Empire Unique, in fact Wiz was building them on almost all of his planets. So the more planets an Empire has the more Unity costs, but also the more Unity it can produce, so what is the point of Unity?

Has Unity lost its value since wide Empires can now be just as tall as tall Empires? What is the point of trying to build tall or is it even possible with this new mechanic? Could Wide Empires outpace smaller Empires in Unity production allowing them to snowball at twice the rate they were before?

 

[Dalinski]

Ohhh....I would no longer want to go wide....not at all.

 

[Seomis]

So the more planets an Empire has the more Unity costs, but also the more Unity it can produce, so what is the point of Unity?

That kind of doubt isn't really justified without knowing actual, final numbers. The research penalty works the same way you describe, but what matters is how much the cost goes up with every pop or planet. An empire can keep pace with the mounting research penalty by building more and more science labs, but ascension costs may grow faster than one's ability to use additional planets to acquire more unity.

So just chill for now until we know more.

 

[Alblaka]

So the more planets an Empire has the more Unity costs, but also the more Unity it can produce, so what is the point of Unity?

This.
I've already revealed the math behind what non-final numbers we currently have, and even without any unity giving buildings, except the capital and the initial 2-unity monument, your 'Tradition Aquiring Speed' will increase (with diminishing returns) up to ~12 colonies, before slowing down again.
Aka, tall empires would have to obtain 12 colonies to be 'tall-viable' and anything past that would slowly drift into 'less unity-efficient' and 'wide'.

BUT each new source of unityPerPlanet (aka, Planet-Unique buildings that give unity, like the one OP mentioned, Paradise Domes, etcetcetc) pushes that number higher, substantially so.

Doing a very rough guess (again, on non-final values), I would say the cap of 'Tradition Auqiring Speed' would be around ~25-30 planets. Which, as you certainly will agree, isn't remotely 'tall' at all in the traditional meaning of tall (comparing it with Civ, where I personally encountered the term first, tall = 3 cities whereas wide is >15. Transfering that to Stellaris, would mean that '20 planet tall' implies a wide empire would need to have hundreds of planets... which isn't even possible on smaller maps before achieving victory).

However, I feel like 'our' and the devs concept of 'tall' widely differ:
To us (or well, me and OP), tall used to have the meaning of 'few, highly-effective' cities/planets. Whereas wide would mean 'Quantity over Quality.
To the devs, apparently, tall refers to 'high count of planets per territory' vs wide being 'few planets per territory'. This would explain the current concepts of Habitats and Ringworlds. Whilst arguably Ringworlds fit the 'tall' style (being 4 individual 'most possibly efficience' planets) we originally anticipated, Habitats with their measly 12 slots don't (albeit an argument can be made in favour of them apparently being very pop-to-research effective.
But if we consider tall to mean 'expansion without expanding borders', then habitats and ringworlds work perfectly.

Therefore, I conclude 'tall' refers to terraforming and constructing new planets/habitats within your borders, expanding your empire without crossing borders, touching other species or going on a landgrabbing spree. And this playstyle IS actually synergizing with unity, since it would be much easier to keep a uniform and happy empire if you can grow without subjugating other species, therefore making it easier to aquire traditions, which is exactly what we've seen in the dev stream.


And, to be honest, I think this style of 'tall' is far more fitting to Stellaris, simply because balancing a 5-planet 'super tall research' empire vs a 50 planet blob will never work out right.
Balancing a 10 system 40 planet empire vs a 100 system 50 planet blob will, however.

 

[TestosteroneLol]

Wiz said that he wants wide to always be better than tall, just for tall to not be completely unplayable and boring. I don't understand why a galactic empire would possibly be weaker than a small empire of a few systems, regardless of how efficiently it's run. The Imperium of Man could crush the Tau Empire after all.

 

[henzington]

Research has a penalty for each planet and population but this doesn't mean it's better to only have one planet for maxing research. It's hard to say how much better being tall will be in 1.5 but I am willing to bet going wide is still better overall.

 

[Markieness]

It was never about wide vs tall. Wide vs tall was just a silly manufactured civ 5 thing that doesn't make sense.

 

[Bayes]

It was never about wide vs tall. Wide vs tall was just a silly manufactured civ 5 thing that doesn't make sense.

Probably doesnt, but I like there being 2 fundamentally differing playstyles. Helps that they are both viable aswell.

Edit: I agree that the wide empire should be stronger in most aspects, its just finding that sweetspot and giving tall empire their niche that would make me happy.

 

[Madzai]

Wiz said that he wants wide to always be better than tall, just for tall to not be completely unplayable and boring. I don't understand why a galactic empire would possibly be weaker than a small empire of a few systems, regardless of how efficiently it's run. The Imperium of Man could crush the Tau Empire after all.

As much as i want to play small but wealthy and influential Empire that's not boring to play, the actual "tall" vs. "wide" argument in Stellaris has different origin, IMO. In other games with "real" counties we have the ability to choose the country to suit our play style, or, in case of some other 4X games, we can choose country\race\ etc, that allow us to play the selected playstyle and win by playing it - usually by introducing special game mechanics for such a playstyle or some special winning conditions.

But in Stellaris, if playing by "default" rules, everyone start equal (aside from FE or advanced start AI nearby) - you have the same number of habitable worlds nearby, same number of neighbors, and probably some other non-random things. But if conditions are similar it's quite obvious that some play styles are better at it. And some play styles have huge problems expanding if they want to stay true to their play-styles - Pacifists, Xenophiles, or even Isolationist Xenophobes. Actually anyone could say - i don't want to attack my closest neighbors - they are nice people, but that evil Empire is just way too strong. So by the time, the diplo-alliance against the baddies is ready, you already out of space. Sure, you'll get some spoils of war, but it's probably not going to change much. So, that's why people want more options to play tall - so they won't be forced out of their playstyle, but still could be relevant.

The obvious answer sound like: "Don't play on default settings, lessen the numbers of AI, or something, play with random generations, etc". But this way, if you manage to start without any other Empires nearby, you will be an unstoppable force soon, no matter the ethos, due to how poor AI develop compared to player,

 

[Milten]

Unity is not supposed to be a "tall" thing. Merely balanced so that "wide" empires won't outproduce "tall" empires too much, same as science.

 

[LordMagus]

As others have said, I don't consider 'tall' play to be about not that many colonised places, I think about it as not simply painting the galaxy. Instead, you've got a smaller territory, but you're filling it up with ringworlds to give you large amounts of minerals and energy, and using habitats for science production.

The only potential issue is that your fleet would still be pretty puny if you aren't able to build spaceports next to habitats.

 

[Alblaka]

The only potential issue is that your fleet would still be pretty puny if you aren't able to build spaceports next to habitats.

Which could be easily prevented by having habitats grant naval fleet limit.

 

[Tsuihousha]

So the more planets an Empire has the more Unity costs, but also the more Unity it can produce, so what is the point of Unity?

Has Unity lost its value since wide Empires can now be just as tall as tall Empires? What is the point of trying to build tall or is it even possible with this new mechanic? Could Wide Empires outpace smaller Empires in Unity production allowing them to snowball at twice the rate they were before?

Unity was never a system to prevent owning more to being detrimental, the acquisition rates are the way they are so that an empire that can't or doesn't expand as rapidly can still keep relative pace Ascension perk wise. The purposes was not to make sitting in a corner more viable in anyway; unities purpose was to add depth mechanically and flavorfully to enrich the experience of the game and to help make individual Stellar Nations stand apart from one another more-so.

So yeah; the unity system hasn't lost any of it's purpose at all just because you can make buildings to generate it. They want everyone to get to enjoy that flavour and having a mechanic that effectively stops working if you over expand would be awful.

Imagine if idea cost increased with your total development but your ability to generate monarch points didn't scale with development. It would be awful; the fact there is a scaling cost based on planets & populations means there has to be a building for it or you would never unlock any ascension perks if you expanded.

 

[Cannes]

In conclusion: There is no tall vs. wide. It is instead about having options that are equally viable. Focus inward or outward.

 

[Drowe]

I agree that there should be an option for playing tall, but not in the sense of civ. For me, tall means a high population density, while wide means a lot of territory. Do you control just a few systems but have an average of 100 pops per system or do you control a lot of systems with an average of 10 pops per system. In both cases you would have the same number of pops.

 

[Jabby]

So the more planets an Empire has the more Unity costs

No the more unhappy pops you have the more TRADITIONS cost

 

[Kat Tsun]

In conclusion: There is no tall vs. wide. It is instead about having options that are equally viable. Focus inward or outward.

Outward is always superior.

If you aren't big, you're losing.

http://images.akamai.steamuserconte...943/5291C977D4BD49DC0C294B62053049B5EE767C55/

 

[HandicapdHippo]

To us (or well, me and OP), tall used to have the meaning of 'few, highly-effective' cities/planets. Whereas wide would mean 'Quantity over Quality.
To the devs, apparently, tall refers to 'high count of planets per territory' vs wide being 'few planets per territory'. This would explain the current concepts of Habitats and Ringworlds. Whilst arguably Ringworlds fit the 'tall' style (being 4 individual 'most possibly efficience' planets) we originally anticipated, Habitats with their measly 12 slots don't (albeit an argument can be made in favour of them apparently being very pop-to-research effective.
But if we consider tall to mean 'expansion without expanding borders', then habitats and ringworlds work perfectly.

Well it makes sense in my opinion, if tall play worked in the manner some people suggest, then abandoning your smaller colony's near the centre of you empire once you secure a good amount of territory would be a good idea because it would make you stronger, the idea that exploiting your held territory as much as possible would potentially be a bad thing is ludicrous.

 

[Alblaka]

the idea that exploiting your held territory as much as possible would potentially be a bad thing is ludicrous.

Well, I think the mentality issue here is that, in Civ V, every city can develope more or less infinitely (at least within the confines of normal games). Thus, even if your city is 'initially bad', by the time you found other cities, it will be better then any new city founded. And will never become less valuable then those new cities.
Whereas in Stellaris, obviously you can find 'better planets'. And of course, it still doesn't make sense in Stellaris' context to 'abandon' old planets.

In theory, it would make sense, in Civ V, to abandon your capital if it was a 'bad city' compared to your other aqquisitions, to improve your overall 'tall quality. But that is a case that will not ever occur (and therefore, you cannot even abandon a city).

What I am trying to explain is that the CIV V way of 'playing tall' cannot be straight up compared and/or translated like you did with the

the idea that exploiting your held territory as much as possible would potentially be a bad thing is ludicrous

remark.

 

[Me_]

I'd just want to point out that with Habitats. 12 colonies can easily be just 2 systems. And even without them, there are also Ringworlds, "Terraforming candidates" and plain old multi-colonizable-planets systems.

So "tall" is a very blurry idea. You can have the same number of colonies while spanning half the galaxy and while owning just 5-6 systems depending aforementioned mechanics.

As others have said, I don't consider 'tall' play to be about not that many colonised places, I think about it as not simply painting the galaxy. Instead, you've got a smaller territory, but you're filling it up with ringworlds to give you large amounts of minerals and energy, and using habitats for science production.

The only potential issue is that your fleet would still be pretty puny if you aren't able to build spaceports next to habitats.

Your fleet can also be quality or quantity - tons of low tech ships (it's not that bad to go overlimit with cheap units) or fewer more advanced ones. This ties into research, so it's a grey area as well.