What do you think, for non-Idyll guys with Adaptability - is it worth unlocking Paradise Domes first and then finishing Adaptability? I need more playthroughs to collect reliable data, but I lean towards unlocking domes first.
Tall play super viable in 2.0
- Thread starter Black Turtle
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I don't think it's worth it.
Get and finish Adaptability first, then grab Faith in Science - it is way better than Domes.
- Stellaris is more like civilization 5 as a mainstream casual 4x game that Distant world (GSG) for example.
- Tall is now more viable in 2.0 than 1.9 (which introduced the one planet strategy (OPS)) with the new flawed mechanic and balance implemented.
- For tall empire :
- mineral, energy, and food come from tributaries and trade agreements.
- Naval capacity come from vassals.
- A good ratio of 25 sized colonies focused in science and unity with the minimum owned system ( 2.0 killed OPS) will assure your supremacy over a wide empire with the primitive tech/unity scaling.
Hmm, I guess trying to fill my 25 gaia as fast as possible biases my opinion.
What are you on about, speaking of realism in respect to Stellaris and comparing "tall" and "wide" historical nations to "tall" and "wide" Stellaris empires.
Let me drop this fact bomb on you- the smallest "tall" empire in Stellaris still represents at least one unified planet; this is already ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE wider than the largest empires you can reference from our history. Simply having parts of ones territory separated by water has resulted in splintering and failure just about every single time it's been attempted.
Let me reiterate: In the entire history of humanity, we have never had a nation anywhere near as "wide" as the smallest "tall" empire in Stellaris. Not once. Not even close.
Consider that the time to travel across the Atlantic Ocean in the age of sail was around 1-3 weeks depending on conditions.
Consider that the time to travel from a planet in one system, to another planet in another system, with a gateway in between the pair, with teched out sublight thrusters, is still quite a bit longer than this.
Logisitically speaking, even at the very pinnacle of Stellaris tech, it is more difficult to project sufficient force to maintain control of an offworld colony than it was to do the same with an overseas colony in the age of sail. And overseas colonies didn't work out too well long-term for just about anyone who used them.
Last edited:
And yet your communication devices get real-time data from a battle that your fleet fights on the other side of the galaxy.
Lack of instantaneous communication is the reason why empires fell. The ruler couldn't have a centralized authority and had to assign people to rule other territories for him. Those people had their own ideas on how to rule and why should they follow a guy an ocean away from them with a said guy not even knowing something bad is going on.
Stellaris doesn't have that. You have ONE governor for ALL core systems. It doesn't matter how far they are spread out. Same system or another side of the galaxy. The governor can easily manage that. Travel? Why would you want to travel for other reasons than tourism?
In fact, if you look at the information travel speed, the widest stellaris empire is infinitely smaller than the smallest pre-industrial country,
Respectfully disagree. Communication only goes so far. Even if communication is instant, a governing authority still has to be able to project force. Even with modern near-instant communications, in the developed world, there are still states in the US that refuse to play ball with certain federal regulations, and this is entirely because the federal government's hands are, in practice, tied, limiting their ability to project force on the provinces in question. Communications aren't the only issue- delegation is always needed at a certain size. The fact that, say, the president has near instant communication with each state government does not mean that he or she is remotely able to manage the governing of each individual state, even were he or she legally empowered to do so.
Near-instant communication with long travel times in practice can arguably make this worse, as this allows for far more advance warning of any regulatory action. If you know the government is going to be there in a few weeks to bust up your drug operation, that is plenty of time to liquidate available stock and hide the profits.
I mean, seriously, are you suggesting that if radio communication had been discovered/invented in the medieval period, that all of the imperial nations would have held onto most of their colonies to the modern day?
Last edited:
Tall is very much alive and kicking. Here is the result of my tall game from last weekend (pre-beta patch):
250 years in, post-crisis: 25 systems, 9 planets, 5 Ringworlds, 41 Habitats, ~1100 pops, 1000 fleetcap (800 in use), ~500 E and ~1.3k M surplus
Given that Agrarian Idyll has pretty restrictive pre-requirements, I don't see a problem with giving it a strong effect.
Its real power lies in the potential synergy with the Adaptability finisher (via Inward Perfection).
Tbh with a good wide build you would have already won 250 years in due to 40% of habitable planets owned or be very close to it.
Also depends on how you define tall. If it's few planets then it's absolutely not viable. If it's snaking to get systems with planets while minimizing outposts this is exactly what you should do past earlygame. Conquering planets is also cheaper than building them up in general.
Last edited:
There are nothing in the game which indicate that communication is in any way instant or not empire wide. There are just highly abstract game mechanics.
With your logic then resources such as energy, minerals and food are magically teleported with 100% efficiency wherever they are needed and industrial tools and machinery accompany them wherever they go, except for construction ships (but resources still teleport to them).
My opinion is that the game operates on a scale similar to 15th-19th century Earth in terms of colonies and communications. While communications likely are much faster than actual travel it would be more like late 19th century telegraph kind of communication efficiency in comparison.
But that is only my opinion and the game really say nothing one way or the other. In game information provided for the player say nothing about how information flow in the world of Stellaris. Have you ever seen any game where in game information are ever delayed to the player as an intentional mechanic?!?
Last edited:
I would argue that Rome was a tall empire. Originally they started out as a city state. Almost all of their conquests were creating vassals or tributaries, but the only subjects they actually ever really integrated were the other factions on the Italian peninsula. This is why they could gain and loose provinces so easily, and when the fall of the Roman empire came, it fell so suddenly and utterly. Basically they lost the ability to dominate their subjects, and they all rebelled!
Obviously Rome wasn't some sort of inward perfection build, like most of the tall empires in this thread. I'd put Rome as Militarist, Egalitarian, Materialist under the Republic, and Militarist, Autoritarian, Materialist under the emperors.
England and Alexander the Great are other examples of tall empires that expanded militarily by getting a lot of vassals.
Last edited:
E.g. my recent game:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1318564591
Galaxy overview:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1318566378 (I'm yellow)
Might not look like it, but I beelined most clusters of habitable planets and also built my share of ringworlds/habitats, domination win in 220 years. Could've been 180 tbh If I took colossus for colossus CB, lategame I was mostly stockpiling influence. Both FEs were dead by 180. This is on insane, I'm not stomping completely helpless AI.
So idk, what's the point of turtling? It might be a fun strategy to try out and RP, and you can of course win with it (although probably not gonna be fast) but "optimal"?
Or do you consider this tall? 81 systems is pretty wide in my book.
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1318564591
Galaxy overview:
http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1318566378 (I'm yellow)
Might not look like it, but I beelined most clusters of habitable planets and also built my share of ringworlds/habitats, domination win in 220 years. Could've been 180 tbh If I took colossus for colossus CB, lategame I was mostly stockpiling influence. Both FEs were dead by 180. This is on insane, I'm not stomping completely helpless AI.
So idk, what's the point of turtling? It might be a fun strategy to try out and RP, and you can of course win with it (although probably not gonna be fast) but "optimal"?
Or do you consider this tall? 81 systems is pretty wide in my book.
Last edited:
"Tall" and "wide" are abstractions for gameplay purposes, and the concepts exist because they are integral to the opportunity cost of going dense vs going outward with respect to technology in the game, in turn because technology research in games is also an abstraction. The divide has existed since the birth of 4x games because they are essential concepts, and you can bet when Paradox releases Stellaris 3 in 2030, we'll still be having this discussion.
Last edited:
It's hardly an essential concept. The civilization series really only allowed a tall strategy in number 5, which hasn't limited its success at all. Civilization 6 is a really good game despite having no penalties to expansion at all. The balance between expansion and internal development is created purely by having limited resources to use on both and having to decide which is going to give a better return on your production. If you're building settlers they you're not building buildings, districts, wonders or military. The problem in stellaris is that by the early midgame you have minerals for days, allowing you to buy everything you see and then some.
Define "viable". You could win that way on lower difficulties, to be sure, but expansion was always a huge benefit.
I admit its weaker, but there have been science victory conditions since forever
And? None of those games penalized the science output of a bigger empire. Maybe civ 4, since each city had a small upkeep that came at the expense of spending on sience, but every city could pay for itself when it was built up even a little. Except for civ 5 in every civilization game a larger empire has been better in every way than a smaller empire. This has been true in other 4x classics like Master of Orion 1 and 2 too.
Decreased the value of new colonies, but new colonies never decreased the value of your old colonies. Even if your 10th city wasn't as good as your 2nd city it was still better than nothing. Bigger was always better.