The focus on "wide" stifles the game

[Alblaka]

the rapid progression of traditions

is not technically related to this, especially not in the context you mentioned, since this issue clearly existed before 1.5.
But I'll agree that the introduction of Unity did not change anything (as many might have hoped, albeit Wiz never said Unity was a mechanic supposed to support tall empires).

Other Paradox games already do that for the military. HoI has stacking penalties and EU4 has morale and combat width. Throwing more men at a prussian army in the mountains will not work. That is what Stellaris needs. A point where getting bigger, be it in fleet, army or empire size, will produce very dimished returns or not work at all.

The big point you're missing here is the fact those games have TERRAIN. (Not in the 'terrain types' of way, to preemptively clear out that missunderstanding).
In Stellaris, there's nothing suchlike. Fleets can pretty much go anywhere from anywhere, except for Hyperlanes.
Thus, there's no 'splitting up troops' or 'defending chokepoints' or 'good defense positions' which would require and therefore promote tactical maneuvring. The best difference between System A and System B in Stellaris might be whether it has a colony in it to siege down for warscore, or not.

Therefore, this is an issue that I am not willing to simply attribute to tall vs wide, but to the inherent flaws with the extremely high mobility of the current FTL methods (excluding Hyperlanes).
And, which is at least some form of positive here, Wiz said he's fully aware of that issue and is intending to completely rework FTL to make these military maneuvring matters actually relevant once he has a patch worth of time to actually go in-depth to rework FTL without relying on bandaid fixes.

Until then, it's relatively pointless to complain about the overpowering strength of wide vs tall, and it might be more reasonable to focus your creative energy on devising a good concept to rework FTL to enable the need for fleet maneuvers and allow a warfare system that is in-debth enough to support 'the few standing against the many'.

 

[The_Red_Star]

Looking at space opera (which is far more relevant than earth's history for stellaris) pretty much every major example of a war in visual science fiction and space fantasy gives the insurmountable advantage to the larger faction where the plucky underdog only really wins because of internal strife or missteps made by the larger polity. The Galactic Empire crushed the Rebel Alliance in pretty much every pitched battle they fought with them and the rebels only really won because Palpatine misjudged Luke and set up the Empire for a decapitation strike on a massive scale. The Empire had far more sophisticated military technology across basically every category with the Rebels basically having fuck all for armour support for their ground forces, significantly inferior capital ships ton for ton excluding Mon Calamari built starships, and only really having a quality advantage in strike craft due to differing philosophies regarding strike craft design and tactics. And even then, the Empire's best strike craft for its elite ace pilots were far more advanced than anything the rebels could cobble together.

The Covenant in Halo was stomping up and down on the UNSC with a far more advanced military and a far larger one and only lost because of a civil war at the worst possible moment and the flood (an external third party who would be considered a crisis in the game) took out their capital. And even then humanity was basically beaten by Halo 3 and only won because of the seperatists' help. Even with basically the entire setting conspiring against the covenant loyalists the prophet of truth was basically seconds away from his ultimate victory that would have ended in the extermination of the seperatists, humanity, and the flood in a single stroke.

In Mass Effect the Reapers basically facerolled everyone they ever met without more than temporary roadblocks and lost entirely due to plot device. Similarly, the Asari, Turians, and Salarians could all pretty easily roll over humanity due to having populations tens if not hundreds of times larger than mankind's teensy tiny 12 billion strong populace. Humanity can only really maintain any semblance of military parity because the council species deliberately put restrictions on military build up to try and de-escalate future conflicts. Cerberus was mostly a problem because the reapers were straight up feeding them technological goodies and even then they were more of a nuisance than a serious threat in and of themselves.

In warhammer 40k if the Imperium of Man really wanted to they could crush the Tau and the Eldar pretty easily. It's just that attacking some of the few major factions in the setting who are actually willing to negotiate to any degree rather than being interminably hostile is a major waste of resources when Abaddon the despoiler is pouring out of the eye of terror, the Tyranids are constantly growing in numbers exponentially, Ghazghkull is halfway there to uniting the entire Ork species which is said to be something that would end humanity outright, and the Necrons are waking up in ever growing numbers. Hell, while the average Tau soldier might be better equipped than the average Imperial Guardsmen, the elite of humanity are far more technologically advanced than the Tau are. The Tau were unable to do anything but stare in horrified awe when the Adeptus Mechanicus decided it had enough of the Tau damocles gulf offensive and curbstomped the Tau's armies into the dust with war machines so advanced the Tau couldn't believe they were even possible. And then to add insult to injury the Adeptus Mechanicus ignited the nebula near the damocles gulf with some archeaotech; trapping the entire Tau attack force.

So you can see there's this pretty established pattern of big empires completely outclassing small civilizations who mostly win due to luck and the larger polity either not really caring to commit the resources needed to stomp on the smaller polity (possibly because they might be useful as a buffer), and/or because the bigger country has other much bigger problems to deal with than the smaller country. I mean let's face it, if a Stellaris player were controlling the Covenant the UNSC would have probably been exterminated to the last POP about ten or so years into the war being generous.

 

[Nussor]

I what way is Space Opera more relevant? Fiction is designed to tell a story with a specfic dramaturgy and strongly favours Evil Empire vs. Total Underdog. And you also can't effectively play that in Stellaris, either. Also you confuse tall/wide with small/big and use examples in which the territorial expanded emp also has a massive technology advantage. Tall is internal development, wide is expansion.

 

[Alblaka]

I what way is Space Opera more relevant?

Wiz said on multiple occasions that he intends Stellaris to be a hybrid of GSG, 4X and Space Opera. Therefore drawing comparisons to actual Space Operas seems relevant to me.

 

[The_Red_Star]

I what way is Space Opera more relevant? Fiction is designed to tell a story with a specfic dramaturgy and strongly favours Evil Empire vs. Total Underdog. And you also can't effectively play that in Stellaris, either. Also you confuse tall/wide with small/big and use examples in which the territorial expanded emp also has a massive technology advantage. Tall is internal development, wide is expansion.

Stellaris draws far more from the Space Opera genre than it does from history. It's fair to say that Stellaris draws almost nothing from historical references but draws everything from space based science fiction and fantasy settings and stories. I never really saw Stellaris as a future history speculator so much as I saw it as basically a way to live out all your space opera fantasies in a grand strategy context the way Mass Effect was a way to live out a space opera in the context of a bioware RPG. So Stellaris should generally speaking strive to make it possible to replicate space opera scenarios and situations. Whether you're more interested in the binary conflict of good vs evil in star wars, the precursor civilization ladened shenanigans of Halo, the intrigue of Mass Effect, or the constant unrelenting warfare of Warhammer 40,000 Stellaris should be able to scratch that particular itch.

And the Imperium of Man vs the Tau Empire is a pretty good example of a Tall vs a Wide Empire. On average your average Tau world is much more developed than the average Imperial world. However in aggregate the Imperium of Man would squash the Tau like a bug if they ever cared to put any proper effort into exterminating them. And even though the Tau are a more developed people on average, the Imperium's best technology is far ahead of anything the Tau have ever created or are likely to ever create. The Tau have widespread and safe plasma guns? That's cute, the Adeptus Mechanicus has superweapons that can destroy time across a significant portion of a solar system up its sleeves.

 

[Cannes]

Not that I disagree with the wide vs tall points, It is quite possible to be peaceful and succesfull. I'm about 110 years into my first Utopia game playing spiritual, xenophile, pacifists. And I'm easily the strongest non fallen empire in the 2000 star galaxy.

Edit. Settings are: 30 empires, 13 advanced starts, 4 fallen, Hard and aggresive AI.

 

[The_Red_Star]

Aye peaceful development is something that's entirely possible. Though to really make it work as a means of extending galactic influence I think Stellaris should take some notes from Victoria II's international diplomacy system (which in my opinion remains the best of Paradox's games), with some bits from EUIV and HOI IV. Increase the depth to which you can non-violently interact with other societies so that you can get considerable benefit from having a network of allies, clients, and simple trade partners and exert some actual soft power.

 

[Ixal]

is not technically related to this, especially not in the context you mentioned, since this issue clearly existed before 1.5.
But I'll agree that the introduction of Unity did not change anything (as many might have hoped, albeit Wiz never said Unity was a mechanic supposed to support tall empires).

Thats my main problem. Wiz never says that anything is supposed to support tall gameplay and instead confirms that it is intended that bigger is better.

The big point you're missing here is the fact those games have TERRAIN. (Not in the 'terrain types' of way, to preemptively clear out that missunderstanding).
In Stellaris, there's nothing suchlike.

It doesnt have to be terrain. There can be many other things which influence combat. A supply system which limits how mans shios can be supplied in enemy space or a softcap on fleet size based on tech and admirals like in HoI, etc.
That everyone can go everywhere is also a problem but at least Wiz acknowledged that. I did not see him doing that for the complete suoeriority of large empires without downsides.

 

[Alblaka]

Thats my main problem. Wiz never says that anything is supposed to support tall gameplay and instead confirms that it is intended that bigger is better.

What you have to realize, and accept, is that the direction you want Stellaris to go (making tall as viable as wide) is not a direction the head of design is supporting (Wiz, stating that wide should always beat tall).
There's no point in arguing why X breaks Y's tall strategy, or what issues Stellaris has that prevent people from playing tall, because these are all things that are fully intended, not bugs and will not be changed/fixed until such a day that Wiz changes his oppinion. And that, if ever, could only happen if he does so by his own preferences shifting, or by a VERY large part of the community demanding (and I'm talking 75%ish here), thus forcing him to develope the game in a direction he himself dislikes (and, trust me, that WOULD lead to a reduction in quality, noone can develope something he doesn't like in first place).

Thus, if you are truly adamant about continuing to try fighting the windmill that is Wiz's strongmindedness, you should try providing arguments as to why promoting tall empires would help the game. Not how it could be done.

It doesnt have to be terrain. There can be many other things which influence combat. A supply system which limits how mans shios can be supplied in enemy space or a softcap on fleet size based on tech and admirals like in HoI, etc.

That's true.
Albeit a Supply System is kind of hard to implement when a restriction is that a fleet can traverse large distances in very short time in a freely flexible manner anyways.
Basically, imagine a default supply system like in HoI4, and then give the armies the ability to just jump across provinces at will. It doesn't matter if they go out of supply, because they can just jump around to places they have supply.
(That's not saying Supply Systems don't work, it's just saying that a Supply System for Stellaris needs to deal with FAR more then just basics, which makes it a lot of effort to try creating something that works. Which lead me to the pre-emptive assumption that the first thing to fix should definitely be fleet mobility / 'terrain', as adding supply systems to that AFTER redesigning fleet mobility might be much easier and better.)

 

[Nussor]

Aye peaceful development is something that's entirely possible. Though to really make it work as a means of extending galactic influence I think Stellaris should take some notes from Victoria II's international diplomacy system (which in my opinion remains the best of Paradox's games), with some bits from EUIV and HOI IV. Increase the depth to which you can non-violently interact with other societies so that you can get considerable benefit from having a network of allies, clients, and simple trade partners and exert some actual soft power.

This. Stellaris should draw more on Pdx's own strength. Its not like they don't know how to do Grand Strategy.

 

[fofferfoffer]

The X4 genre has many solutions to "bigger is better", but of course none of them are perfect or universally accepted. CK2 and EU4 offer coalitions as a diplomatic counter. Maybe a corruption mechanic that reduces the yield of colonies, mining and research stations as function of distance to capital could work for the aggressive spamming of colonies to claim space.

 

[Nussor]

Thus, if you are truly adamant about continuing to try fighting the windmill that is Wiz's strongmindedness, you should try providing arguments as to why promoting tall empires would help the game. Not how it could be done.

Less linearity, more diverse gameplay, more replay-value (which is what these kinds of games are about). It's not like it would be that difficult.
Tall would also require a little bit more Sim City, which can provide lots of fun on its own.

 

[Ixal]

What you have to realize, and accept, is that the direction you want Stellaris to go (making tall as viable as wide) is not a direction the head of design is supporting (Wiz, stating that wide should always beat tall).
There's no point in arguing why X breaks Y's tall strategy, or what issues Stellaris has that prevent people from playing tall, because these are all things that are fully intended, not bugs and will not be changed/fixed until such a day that Wiz changes his oppinion. And that, if ever, could only happen if he does so by his own preferences shifting, or by a VERY large part of the community demanding (and I'm talking 75%ish here), thus forcing him to develope the game in a direction he himself dislikes (and, trust me, that WOULD lead to a reduction in quality, noone can develope something he doesn't like in first place).

Thus, if you are truly adamant about continuing to try fighting the windmill that is Wiz's strongmindedness, you should try providing arguments as to why promoting tall empires would help the game. Not how it could be done.

Have you read the OP? Because that information is right there. When bigger is always better it limits the possible strategies used in the game and it will always be a race to expand the fastest. And several problems with the combat system can directly be traced to this philosophy.
In the current Stellaris build technology and development hardly matters. It is always better to ignore that and focus on expansion. Only when you cant expand anymore, be it in planet count or fleet size, you start building buildings or upgrade your ships as tall development is inferior to wide development.
There is no decision you need to make here as only one way leads to victory which makes every way play out the same.

 

[Nussor]

The X4 genre has many solutions to "bigger is better", but of course none of them are perfect or universally accepted. CK2 and EU4 offer coalitions as a diplomatic counter. Maybe a corruption mechanic that reduces the yield of colonies, mining and research stations as function of distance to capital could work for the aggressive spamming of colonies to claim space.

EU and CK also have a lot more internal politics and strife and empires breaking apart, which never happens in Stellaris.

 

[The_Red_Star]

EU and CK also have a lot more internal politics and strife and empires breaking apart, which never happens in Stellaris.

This I can agree with.

There really needs to be Rebel Alliances (a difficult to catch and pin down resistance force that can wreck your plans but isn't meant for a straight up fight) to go with Galactic Empires and Confederacy of Independent Systems (a major breakaway faction that can legitimately go toe to toe with you) to go with Galactic Republics.

They're far too iconic to the genre to be so eerily absent. I mean everyone's who's remotely interested in the genre's probably at least seen the Star Wars original trilogy. So one of the most iconic elements of the genre being basically straight up missing is just all kinds of weird for a game that strives to reference and allow you to replicate as many space operas as possible.

 

[Ixal]

EU and CK also have a lot more internal politics and strife and empires breaking apart, which never happens in Stellaris.

Exactly.
And when we are already talking about inspirations, in SciFi literature the theme of old stagnant empires or huge burocracies which are hardly able to keep empires together and rebels rising up agains an overlord is rather common. Yet the player is never faced with such troubles. Expansion is always positive.

 

[grommile]

In Stellaris you dont even see rebellions or other unrest events in your empire simply because keeping unrest low is very easy, unrest currently seems like a wasted mechanic because unless you play badly on purpose you dont have the opportunity to interact with them or defeat them.

Being an SP-only person, I'd be interested to know how true that holds when the other empires in the galaxy are all clever squishy meatbags instead of dysfunctional AIs.

 

[Starisc]

The big point you're missing here is the fact those games have TERRAIN. (Not in the 'terrain types' of way, to preemptively clear out that missunderstanding).
In Stellaris, there's nothing suchlike. Fleets can pretty much go anywhere from anywhere, except for Hyperlanes.
Thus, there's no 'splitting up troops' or 'defending chokepoints' or 'good defense positions' which would require and therefore promote tactical maneuvring. The best difference between System A and System B in Stellaris might be whether it has a colony in it to siege down for warscore, or not.

Therefore, this is an issue that I am not willing to simply attribute to tall vs wide, but to the inherent flaws with the extremely high mobility of the current FTL methods (excluding Hyperlanes).
And, which is at least some form of positive here, Wiz said he's fully aware of that issue and is intending to completely rework FTL to make these military maneuvring matters actually relevant once he has a patch worth of time to actually go in-depth to rework FTL without relying on bandaid fixes.

Until then, it's relatively pointless to complain about the overpowering strength of wide vs tall, and it might be more reasonable to focus your creative energy on devising a good concept to rework FTL to enable the need for fleet maneuvers and allow a warfare system that is in-debth enough to support 'the few standing against the many'.

This! So important in this context. Tall vs Wide doesn't matter until this is fixed.

Smaller, smart and agile forces can't do much if they are forced into battle versus the fully massed power of a vastly superior enemy (aka, the deathstack will find you). Wide play is superior, because it gives more resources to build a bigger fleet and the high FTL mobility allows no counterplay. Wide should give more resources (minerals) but lack in research and higher resources. This works as intended. The problem is too high mobility and non-calculable enemy movements.

Higher differences in tech could help, but the real issue is that there is no defensive play in Stellaris due to the high mobility.

Scenario A: My fleet is bigger - I go chase the enemy stack to force a decisive battle, afterwards I have free reign.

Scenario B: My fleet is smaller - I hide my fleet and try to build more ships. Catching a smaller enemy stack is very dangerous as other stacks warp in and that is game over.

There is no staggered defense, no way to stop enemy movements like the forts in EU4 (oh god, I actually complimented EU4 forts - I feel dirty ). Without movement impairment and some kind of occupation debuff (attrition etc), keeping deathstack together is always the dominant strategy.

 

[grommile]

There is no staggered defense, no way to stop enemy movements like the forts in EU4 (oh got, I actually complimented EU4 forts - I feel dirty ). Without movement impairment and some kind of occupation debuff (attrition etc), keeping deathstack together is always the dominant strategy.

For some reason, a lot of the people who want movement impairment want a model of movement impairment that basically forces deathstacks.

"You can't go round this system because it diverts your FTL travel into it. And it is full of armed fortresses much bigger than Stellaris currently allows."

 

[Alblaka]

For some reason, a lot of the people who want movement impairment want a model of movement impairment that basically forces deathstacks.

"You can't go round this system because it diverts your FTL travel into it. And it is full of armed fortresses much bigger than Stellaris currently allows."

If you're referring to my Pacifist Ascension suggestion, then be advised that the respective concept is deliberately rolling with the deathstack thing to offer an alternative solution to 'the issue of deathstacks', not by removing them, but by enabling the option of countering them with defenses.

Of course I would much more prefer some elaborate solution to the problems that lead to deathstacks in first place, i.e. the changes I proposed in my Battleship Rework suggestion, but it's more realistic to build concepts based upon the current deathstacks, because those will likely stick around till 1.7 (assuming Wiz does the warfare rework before any other topic).