Wide v Tall In 1.5/Utopia

[Alblaka]

On that theme. I currently have a cap of 10 leaders but have 5 core systems, 2 sectors, 3 researchers, 2 science ships and an admiral covering one combined fleet. That needs more than 10 leaders. As such I have some of my core systems without a Governor. Is this a disaster and how easy is it to up the Leader cap?

Right now, Governeurs are a way to spend excess Influence. They give a few % of happyness and a boost according to their trait, in most cases irrelevant. Having one governeur per planet is plainly impossible (currently), and a waste of influence.

Unity changes a couple of mechanics in this regard and gives Governeurs an Unity-boosting effect, and there's a tradition tree that makes Governeurs cheapers and massively boosts leader slots. So that might become a thing.

 

[PaulMClem]

Unity changes a couple of mechanics in this regard and gives Governeurs an Unity-boosting effect, and there's a tradition tree that makes Governeurs cheapers and massively boosts leader slots.

Sounds interesting. Look forward to seeing all the Tradition/Ascension/Ethos/Civic etc etc modifiers in due course.

 

[nyah]

Right now, Governeurs are a way to spend excess Influence. They give a few % of happyness and a boost according to their trait, in most cases irrelevant. Having one governeur per planet is plainly impossible (currently), and a waste of influence.

Unity changes a couple of mechanics in this regard and gives Governeurs an Unity-boosting effect, and there's a tradition tree that makes Governeurs cheapers and massively boosts leader slots. So that might become a thing.

It's always seemed a bit odd to me that in an empire of perhaps 100 planets there can only be found a couple of dozen people capable of leadership.

 

[sdeezie]

It's always seemed a bit odd to me that in an empire of perhaps 100 planets there can only be found a couple of dozen people capable of leadership.

I think it would be cool if, like always having an empire leader, every leader slot was filled with a random - possibly incompetent - leader. Science ships, fleets, planetary governments, etc.

Then you would spend influence to instead appoint your desired candidate, instead of appointing a candidate in the first place.

 

[AndragonLea]

I wouldn't be surprised to see governments with leadership boni become more important the more stuff Paradox adds in that depends on them.

At the moment, other than the few mandatory ones (3 scientists for research, 1 to 2 scientists scanning, 1 admiral, MAYBE a general if you're feeling spunky), the rest is really hugely optional.

So much so that technologies, protocols and government types that deal with more/better leaders didn't appeal to me at all. Sure, having them start on lvl 2 is nice, but that's what, 2 % more happiness on one planet or a tiny boost to research a bit early than otherwise? Nowhere near the 10 % energy credits and minerals of an oligarchy or the permanent research bonus or pretty much anything else you can get.

But if they added in more bonis on governors, something to have you need more admirals, a spy system where spies come from leadership, etc. tt., maybe some day it'll be worth considering.

 

[General Retreat]

It'd be nice if core planets were all managed by using the empire leader as a governor, the same way governors lead every planet in a sector. The leader's level and traits would potentially be a little more relevant in that case.

Also benefits pacifists / tall empires if the unique leader traits / level bonuses are enhanced compared to standard governors. It also then means that core planets then function as 'federal land', while governors are like 'federal representatives' in local states.

 

[PaulMClem]

It'd be nice if core planets were all managed by using the empire leader as a governor, the same way governors lead every planet in a sector. The leader's level and traits would potentially be a little more relevant in that case.

Excellent idea. Look forward to seeing it in 1.6

 

[deeks]

Wide = Having many Worlds, Which are relatively lowly developed, Which means their Buildings are relatively lowly upgraded ...
Tall = Having few Worlds, Which are relatively highly developed, Which means their Buildings are relatively highly upgraded ...

That are my Definitions and I would rather see, that You colonize a new World, You start with 1 Tile + 1 POP, You have to invest into your Colony to get a second Tile, Which would randomly generated with Nothing or a native Resource and after You've got a second POP, You have the Permission to invest into your third Tile and so On and so On and so On ...

I think that with 1.5 Worlds are the wrong context for thinking of Tall vs Wide in Stellaris. Rather, you should think in terms of Systems for Tall vs Wide. You're going to want to develop every World to its fullest, but the question is how many resources do you put into each System.

Do you build Systems Tall, through terraforming, habitats, Ring Worlds, etc., thereby fully developing each System, or do you leave Systems under-developed and instead try to build Wide by establishing as many Systems as possible.

I think the Civilization concept of Tall vs. Wide still works, but you need to think of Systems as being the equivalent of Cities rather than individual Worlds. This also makes sense because the mechanics for restricting expansion (i.e Core vs Sector) are on System level rather than on the World level. This frame of mind didn't really work prior to 1.5 because the only way to develop a System was getting lucky end to have multiple habitable Worlds in a single System, and this came down more to luck than decision making. However, with the new mechanics in 1.5, it will be possible to build a System Tall.

 

[Foefaller]

Right now, Governeurs are a way to spend excess Influence. They give a few % of happyness and a boost according to their trait, in most cases irrelevant. Having one governeur per planet is plainly impossible (currently), and a waste of influence.

Unity changes a couple of mechanics in this regard and gives Governeurs an Unity-boosting effect, and there's a tradition tree that makes Governeurs cheapers and massively boosts leader slots. So that might become a thing.

Rulers are the leaders whose rank will now affect Unity. Govs will have their happiness bonus changed to reducing Unrest.

Which... I'm kinda mixed on? Happiness might be so-so on a close-to-capital core world, but on Sectors (especially distant sectors in non-collectivist Empires) a Rank 5 Gov providing was was effectively a free Monument of Purity with +10% happiness and is a massive bonus to keeping pops that had ethically diverged productive. Unrest sounds less useful on the surface, but I'm willing to hold on a final decision until I see what dealing with Unrest is like, especially with large and/or slaving Empires, which by most accounts will have to deal with a lot of it.

 

[Kayden_II]

The issue why this doesn't work is because you ALWAYS upgrade your buildings, completely regardless of whether you're going tall or wide.

You're almost right, but There's a tiny Problem ...

There is no reason ever not to, as long as you got avaible ressources.

Right, The real Issue is the Circumstance to have enough Resources to upgrade ALL your Buildings on ALL your Colonies/Habitats ...

And once all are upgraded, the planet hits a cap cannot be 'developed' further.

Which is exactly the Kind of Argument, that the Game could need more or infinite Upgrade-Possibilities to provide a real "tall" Play-Style ...

Planets are not affected by the choice 'do I get many planets or do I get more developed planets', since all planets will end up developed in due time.

Interesting, because in the same Manner, I could say, that It doesn't Matter whether to colonize additional Worlds (including Habitats) within your existing Borders ("tall" (Stellaris)) or to colonize/conquer Ones outside ("wide" (Stellaris)) since all Worlds will end as a Colony/Habitat in the Future ...

Which is a fine concept. But, rather obviously, one that Wiz doesn't intend to implement. Which means that, as nice as it is, it's completely irrelevant for Stellaris.

Good to know - I'm sorry Mr. Secretary of Paradoxia.

 

[Alblaka]

Right, The real Issue is the Circumstance to have enough Resources to upgrade ALL your Buildings on ALL your Colonies/Habitats ...

Of course, in the early-game, you barely have ressources to focus one thing properly. But by mid-game my colonies are never limited by minerals, but by build time, with 30+ buildings set to queue. I don't know whether that means I'm just great at micro'ing ressources to have them overflow by then, or whether this applies to everyone. But yeah, past the early-gasme, which is an own schtick in it's own right, minerals are not the cap for upgrading planets, to me.

Which is exactly the Kind of Argument, that the Game could need more or infinite Upgrade-Possibilities to provide a real "tall" Play-Style ...

I'm not disagreeing here, since I'm a fan of the Civ V tall style of play. Having some way of, less efficiently then plainly going wide through conquest, expanding further 'upwards' would be welcome to me.
But as Wiz said, it's not gonna happen, because the concept of aquiring additional pylo...planets is too fundamental to Stellaris' design and, unliteral quote, he doesn't see a way, nor a reason, to make 'truely tall' empires just as powerful as wide ones, with the sole exception being FE because hurdur ancient tech. That's why he, supposedly, went a direction where tall means 'boxed in by stronger neighbours, but able to less efficiently get more planets within own borders'. Probably fits the whole 'build your own RP space empire' better, too, if people insist on being able to play Pacifists/Isolationists.

Interesting, because in the same Manner, I could say, that It doesn't Matter whether to colonize additional Worlds (including Habitats) within your existing Borders ("tall" (Stellaris)) or to colonize/conquer Ones outside ("wide" (Stellaris)) since all Worlds will end as a Colony/Habitat in the Future ...

The difference is that Habitats/Terraforming takes long ans is expensive, whilst conquest/colonization is cheap. But conquest takes military interaction and colonization is limited by the avaible planets.
Of course, the outcome 'more planets' (commonly naming habitats as planets here, since they're very similar in function) is the same, but the quantity of planets gained per ressources invested is vastly different, and so is the other empire's reaction (i.e. both warmonger penalities and border friction are a thing, whilst noone will mind you expanding tall).

Good to know - I'm sorry Mr. Secretary of Paradoxia.

And that was just plain rude and I thought you to be better then that.