We recommend you to use them whenever you play the game. Cons: Lots of micro, allows for a degree of dabbling in tall play for otherwise wide empires. When I look at some people's screenshots here, I see that some have naval caps in the 300's and 400's at the same time as I'm playing (early 24th century). 2 and before) because a wide and a "tall" empires will grow at the same rate, to about the same cap, with only some minor buffs for "tall" like mastery of nature that don't even come into play until later. Sorry mate but it kinda sounds more like you are just being a sore loser here. The biggest reason Wide is better than Tall is growth related. That also doesn't fix a billion unnecessary pop ups per game, half of the anomalies requiring manual intervention that consisted of "click buttan. It is clear, that Stellaris tries it. I'm considering turning down habitable worlds. 2 updated for 1. Paradox, Please Let Us Play Tall. Tall is NOT Pops over Systems. Nerfing wide to be as bad as tall just makes the game un-fun for everyone. 419K subscribers in the Stellaris community. There are many, many ways to play a militarist build. large number of poorly developed planets. So really it's up to you. Stellaris Real-time strategy Strategy video game Gaming. Tall really does not exist in Stellaris as you can be wide without expanding allot of territory. Before 2. If you play at lower difficulties, then the game is designed to be a chill roleplaying experience. This is your Definitive Guide for "How to Play Tall" in Stellaris Console Edition! If you want to learn in Stellaris How to Play Tall then this Stellaris Pla. ago. There are others (edict upkeep + tradition cost) but the research penalty seems to be the most meaningful part given how rapidly a high. First things first, let's talk definitions - I describe 'going tall' in Stellaris as simply restricting oneself to never having sectors. Your empire’s planet is going to explode. Unyielding lets you support more Starbases, which means more room for Hydroponics buildings, which means more food without needing to devote pops to producing it. Fluffy-Tanuki Agrarian Idyll • 4 mo. 6 put the nails in the coffin, but Tall had one patch where it was "good" and that was quickly fixed. 2. 0 changed that, claiming systems increases tech cost as well as planets, but now population doesn't increase tech cost. But then when I open it I can't close it for hours every time. Unless something major crops up, the next Stellaris update is expected to be the 3. Spreading all over the map is playing wide. On easy difficulties though, wide is better than tall most of the time. I usually play "tall" by keeping my empire rather small, and instead subjugating as. But what exac. The problem is that it wasn't obvious because of. That's not the definition of Wide or Tall as per Stellaris, the actual game. In Stellaris, you don't make that choice. If you play at higher difficulties, then it’s supposed to be hard. In Stellaris, sometimes the best origins to choose are the ones that will give you a greater challenge. Branch offices provide you a large income supplement, particularly credits, allowing you to focus your own economy. Relic world start is pretty good if you can get a few planets to fuel. You cannot go tall, becuase you have already cut off your legs and stumped your hands by going standard hive. Technocracy is amazing for more research gains. ago. Created by Robinicus. There is no tall game-play in Stellaris, in the sense of having a very few or small number of super planets vs. The best way to play is to have as close to zero empire size whilst having the biggest science income. Too many planets to manage. 1 rules, the best way to play Tall was to reduce the number of systems you controlled. As tall you need one. Often multiple playstyles apply and synergize. 0. 6 did: it removed the single functionality that provided a mechanical incentive. Pick the difficulty level that matches the challenge you want to face. Also without guaranteed worlds if your unlucky you're forced to go to war or go tall. This along with the +25% growth from devouring swarm AND +15% food bonus means some crazy fast breeding. also if you're mass vassalizing that's not really tall play, that's just playing wide with extra steps. demotronics • 5 yr. Weekly PSA's PSA- the definition of playing wide is disputed, and many people use systems as opposed to planets as the model in Stellaris. They are more diplomatic than a typical empire, as you'll want at least a couple friends to establish commercial pacts with and build branch offices on their places. The benefit from playing Tall should be that you make amends, and strong alliances with nearby neighbors, you're not a threat, and they like that. . I've taken the society tech for a 10% naval capacity increase once or twice. 6. My recent game on insane I managed to beat the game (Huge map, 30 empires, 8 advanced and 4 fallen) in 2400 with only 5 planets in 2350. Currently it's 2460, there are 39 empires, I'm the permanent Galactic Custodian. Indentured Servitude is the best kind of slavery, as it has the fewest job restrictions. In Civ 5, taking tradition and limiting yourself to 4 cities for most of the game typically means your cities will grow much faster than if you play wide. 7. Megacorp fits very neatly for tall empires, given trade's (somewhat) reduced reliance on planets and pops, and their penalty to empire size. I keep seeing stuff around the internet about 2. In a perfect run you would just grow large nough to start the vassalisation chain and then even shrink yourself a bit if over 100. Megacorp is probably my favorite thing in Stellaris. I don't understand how playing tall in this game works. NB: this is system not planet. I am enjoying playing "Tall" and focusing on tech, planets etc. 2. The only playstyle I do not enjoy is playing with vassals, because I do not fully understand how to make that work and the little bits I do understand just make it seem rather bland. The benefits of playing tall are as follows: Smaller empires are easier to manage. We will be (almost). A place to share content, ask questions and/or talk about the 4X grand strategy game Stellaris by Paradox Development Studio. Guaranteed Special System Spawn. I would however definitely recommend getting Utopia as soon as you can though, the sheer volume of content across all game phases. Bribe them, then submit to vassalisation. You misunderstood what "tall" means in Stellaris. • 2 yr. Today I have the first new basic build in a while. ago. S Tier Origins in Stellaris. Tall vs Wide. I feel that nihilistic aquisition is the KEY to playing tall. I would say the same happens playing tall. Related. That destroys federations) remove term limit. But the tall/wide distinction isn’t all that meaningful in Stellaris — you’re still managing more worlds and taking up more empire size, just in a smaller geographical space. What i would really like, is to play a geographically small empire but with high population planets and systems (i believe it's possible to have pops on a space platform, but i never seen them). In reality it would be just the same wide play, just with fewer systems. 2 I would venture to say the consensus is wide game play is going over the administration cap and tall is staying under it. ”. 3 comments. Which requires lots of claimed stars and colonized planets. Empire strategy that minimizes empire size. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but people who play tall are "wrong". CK2 took around 8 years until the release of ck3. I like tall play style but it currently requires more resource density and pop efficiency to work. 9K Share Save 312K views 2 years ago #Stellaris #Tutorial The first 1000. At 200 population (which isn't big enough. Weekly PSA's PSA- the definition of playing wide is disputed, and many people use systems as opposed to planets as the model in Stellaris. In previous patches, especially before 3. "Tall" in Stellaris isn't doing more with less, it's just having less. Stack research until you burst, playing tall without Megacorp or Inward Perfection is tricky, and the problem is that going wide will almost always work out better for you, even with DLC. Unlike Civ, in Stellaris "tall" isn't about same output from fewer (but more developed) planets. Tips on playing wide? So i am trying to play more wide and less tall but i seem to have a problem. You stick to yourself, and they like it. Though I do think it will be similar to other gs games were playing wide is by far the best strategy and building tall is more something to do while waiting for the next war or something. Advice Wanted. Breeding them takes to long. The whole purpose of playing tall used to be to avoid going over admin cap which kept your research, campaigns, and leaders cheaper. Forcing it to inevitably conquer them as time goes on No it doesn't. A place to share content, ask questions and/or talk about the 4X grand strategy…The main problem is that Stellaris is a game of resources and pops are the most precious one, tall empires are awful in those regards and they also run the risk of lagging behind in the tech department which is bad. If for Civ 5 difference between small and tall does not matter, it is fine, it is a different game. I believe this is OPS's most valuable asset. There is still no better or more successful way to play the game than tech rush, expand like a virus and maxing out your fleet. 2; 1; Reactions: Reply. Base habitat, with the size modifier, will have maybe half population growth from size penalties. HappySack Mar 25 @ 3:07am. Sure, a 1000-pop tall empire with 25 planets/habitats isn’t big by Stellaris standards, but that’s still 500 billion people. I've read on here that playing tall in 2. There are several reasons for this but the primary factors are how pops are obtained, how resources are produced, and the way new things are created. RodHull (Banned) Apr 22, 2021 @ 2. Your main species is fine for gaia worlds and relic worlds, but anything else will require a different species. Part 1 is intended for beginners and explains the basics of roleplaying as well as how to integrate it into your games. 2 or 1. I don't know what version you're playing, but population growth is glacial in 3. If you play habitats you can get more resources from jobs without actually taking up more space. Depeding on how many other empires there are, and where you are located, this can be a way to stay "tall" and dont have the feeling of that you are "wasting" systems out there. Build a world cracker or pacifier, declare war, and proceed to destroy all their habitable planets to wipe out the other empires and win a conquest victory. Spoken like someone who isn’t even seven feet tall! Step 1: get boxed in by superior powers. Tall doesn't mean you can't expand. If there was a way for even more primatives and most empires playing tall and maybe a few colonies, with most of their fleets coming from federations, then that would be a more true star trek scenario. If you want to play a Machine Empire with a special starting world, you could pick the origin that starts you on a Machine world. playing tall or wide doesnt matter if you play in singleplayer BUT playing tall in. It's a playstyle meant for defense and not offense. Part 2 focuses on creating your civilization both in and out of game. In Civ 4, which is an actual 4x game unlike Stellaris, playing "tall" is viable. Conventional wisdom is that playing wide is easier than playing tall, but my experience has been the opposite. Best. Until now, playing “wide” and securing as much territory as possible was considered the only way to stay competitive with rival Empires. Okay, first things first, if you PLAN to play tall go for the pacifist build and just switch out later on. Low empire size penalties. Playing tall is more viable now, there will be buildable habitats which are basically small planets and the new unity mechanic will also favour smaller empires. If you're playing a standard planetary economy, you are either going to need to expand or get yourself some vassals. This ironically makes the Expansion tradition really good for tall builds, since it gives bonuses to both Admin cap and pop growth speed. Megacorps are a solid empire-type. Tall strategies focus on having a few cities packed into smaller territory but much more heavily upgraded. ago. I would say going tall is even more viable now. The former is obvious as the pops system makes it all but impossible. (Not super-tall though, as in one planet, but only 8 planets and. That efficiency allows your small area to develop fast and do lots with your space, with growth exceeding cap. While playing tall was pretty much building a lot of frontier outposts and having at most 3-4 planets. Then again: No pops, no win in Stellaris. Okokok this is a pretty cool story, but of a long one but still. This includes systems such as the Sanctuary ringworld system, the system with the planet Zanaam and any special systems in the DLC (if you have the appropriate DLC). The tall playstyle dines like a gourmet only picking the very best and shunning the crud. hirtes Mar 29, 2020 @ 6:30am. "Tall" in Stellaris isn't doing more with less, it's just having less. Open menu Open navigation Go to Reddit Home. Playstyles are how a player plans to tackle playing or even winning the game. I never played a Tall game before and usually rarely peaceful lol But sounds like a lot fun. And Ringworlds would still have that drawback. Playing tall or playing wide, which is better!? Most players start by building and advancing their empires in stellaris with a typical : expand, then build out planets and other parts. 3 is a bad idea. The concept of playing tall is not a fixed one, it kinda depends on how you see it. Play tall on the short term, get bio ascension, make sturdy and strong pops, then start a conquering spree. One of the biggest changes is the name change from Empire Sprawl. Playing Stellaris and EU4 Links updated for new forum March 31, 2015 Download the Fix-it-Yourself Pack for HoI 1. . I won by playing a Megacorp. Enjoy your stratified society. Essentially, tall and wide shouldn’t be wildly different as far as pop count goes. Play fanatic pacifist,Use megacorp only in early game,After 3rd civic slot,Convert to democracy,Use Functional Architecture,Beacon of Liberty,Meritocracy. Tall empires. Hey guys, I'm not very good at this game, i played 3 times on ensign now and i have not really become more powerful than other civilizations. This is going to be my updated take on the basic builds. Megacorp fits very neatly for tall empires, given trade's (somewhat) reduced reliance on planets and pops, and their penalty to empire size. Nothing you do by restricting planets/ habitats offers you anything which you do not get when going wide. 2;. You could try to beat the Fallen. you can gain a significant advantage in tech and traditions by focussing on a small number of large, well developed worlds. | Paradox Interactive Forums. Playing tall and thinking about it cause 1 choke point that's a black hole with 3 planets and and a system that's huge and takes a bit to traverse sounds great to lock my empire behind since I'm playing tall. Enslaving conquered populations is tricky and requires a lot of pop shuffling. I recently abandoned a game where I was a spiritualist empire, because I started in a location where I was boxed in by two friendly spiritualist empires. Any void dwellers build with militarist. ago A common misunderstanding is that playing tall means having a small number of systems. What I do at the. With that just build as much farming and later industry and become. This is a synergy-guide, not a min-max guide, for playing Necrophage origin. Wide players would probably be running more like +400% costs and +200% tech/unity costs (I consider myself a traditionally wide player though my recently completed Le Guin game was a bit more. Playing tall helps with the overwhelming amount of micro that Stellaris sometimes requires. like clone army origin - can make some viable tall builds, but ultimately playing tall is intentionally handicapping yourself at this point (including in the 3. Jul 10, 2023. And size of empire directly influences size of your navy. Going into the fir. It would mimick a wide. NB: this is system not planet. walter. I played Stellaris after the release, but that is long time ago and since EU4 became "RTS grand strategy with historical flavour, too streamlined mission trees for some countries and way too RNG-dependent in some cases", I would like to give Stellaris a shot. 7. Semi-tall. In practice this means you build Habitats, Ring-Worlds, Dyson Sphere and Science Nexus. Step 3. 8 no DLC. It’s not a case of habitats being bad for robots, it’s more that their 100% habitability on all planets goes against the tall playstyle. Admin cap is super important since you're more sensitive to sprawl penalty. 48. Go for Bio-Ascension for cloning vats. You'll have to resettle, buy slaves or aquire more pops later to fill this world. It doesn't work in Stellaris (at least in 3. The other main reason is that pure machine empires only rely on energy for unity and research production, which makes playing tall weaker than wide since you won’t have as many planets to turn into pure energy worlds, meaning less specialization meaning less production-per-pop. Fan demand for equally balanced tall playstyles has hindered game enjoyability. HopeFox • 6 yr. Compare Stellaris. Playing tall will give you a hefty chunk of feeling like a plotter, a devious schemer who carefully plans his eventual ascension to near godhood. Sadly, space gnomes have not been confirmed, so we'll probably be forced to play tall. So you can play builds that are better at tall but your going to lose out late game. All Discussions Screenshots Artwork Broadcasts Videos Workshop News Guides Reviews. But it doesn't. 3 a LOT. Originally posted by twistedmelon: Tall is still a strategy, but it is more grey. My idea was to play domination and build out solid core worlds and maybe a small sector with very strong defense and then go out and subjugate the other empires. Each planetary ascension level is a 25% increase base, so with all of those three boosts that becomes a 43. Stellaris. Toggle signature. Wide. In 3. 1 rules, the best way to play Tall was to reduce the number of systems you controlled. Tall builds could opt for a characteristic that gives them a tech boost but at the cost of maybe doubling the influence needed for outposts. Jump to latest Follow Reply. The guaranteed strategic resources is helpful if you end up not having any in your corner of space (plus it gives higher chances of researching those techs for extraction). Go fanatic xenophile. Many people seem to have a misconception what "tall" means in Stellaris. Trying to conquer whole empire's as soon as met them and have a stronger fleet. I could just settle and terraform more planets to make more stations, but that is a long term and expensive process. Tall vs wide isn’t really something that makes sense in context of stellaris or real history. Being able to work a wider variety of jobs is far more important than the small bonuses the other types of slavery get. Since your research requirements go up per each planet you colonize I find for me personally that it is better to only colonize larger worlds (15 tiles or more minimum). Every game I'm like "okay in gonna find the nearest choke points and play tall" and never actually do unless I get boxed in. But wide in Stellaris doesnt require any more work to maintain and keep stable, so its hard to ever make Tall the more viable option without changes that just make playing wide miserable. Playing tall in Stellaris has always been a mean and not an end. There also needs to be a way to join and white peace in-progress wars when you aren't the primary target (say, costing influence). Less pops equals less resources. 8 ‘Gemini’ release during Q2. 0 anglers got stronger. The angler build is still a solid choice. Thread starter Tuna Cat;. How to win at Stellaris: Play Wormhole only. it's important to understant that this advantage is a temporary thing. Now that every system increases tech costs by a flat rate playing tall is merely minmaxxing system ownership. Take the ocean paradise origin, for the traits take thrifty, agrarian, repugnant, and nonadaptive. Even before 2. One of the biggest changes is the name change from Empire Sprawl. It is how the terms have worked for the majority of games since I was paying by the minute to access the internet. If you don't have to fight anyone for that space, it's free space, take it. 2 councillor traits out of 3 is good enough for me. Pop growth scales linearly with the number of colonies you own. I'm a poor guy, can't afford the DLC. This would be opposed to expanding further into space through star bases or. Go for Bio-Ascension for cloning vats. Making this a great strategy for beginners to try out. Thinking about playing stellaris is boring, I don't wanna open the game. And in a game about choice the choice to play Tall or Wide should actually matter. One thing you can watch out for is that each precursor has areas of the map where their events can spawn. We have "wide with many systems" and "wide with few systems, but those systems contain thirty billion habitats". Build Starbase at choke points, not on all outposts. I have been thinking about something like this since playing a tall Void Dwellers game right after a very successful wide Overtuned game, but the work involved in sorting it all out was. Set Galaxy to 4 Spiral Arm. That's what 2. I actually don't particularly dislike this change, but this was how I got. Acquire nihilistic acquisition (requires apocalypse dlc) and then try to fight long wars where you capture as many pops as possible. It is great for high difficulties because you don’t have to attack the really powerful empires and can get them to pathetic by mid to late game. ISO system juust flexible enough to accommodate both c. You can rightfully play this by ONLY claiming systems with huge planets with lots of room for research and skipping over systems with. All in all though I think this build I'm playing is more static than I like. 3. Currently in 2. . Remember, planet growth slows when you are expanding, so a constant early game expansion slows your making use of said things. Versus AI its possible to play tall but its harder than wide. So going "tall" is just shooting yourself in the foot. And it can help a lot of your species has traits like intelligent or strong to take advantage of the bonuses, every plus 5% can help your empire survive longer. In that case, megacorp is always good, and void dweller will help overcome the main downside of tall: not enough planets. The player "developed" these systems to the heights of their abilities, using Habitats and Ringworlds. This guide was made for basic Stellaris Version Adams 1. Flashbacks to Vic 2 sphere system. Things have changed now, and playing tall is far from the powerhouse strategy it once was. and the edicts and all the other bonuses from low empire size aren't enough as a semi wide empire would be. Going into the fir. This may promote a "tall" growth of your empire, certainly helped by the presence of the Ecumenopolis, however this is a strategy that still has to find its place in the Stellaris meta. Tall vs Wide in Stellaris isn't a dichotomy, but rather a spectrum from one extreme to the other. A small mod that actually re-balances the Tall vs. . As quill is trying to get 200 years of peace achievement. 2) Optimize Production Methods edict An edict with a base cost of 300 influence and a base duration of 10 years that increases resources from jobs by 50%. OP, there currently is no such thing as a tall build for this game. Stellaris isn't designed for playing tall really. . You can mix and match whatever civics, ethics, and traits as you wish but fanatic xenophile will significantly help if you’re going down the trade route, and functional architecture helps void dwellers if you choose to go. That's a 70% increase. Unlike Civ, we don't really have a hard dichotomy that swings one way or the other. Wide empires have more pops. Traits wise, probably grab the usual Deviant Unruly Intelligent Natural Engineer combination. Yup. In Stellaris the game naturally flows for you to be playing Wide and the only way to play tall is by stacking habitats and/or ringworlds in your territory to make up for the lack of actual habitable planets you may find yourself with. . In Stellaris, some people play tall by only using a single planet, some go for a small number, like your starting 3, etc. Corporation (almost mandatory for a tall empire) With aquatic + agrarian + thriffy = maximum performance for food and trade value. 23. In some updates, it was a very effective strategy to get ahead technologically and get early ascensions - it's much less the case now. "Tall" as compared to "wide" is generally presumed to be going really high development on a low number of cities/planets (depending on your game), rather than low development of a high number of cities. For this approach, you'd want origins that can benefit as early as possible from. We have another 2. However its not completely ridiculous as a way to differentiate play styles. the tech tree ends at some point and the. Megastructures will further boost tall play style. But you're right. Highly stable, unified group thats close proximity keeps together. Those would be some of the most basic types of non-linear mechanic which could make Tall play start to exist. Go to Stellaris r/Stellaris • by Nimitz-View community ranking In the Top 1% of largest communities on Reddit. Tall since well, ever, hasn’t been a great option but now more. Usually, when I'm playing tall I only have 6-8 worlds and go maybe 25%-50% over my admin cap, but 90 total is only enough admin cap to have maybe 4 worlds and some systems without significantly going over. 0 growth). And orbital habitats rule. Playing tall refers to the strategy of empowering a small realm. If you play habitats you can get more resources from jobs without actually taking up more space. building tall is more of an opening strategy, not a long term playstyle. ) Tip. This is really very unplayable for me, i hate playing wide, and playing tall I just. 8 tall isn't as viable anymore, can anyone give me a fleshed out strategy/perspective?If you're playing wide that sprawl is very low. Playing tall may make that a waste of a perk though. Diplomacy options just feels like a bandaid to try and force a play style that doesn't exist. Communal: Since you’re going to be playing tall, stuffing more people in houses is useful. The only way I can define Tall in Stellaris is when you focus heavily on science from day one to make your POP more efficient. The faster you can do it, the less likely other corps can get them from you. I have read a lot that playing wide, after 3. If you end up in an empty corner of the galaxy with a lot of space to yourself, playing tall is just a pure handicap. This is going to be my updated take on the basic builds. Stellaris. . Good tall player should get atleast 15 habitats in 2230,Synthetic Evolution before 2260. HopeFox • 6 yr. Planets and habitats within the same system counts as one system (but all there pops go towards pops penalty) The 0,01 penalty is the 1% penalty to research for each pop over 10 you have in your kingdom. Machine, Hive Mind, Megacorp, Regular - Which are best for Tall play and which for Wide play?. It's basically how you use your influence. After spending 82 let’s play episodes on insane difficulty (watch it here: ) testing the viability of a tall. Could you. You can have 1/3rd of the galaxy and only 20 colonies, or 15 sectors and 50 habitats.