Vertical strategies

Since Frogboy's can't talk about them

from GalCiv3 Forums

Frogboy's just dropped the rumored bomb that we will get 'vertical' strategies, ways to win a 4X game without expanding too much. Different games do this different ways... Civ5 had ways to win that worked beat with small empires, and even had a faction that could only really have four cities without conquest (Venice).

Although marketing doesn't want Frogboy's to talk about it yet, we can certainly can. What are your ideas?

I think the key will have to be new ways to win. Especially ways that don't directly compete with expanders. Frogboy suggested allowing more citizens to work a building... Basically making more population on your few planets rather than expanding.

Another possibility is to make expansion more difficult, with fewer people per transport (realistic) and have colonization efforts be a big domestic political issue. Some political situations might favor fewer colonies in exchange for bonuses like the old political party bonuses.

Another way would be to have a cultural victory like in Civ, where all your worlds are paradises. This would then be difficult if you had.more worlds. You could get 'culture points ' based on the population and happiness of a world. More points could give you treats (like alignment), but the treats cost more the more planets you have (each planet has its own culture).

Finally, there could be an economic victory, based on your income per person and/or per planet. The richest population would win. This would emphasize trade as an avenue to victory, but.mighy require more wealth buildings.

The biggest problem I see with all of these ideas is that the vertical empire will naturally be quite vulnerable to larger empires. This deserves some thought.

 

12,800 views 10 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

The only real successful tall empire that is a significant power i can think of is Japan. Japan is strong not because they have the resources, but because they were able to buy land in other countries, and trade for the resources. I would have to say under the current class system this game is not set up for tall empires. Where civilization is set up better by not having on a limit of buildings. It would help by changing terraforming by allowing you to terriform all the tiles. 

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I looked it up there do see to be other tall countries on top. More than wide actually. I forgot about this post sorry. I guess stardocks idea was to give the homeworld more production, and increase how many stargazers a planet can have while limiting the number of total stargazers. Let's see if this works.

Galactic Civilizations III
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting admiralWillyWilber, reply 1

The only real successful tall empire that is a significant power i can think of is Japan. Japan is strong not because they have the resources, but because they were able to buy land in other countries, and trade for the resources. I would have to say under the current class system this game is not set up for tall empires. Where civilization is set up better by not having on a limit of buildings. It would help by changing terraforming by allowing you to terriform all the tiles. 

While your inspiration for this post, Japan, might have led you to the correct conclusion, the example of Japan as a tall empire, at least currently, is incorrect.  Japan's demographic trends commit it to a declining influence in the world for decades to come.  Any country which is devoting considerable resources to creating robots to console an aging childless population does not have a bright future.

Any Stardock change to GC3 to encourage tall empires must include much more terraforming to allow for more farms to allow for more population.

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting Publius, reply 3

Any Stardock change to GC3 to encourage tall empires must include much more terraforming to allow for more farms to allow for more population.

 

OR more efficient farms for tall empires, or higher pop cap for small empires. Or space habitats (residential starbases) that generate food and hold population for the nearest planet. These could be racial abilities.

Reply #5 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

In all honesty population capping will always hinder tall empires. 

Reply #6 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

You wouldn't need population near as much if you had flat production starbase modules.  You wouldn't even need population growth as much.  My thought is a module that gives 1 point production per turn at first tier, adds 2 points for second tier and adds 3 points at third tier, for a total of 6 per starbase.  This would give a tall economy a chance to be a late game monster.  

As the General pointed out, there are lots of alternatives.  Or....

Reply #7 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Quoting erischild, reply 6

You wouldn't need population near as much if you had flat production starbase modules.  You wouldn't even need population growth as much.  My thought is a module that gives 1 point production per turn at first tier, adds 2 points for second tier and adds 3 points at third tier, for a total of 6 per starbase.  This would give a tall economy a chance to be a late game monster.  

As the General pointed out, there are lots of alternatives.  Or....

 

Not right now, since a wide empire would have the same amount of starbases

(and a better chance to get more planets in range of a starbase)

Reply #8 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I definitely think the idea of special racial abilities as suggested above, is possibly a key to vertical strategies. Like India and Venice in Civ5 which have special abilities geared towards vertical strategies.

Reply #9 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Make wide empires more difficult to handle:

- Tie all production directly to population approval (100% approval = 100% production, 50% approval = 50% production, you get it), make it much harder to get max approval via approval buildings.

- Make approval dependent on the availablilty of certain goods (other games have the concept of "luxury goods", but how it's called is not important). E. g. no special goods available -> 50% approval cap no matter what approval buildings are on the planet; +10% approval cap for every unique special good available on planet.

- Distribute special goods (that have to be manufactured in certain buildings in sufficient amount) and food by actual freighters that can be attacked.

- Give planets stronger traits that make them especially suited for food production or production of one of the special goods.

- Give players the possibility to trade food and special goods from other factions, the occasional itinerant merchant and privately owned trade hubs.

So apart from all the new strategic possibilities (attack supply lines, attack or blockade or rob trade hubs, more diplomatic interaction with other factions, planning logistics, ...) the decision to play wide or tall comes down to: grabbing as many planets as possible for resources (but being forced to supply and guard them adequately) or developing few planets very far to optimize food and special goods production (by leveling up buildings so that self-produced and bought goods are processed more effectively) so that a tall empire becomes as much self sufficient and competitive as possible.

Reply #10 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I just had an idea...