I created a hive mind synthetic faction with collectivism. Hive mind helps a lot just as most traits in collectivism for tall empires. I think the game might need production overflow in shipyards to help tall empires compensate for the massive military production difference.
not convinced there is 'Tall' strategy to be had here, also there are some MUST grab techs (eyes of the universe, Razar's Lift, Kazar's Mainframe, Beacon of Babylon) - so it's a wide rush in several directions with a switch to military to get those civs left with 1 core planet :D I'd argue 'Tall' is in the army composition where one can chose between many smaller ships/fleets or bigger ships with arguably better/more equipment. Tall vs Wide is better left for the better card games out there (Flesh and Blood)
I've won games with just one Core World on higher difficulty settings without using/abusing any of the galactic wonders, and it's challenging but quite doable.
@@battlemode not saying it's undo-able or impossible - just not a strategy as open and supported as going wide - there are no tools specially made for going Tall... for example: if i have 1 attack per turn and i have 3 buffs for single attacks - i know i can go Tall... if i have 3 attacks per turn and 1 buff that provides +1 to all attacks - i know i can go wide (; i'm saying the game does NOT provide tools to go Tall - it's just something you can do for funzies
Thanks Ben. I asked about this before. But never thought it would be feasible in GalCiv. I suppose when playing tall the feeder colonies will be vulnerable as you have a small fleet and one shipyard to rebuild lost ships. Would be cool if you can make orbital structures to expand population and production. Eg like Dyson spheres etc
I think the decay is a really good setup which allows players to play tall, yet wide. I hope there'll be a mid/end-game star base which could work as a decay relay in the future so we can hook up planets far away while still being profitable. The shipyards are something I'm not very happy with when playing tall though. Sure I might play tall but I still generally have a large territory. I don't only need to defend 1 planet, but also many decay planets and star bases further away. Especially mining star bases for specific resources like black matter. A solution would be to make star bases more powerful by, for example, allowing all weapon modules on any star base so they can reliably defend themselves. But a better solution, in my opinion, would be to have upgrades for shipyards allowing more projects/ships to be built by dividing the production the shipyards get. For example; a "tier 3" shipyard gets 99 production from their sponsor planet, but instead of putting all 99 into the first item in their queue it'll send 33 production spread over the first 3 items in the queue. It can also be simpler, like having a "tier 3" shipyard overflow their production to a max of 3 items in their queue. I like the upgrade because this can be balanced by needing tech (making at least a couple of techs actually important to unlock) while also costing a decent amount to upgrade upfront. You also still need the production, and don't just produce 2 ships at the cost of 1. And it can be made into perks for a civ to allow them to upgrade shipyards one additional time, for example. Either way I'm enjoying the game as is. Good luck and thanks for the video.
Great video Battlemode :) I've always been more of a tall player, might explain why I've often struggled in past games :D Playing Wide meant forcing myself to do something I'm not keen into doing
Great video! What starting settings do you recommend? I find that I almost always start to close to other players. And I say "far" then they are way to far.
I appreciate the attention to both tall and wide gameplay but I think all modern 4X games remain pretty stagnant in terms of innovation until a developer takes a serious look at what it means to "win" in these games. I get that traditionally it's always about being the biggest and the best, ultimately all roads lead to domination (whether through culture, science or sheer military strength) but it doesn't have to be that way. I'd like to see campaigns where the aim is just to simply co-exist for long periods of time - 1000, 2 or even 3000 turn long games where empires become established and continue to be refined over long periods of time, strong alliances and trade, etc. Modern concepts of the "win conditions" need to be reexamined, IMO.
Hi, BATTLEMODE here. I'm the voice of the narrator yes, in all the languages that are in game :) Can you notice a difference between how my voice sounds here and what the narrators voice sounds like?
Please, I kindly ask you to retranslate it into Korean. It looks like it was translated by AI, but an old AI, and there are many parts where the translation is strange and doesn't make sense
Proliferation is completely broken. If you'd look at it from a Math POV: You build a ship with lets say 100HP, 10Atk etc. (rest stats aren't that important for my example). With Proliferation you get 2 ships instead of 1, but have -25% HP which means that you get 2 ships with 75 HP and 10Atk etc. (All stats except HP are the same). This means that in total with Proliferation you get: 150HP 20Atk etc. You get almost 200% value. Thats not fair...
Not really. In practice, unless you're in your own sector you're going to run up against the enemy before you start to snowball. The Mimot have quite a low win-rate as that -25% HP on fleets is a massive deal. Also, the AI is pretty good at declaring war on a winning player if they start getting too strong, so getting too big too early means you're going to end up with every AI on the map wanting to kick your ass. There's more nuance to the game than first appears.
I created a hive mind synthetic faction with collectivism. Hive mind helps a lot just as most traits in collectivism for tall empires.
I think the game might need production overflow in shipyards to help tall empires compensate for the massive military production difference.
This is a perfect explanation of the subject matter. Well done!
Glad you enjoyed it!
not convinced there is 'Tall' strategy to be had here, also there are some MUST grab techs (eyes of the universe, Razar's Lift, Kazar's Mainframe, Beacon of Babylon) - so it's a wide rush in several directions with a switch to military to get those civs left with 1 core planet :D
I'd argue 'Tall' is in the army composition where one can chose between many smaller ships/fleets or bigger ships with arguably better/more equipment.
Tall vs Wide is better left for the better card games out there (Flesh and Blood)
I've won games with just one Core World on higher difficulty settings without using/abusing any of the galactic wonders, and it's challenging but quite doable.
@@battlemode not saying it's undo-able or impossible - just not a strategy as open and supported as going wide - there are no tools specially made for going Tall... for example: if i have 1 attack per turn and i have 3 buffs for single attacks - i know i can go Tall... if i have 3 attacks per turn and 1 buff that provides +1 to all attacks - i know i can go wide (;
i'm saying the game does NOT provide tools to go Tall - it's just something you can do for funzies
Thanks Ben. I asked about this before. But never thought it would be feasible in GalCiv. I suppose when playing tall the feeder colonies will be vulnerable as you have a small fleet and one shipyard to rebuild lost ships. Would be cool if you can make orbital structures to expand population and production. Eg like Dyson spheres etc
You're going to have to defend the Colonies, but losing them isn't so important as losing a Core World
I think the decay is a really good setup which allows players to play tall, yet wide. I hope there'll be a mid/end-game star base which could work as a decay relay in the future so we can hook up planets far away while still being profitable.
The shipyards are something I'm not very happy with when playing tall though. Sure I might play tall but I still generally have a large territory. I don't only need to defend 1 planet, but also many decay planets and star bases further away. Especially mining star bases for specific resources like black matter. A solution would be to make star bases more powerful by, for example, allowing all weapon modules on any star base so they can reliably defend themselves. But a better solution, in my opinion, would be to have upgrades for shipyards allowing more projects/ships to be built by dividing the production the shipyards get. For example; a "tier 3" shipyard gets 99 production from their sponsor planet, but instead of putting all 99 into the first item in their queue it'll send 33 production spread over the first 3 items in the queue. It can also be simpler, like having a "tier 3" shipyard overflow their production to a max of 3 items in their queue.
I like the upgrade because this can be balanced by needing tech (making at least a couple of techs actually important to unlock) while also costing a decent amount to upgrade upfront. You also still need the production, and don't just produce 2 ships at the cost of 1. And it can be made into perks for a civ to allow them to upgrade shipyards one additional time, for example.
Either way I'm enjoying the game as is. Good luck and thanks for the video.
Great video Battlemode :)
I've always been more of a tall player, might explain why I've often struggled in past games :D
Playing Wide meant forcing myself to do something I'm not keen into doing
Great video! What starting settings do you recommend? I find that I almost always start to close to other players. And I say "far" then they are way to far.
I'd drop the number of Civs to a few less than recommended, that'll ensure you get more space.
I appreciate the attention to both tall and wide gameplay but I think all modern 4X games remain pretty stagnant in terms of innovation until a developer takes a serious look at what it means to "win" in these games. I get that traditionally it's always about being the biggest and the best, ultimately all roads lead to domination (whether through culture, science or sheer military strength) but it doesn't have to be that way. I'd like to see campaigns where the aim is just to simply co-exist for long periods of time - 1000, 2 or even 3000 turn long games where empires become established and continue to be refined over long periods of time, strong alliances and trade, etc. Modern concepts of the "win conditions" need to be reexamined, IMO.
Dude, are you the voice of the tutorial robot in the game?
Hi, BATTLEMODE here. I'm the voice of the narrator yes, in all the languages that are in game :)
Can you notice a difference between how my voice sounds here and what the narrators voice sounds like?
Please, I kindly ask you to retranslate it into Korean. It looks like it was translated by AI, but an old AI, and there are many parts where the translation is strange and doesn't make sense
Proliferation is completely broken.
If you'd look at it from a Math POV:
You build a ship with lets say 100HP, 10Atk etc. (rest stats aren't that important for my example).
With Proliferation you get 2 ships instead of 1, but have -25% HP which means that you get 2 ships with 75 HP and 10Atk etc. (All stats except HP are the same). This means that in total with Proliferation you get: 150HP 20Atk etc. You get almost 200% value. Thats not fair...
Not really. In practice, unless you're in your own sector you're going to run up against the enemy before you start to snowball. The Mimot have quite a low win-rate as that -25% HP on fleets is a massive deal. Also, the AI is pretty good at declaring war on a winning player if they start getting too strong, so getting too big too early means you're going to end up with every AI on the map wanting to kick your ass. There's more nuance to the game than first appears.
@@battlemode mimot do not win because their start is disasterous, not because Proliferation isn't strong.
It's not only at the cost of 25% health. It also is at the cost of a perk point.
Please correct the Polish language!