Agreed, I prefer the old version.

They are specialization trees, not generalisation trees! You have to make choices! What's next, being able to be benevolent, pragmatic and malevolent at the same time with all the bonuses?

I am totally neutral on this as long as I can trade for most of them, but I can totally see the frustration by some. It makes no sense that you wouldn't research making a tech cheaper and smaller, as well as making it better.

Personally I always pick better because Cash is usually not a problem for me and there are other ways to create space. 

Maybe they should make the other options available down the line toward the end of the tree, since the other options usually don't come at the same time anyway. You could add some later techs that reopen the possibility of picking up the options you missed.

Sounds appropriate for a mod. I like it in the default game.

I vastly prefer the new system. Before, we had too many techs that did too little and there was really no meaningful choices because you could just grab them all.

Now, I feel like I have to earn my techs and my choices matter. Could the choices be made to be more difficult and less no-brainer? Sure, and that will come in time. But I prefer a game with meaningful choices rather than "gotta catch them all".

In many cases grabbing multiple specializations like you could before was sub optimal anyways. There are some exceptions but only really wanted 1 per branch. 

I absolutely DO NOT agree. What is the point in specialisations if they are just the same as any other tech?

"Tech tree has been shortened so much" and "cut lots of good stuff in the game" is complete bollocks, to be frank.

Mutually exclusive specialisations are exactly how they should have been all along. Hurray!

Putting some techs in a box and call them specializations its nothing but a limtation. If someone wants to research one of the thre he can and then invest in different tech ignoring the other two.

When I want to improve my ship tech I will learn to make it harder, cheaper, smaller why just one?

For example today computers are faster, smaller and cheaper than they were 20 years ago. GC3 has been suggesting all the time that things should not work in a realistic way but differently...

While I got excited with improvements in the game the same time I got more and more dissapointed of limitations and thiings that work "differently".

Like tech ages, tech specializations, improvements that you have to build the obsolete versions before the new one you just researched, no borders any race can enter your empire and build a starbase or colonize a planet. There are lots of things that were set as game's rules and mechanics, I kept playing and saying ok ok and then more and more... but at some point I say no.. I don't like this.. not anymore.

Is GC3 a good game? Sure it is, I like it a lot but all those issues have accumulated to the point I don't like it anymore.

If Stardock wants to set some new rules fine but it doesn't mean anyone likes them. Personally I won't be playing GC3 anymore, but I will keep reading hoping things will change or there will be mods to allow me play the game in a more realistic way with no limitations.

Conceptually, I much prefer a game where my choices make a difference in the long-run.  It makes the choices meaningful.  So, in concept, I much prefer having some areas of specialization which allow more strategy and planning.  In the ideology system, unfortunately, it is sort of a free for all - I would want them to be mutually exclusive, but would prefer if you have more points in one ideology, then the other ideologies cost more.

The game really does need something to make choices more meaningful- not just for a few turns, but for the rest of your game.  Civilizations make choices that effect their futures.  So, again, in concept, this is a good thing.

I think the problem is that, as it stands, there are too many specializations, effectively cutting out a decent chunk of the tech tree.  Also some specializations, it would seem logical to be able to just invest more time and then figure it out rather than be unable to do so.  However, I do think there should be researches that are mutually exclusive in order to make the choices matter.  

I am not in favor, at all, of a sandbox game in which, in the end, I always pretty much end up with all the same things every time.

In the end, I think this thing needs a bit of balancing.

+1.  And it is a challenge to get the others by diplomacy.  Better!!

Not happening. I am very very much against the idea of being able to pick all 3 specializations.  They're supposed to be a CHOICE you're making at the exclusion of the others.

The problem some of us have isn't so much being forced to make a choice (that's a separate discussion) it's that some of the choices make little sense and/or negatively impact gameplay.  I've been harping on Extreme Worlds a lot, but I think it's the most glaring problem.  People just aren't going to like being able to only fully upgrade two of their Extreme World type of planets.  The diplomacy option isn't always available or desirable.

The other major one that seems to be irksome to me at first glance is Invasion Tactics.  I can see why, say, choosing between faster engines or smaller engines makes sense from both a game balance and flavor viewpoint when researching a tech.  I can also see the thing about political parties being exclusive.  But when it comes to learning invasion tactics, less so.

Restricting what worlds are fully colonizable and being able to learn only a couple of invasion tactics is a step back from GC II.  Again, IMO.