PS Some of the specialisations, I wonder how they function/work

 For instance in research I came upon a choice for a ruling party, which asked me to choose between more money/more influence / more manufacturing etc.

 I choose one, but I also traded another with the Iconians +/- 40 turns after I had researched my own. So, what does this mean, I suddenly have two ruling parties now, and have the positive effects from both? And can even acquire a third one?

 To be honest , I didn't see much change after I acquired this technology (choose +20% influence myself, acquired +20% manufacturing), and also I think this concept feels really odd.

I like the thought that exclusive techs lead to certain choices thereby forcing you to think twice about spending research points, and ways your empire grows. But I think it should indeed be an option, or perhaps something which could be setup through the faction design screen (f.i. very clever races can research all)?

But I also understand that this would have serious consequences for the tech tree, or the plan the team had for the tech tree.

* Tech tree should be distinctive between different civ's

* Certain exclusive options should lead to different game experiences

If you want to maintain this, certain techs should also not be able to be traded (like the example of the ruling party I mentioned), and I still think it is strange that certain tech tree elements can be traded, because they have a Mutual effect/ (probably also a Mutual pace in the general schematic of the tech tree) (f.i. the slavepits from the Drenghi), but you are not able to build the possible assets attached to them.

Seems that there are a lot of conflicting idea's and decisions at the moment.

After playing a few games with them, I am against the specializations. Short and Sweet.

I've been suggesting mutually exclusive techs this whole time.

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.  

[/quote]

I could see this for techs everyone needs no matter what the choice is.

Technological progression does not eliminate the possibility of design tradeoffs. In many ways, it opens the field for ever larger degrees of specialization. Relative to when the technology was introduced, yes, the average component is probably "smaller, cheaper, faster, more powerful" etc. However, relative to the market, you will generally not see one component which is simultaneously smaller, cheaper, more powerful, and just generally better than everything else on the market. This latter bit is where the specialization technologies fit in (or at least should fit); they're not global improvements from the maturation of the technology, but rather the benefits and penalties you get from the tradeoffs you chose to make.

To provide some concrete examples, let's take computers. There's a single-core 1GHz computer with 512MB RAM and 512MB flash memory (~= hard drive) currently on the market that sells for ~$150. There's an 80MHz single core computer with 512K flash and 128K RAM that sells for ~$100 (no, those numbers are not mistakes; I really do mean 80 megahertz, 512 kilobytes, and 128 kilobytes). Netbooks are available for ~$100+ and have capabilities seemingly superior to either of these. Decent laptops might cost several hundred dollars more. You know what the difference is? The tradeoffs made to get the end product. That 1GHz computer? It's smaller than my thumb, has 802.11G, Bluetooth, a MicroSD card slot, and several physical connections for other components (specifically, a camera and an expansion board), and it's lightweight and low power. That 80MHz computer? It's intended as a teaching and development tool, and has all kinds of peripheral connections you might normally see only one or two of on a normal embedded processor (and for that matter, embedded processors have a tendency to be even more limited in their capabilities, because you're trading off quite a bit of unnecessary capability to make them small, low-power, and cheap).

When talking about specialization, especially in the context of video games where you typically do not get to see everything else that should be going on, it makes plenty of sense for there to be cheap components, powerful components, and efficient components, but not cheap, powerful, and efficient components. It does not matter that cheap components in the year 2225 are smaller, more powerful, and cheaper than those which existed in the year 2200. That aspect of progression is covered by global improvements like Miniaturization technologies and generic industrial output bonus techs. Component specialization is about how you choose to apply your technology - you have a basic part, let's call it A. You can make some tradeoffs to make it smaller (A-I), or cheaper (A-II), or more efficient (A-III). Maybe 20 years from now, the technological descendent of part A (which I will call B ) will be all three of these things by comparison with part A, but you shouldn't be comparing B to A in this manner, what matters is how B-I, B-II, and B-III (the descendents of A-I, A-II, and A-III) compare, and all three of these are still likely to be trading between size, power, efficiency, cost, etc, when compared to their base form B, just like A-I, A-II, and A-III were in comparison to their base form A.

My point is that as time goes by with technology a culture figures out how to make those things cheaper, smaller and better, just not all at the same time.  Exactly like researching a tech, then moving to something else and in 10 turns or so coming back to the specialization and picking the first "specialization" then in another 10 or so turns coming back for a second because its easy to do now and a bit later deciding to pick up that last one.  

In a video game you don't get the wide range of things in real life, your example of a good laptop that costs more is the new tech you just got, the $100 computer is the older tech that has all of the "specializations."  This is why I keep saying the "specializations" ARE NOT specializations, they ARE optimizations/efficiencies.  Optimizations are the natural progression of technology.  You entire third paragraph is exactly my point, what is treated as specializations for each and every portion of the tech tree should be in their own line in the tech tree that applies to all components, miniaturization, manufacturing efficiency(cheaper), component efficiency(better) rather than "specializations" for each and every part of the tech tree.  

So then they just have to re-balance the choices. Maybe something like +1 Food, +1 Level to Farms (+0.5 Food per Farm), or +10% Food

Firstly, I do like the concept that certain choices should be EXCLUSIONARY - picking one option should preclude you from *EVER* getting the others (whether via research or trading or bonus).   It certainly makes the game more interesting, and more consequential.

That said, I agree with several of the points above, about many of the current "specializations" being either completely unbalanced between the choices, or for ones which one really shouldn't be an exclusive choice.

I would recommend the following change:  Make TWO categories of "choice" techs:   an Exclusive choice, and a Preference choice.

For the Exclusive choice, once you pick one, that's it. The others are permanently unobtainable.  These choices should be carefully balanced, so that it really is a big bonus/pain to chose correctly.  Of the current specialization techs, I'd make these Exclusive:

• Expansion:   Industrial Specialization, Planetary Specialization, Environment Optimization, Technological Focus, Manufacturing Focus
• Engineering:  Interstellar Specialization, Orbital Specialization, Warp Focus, Hyperwarp Focus, Energy Field Focus, Support Field Focus, Zero Gravity Optimization, Orbital Construction Focus
• Warfare: Weapons / Acquisition / Defensive Specialization, High Energy / Warhead / Kinetic Acceleration Focus, Barrier System / Counter Measure / Armor Focus
• Economics: Diplomatic / Marketing / Commerce Specialization, Trade Focus, Approval Focus

All the others should be a Preference choice, where all 3 options are available, but the 2nd choice is at DOUBLE the research cost of the first, and getting the 3rd option should be QUADRUPLE the cost of the 1st.

Other adjustments:

I'd also go on record as saying there should be a SHORT General Miniaturization branch in Engineering. I'd go with 3 techs, each at +10% capacity, one in each Age, rooted at the Orbital Specialization tech (i.e. having that as it's pre-req).

And, yeah, certain techs should be tied to Ideology steps, particularly the Invasion version.  I'd go with a specific Ideology Step being required to unlock that tech. There should also be some consideration to making different subtrees in the Economics (Politics and Contracts) trees dependent on Ideology. 

The Defensive Focus for invasion defenses should be a Preference (non-exclusive) choice, but it shouldn't confer immunity. I'd say something like 50% defensive bonus against that invasion form.

Edit:  Oh, and the above used the Iridium Tech Tree for examples. 

Here's where I disagree: weapons, defense, and hull techs.  Do you want longer range missiles, or smaller missiles so you can fit more but they'll be less accurate, or cheaper missiles so you can build ships faster than the other guy?  Same for defenses and hulls.  This mirrors real life.  Do you want technologically superior capabilities or do you believe that quantity has a quality all its own?  This becomes even more important for those who play multiplayer.  You can even mix choices as you move up the tech tree to adapt to changing conditions in the game, such as longer range when researching Stinger missiles but smaller mass when researching Harpoons. 

Granted, Stardock having just made the decision to limit specializations, some balancing is required, but I like it.

You can, if they choose a different one and you can trade with them at point.  The game was shaping up well but just before release the devs have decided to add a bunch of arbitrary restrictions on game play.  

I'm not happy about it but I was hoping that Stardock would keep a play how you like to play attitude rather than force players to mod the game to achieve that goal.  When does the mod tool come out because I am really not thrilled with the prospect of modding every single tree in the xml files.

I like the new tech tree. One has to specialize on certain issues more and improve one's tactics. If was too easy anyway to get all these cheap bonuses of "all three specializations". And where is the specialization if you don't have to?

I think the game is way better with the new specialization system! It makes the techs more interesting and gives you some actual choices.