My thought on this:
Quote from this topic: https://forums.galciv3.com/464186
I do not like the Tech Ages, and I do not like either the exclusive specializations.
I miss the total freedom of research present in GalCiv2.
No Tech Ages, no exclusive specializations, no "1 tech per turn" limit (if I build a strong civilization for research, I can research several techs per turn),
I can see your point on multiple techs per turn. I think the problem is balancing. That is why I like the idea of tech points. A limited number given from the start of the game. I guess the interface is the first problem do you point techs in tech1 and so on, or do you put points in kinds of techs being to group together groups if you don'tput points in all groups. Randomly added if all groups are not picked, or not. Maybe deviding tech cost by points and multiplying by what speed your using. You could do this at the beginning of the game, or this would be better if it was an in game option. This was one of the ideas I supported.
complete freedom for my civilization for the research path.
I want to have the choice, to lead my civilization where I want.
The choice must come from what the player wants to make with its civilization, and not be the result of arbitrarily imposed barriers (Tech Ages, exclusive specializations).
The idea of specialization is to help the way you play even more. My reasoning for this was so when I guided my civilization I felt the impact of my direction even more. I understand that not everyone wants the best challenge ever. I have to live with people that think games should only be a limited challenge. I think tech ages help the Ai. more than anyone else. Anything for a challenging Ai.
The specializations should be complete branches of research with successive techs to further improve them, and fully accessible.
Agree on complete branches. You could just not have as many techs in non specialized branches. There were always a hard limit on how far you could go down one branch anyways. Fully accessible depending on where you research to improve the way you play anyways.
Without exclusive specialization, I can choose a specialization because I need its bonuses now, at this point in the game, and come back later to select another specialization tech, according to my development.
If we worked from the other way, and never had only tech tree then this would be cheesy, and honestly how is this different from when each race got it's own tech trees that usually were stronger in some areas while being weak in other's.
With exclusive choice, I need to choose the tech with the best bonus for the duration of the game, it's not a real choice.
What's baffling is that I don't understand how that choosing tech by the way you play is not making a choice. Again balancing is more of a issue than tech specialization.
And each game, I will choose exactly the same tech because I get the best bonus from it.
No strategy here, just pick the best.
"I take the best tech for the long term, otherwise I am an idiot."
If there is a best, and not best for only certain strategies on each one then there needs to be a balancing not eliminating tech specialization.
Strategy, it's also to adapt.
I want to adapt to the specific events that happen during the game, and not to adapt to a predefined tech tree arbitrarily diminished, it's not at all the same thing.
Instead of putting barriers everywhere, it would be much better to have much deeper and rich tech trees, with so many interesting possibilities that the player wants to research them all, but can choose only one at a time.
This should be the spirit of the game.
Not the same thing it's another kind of thinking gameplay, but are still arguing that there are at least some who want this. This is not supposed to be a barrier, but a way to help you play the way you want to better. I'm game lets make much deeper and richer specialized tech trees.
This is where the choice should come and not from limitations.
How is this limitation. Eventually this will compliment your gameplay instead of limiting it. As far as tech richer, and deeper the merrier.
There will be no frustrations here,
Since when are games not frustrating. That is part of playing them. Isn't it frustrating when you throw everything but the kitchen sink, and still lose.
This is smart design. This is Strategy.
I think spcialisation is better design. Good vs. better.
Forced choices, poor design.
How researching not a forced choice, or how is playing anything but sim city not a forced choice. I do understand how this would have been easier if the game had it to begin with. That is a problem of older games.
Many choices, great design.
Agree this is why I don't understand your problem specialization is more not less choices. I do think that they need to replace techs they take out. I think that the trees need to be at least as big as Dark Avatar's, but they have been shrinking trees since Twilight. I do like as many options as I can get in games.
You must've not liked the penalties in Twilight. Moot point.
[quote who="joeball123" reply="77" id="3542616"]
Bear in mind, you CAN trade other races for the tech too.
To me, this is worse than simply being unable to obtain the other mutually exclusive technologies. For the technologies to reasonably be mutually exclusive, you need to be making tradeoffs that prevent you from getting the other benefits. Otherwise, there's little good reason why I could not, given sufficient time, develop those other benefits on my own. Being unable to obtain the other specializations by research is fine; it just means that whatever tradeoffs I made to get the benefit I chose are incompatible with getting the other benefits. Being able to obtain these other benefits via trade undercuts this; now, instead of having made tradeoffs which were incompatible with obtaining the other benefits, I simply haven't spent enough time looking at the problem, as there is clearly a set of tradeoffs which gets the full benefits of each specialization. This should not be possible, or at least it should not be impossible to develop through research and yet entirely possible to implement just by talking to the neighbors; at the very least, I should need to spend some time figuring out how to incorporate their tradeoffs into my system to get the benefit (i.e. trading for the technology does not instantly give me the technology, it just gives me the opportunity to research it).
Good point, but this is probably dealt with untradeable unstealable techs.
Holy crap, I'm being forced to play with one race at startup I cannot stand this limitation anymore. I want to be Yor and Drengin and later on Humans and maybe some Altarians... whatever that might be good for... so many options and choices but no penalties of corpse.
Good point let's go back to Dark Avatar.
And who says about strategy, no matter how many games you play you always choose the same thing, the best one.
Agree, you must be new to the forums who's strategy do we use.
But when I play GC1 GC2 and GC3 and suddenly you get a new rule which says no you can't do this anymore.. well I won't play it at all I don't like restrictions.
I'm guessing that happened in Twilight that unless you were Human you didn't get all the techs, trade goods, super projects, or trade goods. I'm guessing you play only Dark Avatar for this reason.
But in technology you get the illogical limitation you can't make a tech cheaper, faster and smaller the same time no, no no bad thing only one!
Our government and universities do this all the time. What's the difference.