Otherwise something along these lines sounds like a good idea. As long as we remember that we r playing a stradegy game and not a shooter or roleplaying game.

A reasonably way to do this is have a automate setting where the computer does this by default unless u shut this off, or u could have a default setting set until u changed this.

If we r going along this train of thought. U r the federal government, U could have a better option for more governments. Like communism, Facism, or Nationalism but under a democracy with free enterprise this would be unrealistict. I am down for using civics instead governments to. I would say a better compromise would be to make it an option u can shut off. I would leave this on personally.

I don't know how to add this to the other options, but I like it to.

[quote who="Bluekkis" reply="35" id="3405998"]

Quoting NorsemanViking, reply 34

I would be more than happy as long as tech tree isn't a group of boring lines. At the very least support more complex requirements for modding if not on vanilla game. And if it is a ui issue, give modders an option to override automatic generation of tech tree like in gc2 and let modders explicitly define layout.

Sweet also give this to the editor on the game.

What tech tree

[quote who="michaelwhittaker" reply="66" id="3411861"]

Quoting chuck1es, reply 11
I quite enjoyed the research mechanic in MOO2 where you had to choose a tech making you, consequently, lose others.

Sorry about all the posts, but it took me days to read all the posts. So I had a lot of posts to remember which subjects I thought was important.

To sum up what I thought were cool ideas that people suggested. I think soecialised tech trees r a good idea that at least provides a variety. I would like to see a better balance in the next game. This is what I have come up with while brainstorming on this. 2 planetary improvements r worth a one per planet structures. The one per planet units come in 2 types. The first type replaces the units. The second type will replace either a superproject, galactic achievements, or a trade goods. 2 of the first one per planet units is worth 1/2 of the second 1 per planet units. 2 of the second one per planet units will replace a trade good or galactic acheivement. 2 trade goods or galactic achievements will replace a super projects. My reaoning for this is the fact that even though the galactic achievements r the strongest the trade goods could be used to b traded for cash. The super projects may b weaker than galactic acheivemts, but is garanteed to b able to b build by every race that has one. But if your race a specialised galactic achievement then it is worth the most. If u start out with one of these. Then it also is worth more.

  Now with techs if u start with it; it is worth more than if u have to research it. If the tech is straitforward it is worth more than if u have to work for it on the research tree. For differentialization a unit, one per planet, super projects, galactic achievements, tradegoods, or abilities can all be interchanged with dufferent tech trees, but a race that has this equivelennt can't trade for it. It it steals it it doesn't recieve the bonus. I wouldn't have a problem with different races with the same techs having different abilities for the same tech. I would like to see the races more fair this time. I prefer to use civics instead of government techs, but if I can't do things this way. I have an idea on governments inspired by the Yor tech tree. Instead of the standard tech tree; I think the ending techs for evil races be communism. I think the Korx should have Obliarchy. I think the Thalans should either have Monarchy or a confederate government. The Krynn should have a Theocracy. The Yor would probably have a dictatorship. Federation I don't know about or whaat exactly its makeup is.

These are the ideas I like. I like tech point idea. I think u should be able to change this in the game to be more effective at this. If the Ai can't handle this; then my idea on how to handle this is to have a fixed option that is automatically set where u have to manually shut this off.

In the beginning U could randomely select starting techs. Their may b a set of default techs, but the game would only randomely pick half. Each of tje randome techs would lead to a different tech tree. Most of the techs would have different paths to research to each tech. If u pick a tech it would close u off from other future techs.

All while giving everyone their own individual tech trees.

Wow all these ideas put together has to b the best idea for tech research yet.

Even though I am the one who canabalised this I have to give credit to the other posters for most of this.

And in regard of the multiplayer-mode, it would be very nice  to (or at least have the possibility to ) trade techs with your allies in your effort to beat other players.

I played Distant worlds and discovered that the way they've done the private research was a bad idea. We could make a compromise that maye the public and the private sectors could do research, but maybe the idea of private research would be a bad idea if they do it the same on Distant worlds. i'm scared thay would go to Dostant worlds to create private research. Lets not have private research.

All I hope for is that the tech tree is as large as it was in GC II. Compared to all of the other 4x games, GC II's tech tree for each faction is quite large, and would take you quite a long time to max out, if you ever do in a single game. I love that about 4x games. The more Research the better. Sprinkle in some more things to make it take even longer, such as going the sots route of first "exploring" or contemplating on the tech before you even get to research it, and that time frame depends on your race's traits and science, all the better.

The thing that truly pulls in a great 4x for me is when the tech tree is huge and vast, and takes awhile with limitations to slow down the tech process to a degree depending. When specific AI's or players, etc. can start "falling behind". Albeit not to much.

It feels like to me most 4x games have severely crippled their tech tree. Sid Meiers Civilization being one of them.

Fallen Enchantress was a big disappointment to me tech wise as well, extremely small tech tree.

Functional is a key requirement. So are things like the AI being able to navigate it, and players being able to understand it. The standard tech tree does all those things.

Any "improvement" needs to also do all those things, or it's not actually better. Complexity for the sake of complexity is not a bonus if it breaks something.

Yeah, for sure. But for that to work, the tree needs to be big and slow enough to navigate that you can't easily backfill. Otherwise it's not really a playstyle affecting choice, it's a "I'm going to do this until it gets expensive, then I'll go spend 5 turns picking up all the old techs in the other direction I need" type of thing.

Which is fine, but it's not really differentiating things a whole lot. The best way to do that is with mutually exclusive tech branches - maybe if you choose to specialize in mining, you can't get advanced farming tech, ever. In that case you're making a choice that can't be undone, and it will affect how the game plays out.