Well, I just mean that one route on the tech tree isn't consistenly superior to pursue with greater riggor than other parts.  Otherwise a rational player who plays to win will always focus more on the route that yields better results.

I like the "random" tech idea, but would love to see some kind of cultural bonuses come into play. Such as the Yoren with their farming ablities to have a higher percentage of better farming or growth techs. As to techs being worth the same, have the value not be the stadardized benifits there are but to what should you focus on to create the best growth combos for your kingdom. This way you could have an incentive to have a different tech strat each game depending on your surrounding resources and what civ you are.

for me, having a standard "pick research, make wya up tree" is certainly fine for the game, and I wouldn't mind coming back to it if a more fun but still balanced way was found.  

The "random extra techs show up depending on empire specialization" sounds like a good idea to try out  (To provide extra advances ot specialize empires),  I'd just make sure that the "random" advances were set up in a way that generalized empires could also get some stuff, plus (as always) keeping it balanced.  With this sort of system, people might try to game it, but presumably it will still be serving its function even if gamed (Since switching empire specializations would, I'm guessing, be quite difficult to do.)

The MoO system I would not like, for the reasons described above.

The tech tree interface does seem somewhat confusing, though I am not sure whether that is because it will be onfusing in the future, or whether I simply do not know the techs, and when I do it will get simpler.

This is a really salient point for me. If it's not fun, why is it necessary? Can we live without it?

I like this idea. It can change things up without it being too RNG based. It also simulates the idea that you've got a bunch of researchers who are working away on their own ideas with only general direction. Some of them will have a breakthrough faster then others will. Given that right now your research comes from the population, some of them seem to just be independent inventors anyway.

More concerned about this. How good is "doom fire"? Did the person who gets it just win the lottery? The strongest upgrades shouldn't be in this kind of category because they will totally break balance when someone gets lucky with the RNG over everybody else. Getting the random techs right such that they're useful but don't break the game will be tricky.

I think there's some pretty simple game mechanics that could balance this out. Basically I think every player should have access to a tech once they find out about it.

By 'access' I only mean that they somehow have the means to obtain the tech, either through research or espionage etc. 'Finding out about it' could mean anything from 'How did my city just get burned down?' to 'Your agents report that the Kingdom of Parriden has developed a strange new weapon.'

This way you still have the dynamic goodness of RNG'd tech discovery but instead of 'doom fire' making seiges trivial for the rest of the game, it gives you a small window to exploit before everyone else catches up.

I like Demiansky's and jumppoint1's ideas on the avaliability/propability being affected by different triggers in the game. I think if you combine this with something like the plague event in GC2 you could even have a dynamic tech tree for each game. Players get access to techs through their actions + a bit of RNG. Every time a tech is researched it ends up on the 'global' tree and is ultimatly accessible to everyone. This way, the global tree goes in a certain unique direction influenced by game events but balance doesn't go whacky if one player 'rolls' better techs.

To use 'doom fire' as an example: Your opponent wins the lottery and gets 'doom fire', they proceed to burn down one of your cities with it. Once this happens, your tech tree expands not only to include 'doom fire' as a warfare milestones, but also 'volunteer fire brigade' and 'fireproof building design' as civilization milestones and maybe a fire extinguishing spell as a magic milestone. Now, you're not only prepared for doom fire attacks, but you're also in good shape if an enemy sovereign decides to drop a giant magic fireball on your capital in the future.

I like the idea of area research Frogboy!

i don't know why so many people hate the idea of technology being more of a random thing based on your surroundings as it would be in real life. Such as:

1. certain resources you have (if you have more iron, iron working technologies would have more chances of appearing)

2. other technology you are competing against (like stupored's idea about technologies to compete with "doom fire")

3. civilization traits (if you have a nation that specializes in horses, horseback riding technologies might have more chances of appearing and might give you better benefits than a nation without that trait)

In SMAC research was random, but you were able to pick the field (Conquer, Build, Explore, Discover i think..) and i never felt jaded or felt like i couldn't compete with the other players

I would like for every faction to have its own Technologies (mostly) ... although I think it should not be in a particular "tree" which would imply 2-D relationships between tech progression, but more of a 3 or 4 dimensional "chain-mail" of technologies, where each technology has a tier (which alot of non-related techs sit upon) mainly to represent relative cost and relative effectiveness (or at least cost) ... and have a Tech on tier X have connections to several techs below it, and several techs above it.

The teching will be blind, although you start out with relatively equal chances to tech each of the tier 1 techs of Grouping A. Grouping A is one of the catagory groups of technologies, whether military, Agriculture, Architecture, ect.

Regardless of how much technology you set in order to research towards Group A, eventually you will research one of the techs, picked randomly. You get a pop-up that names the tech and describes the tech, with a few thematic and game=play applications mentioned in the description. Then, the percentage of the other Tier-1 techs stay the same, while the percent-chance of said researched tech is divided into several Tier-2 techs it could lead into. I do admit that in the behind-the-scenes, its a very simple and linear tree, but soon you could have, say, 5% chance to get one of a couple tier 10s, while you still have a 30% chance to get that tier 1 (in an extreme example) however probability will lend itself to a more natural progression of light tech -> heavy tech, although in some games you could get stuck with researching a string of high-end techs, but naturally they would take longer as well, and the probability is pretty low this would happen. However ... as I said you distribute tech between all of the Groupings, so lets say in Grouping D your extremely even and have tiers 1-3 completed (even if you don't entirely know this, but it could be memorized I suppose), while Grouping A has stringed together to get a tier 6 tech. You know there is a slim chance Grouping A is working on a Tier 7 tech, or tier 4, 5, 6 due to the raw-branching mechanism behind the scenes. Therefore, if you want to be more generalized, perhaps continue as normal, but if you feel you want expensive technologies, you know Grouping A has at least a chance you will get a high technology. Therefore you could devote all research to only Grouping A activities, in order to get whatever it is faster.  Anyways, this logic is also very two-dimensional in make-up (therefore easy to code I think), although it provides alot of variety.

Add into that "hidden pathways" which only unlock if conditions are met (so suddenly a tier 2 tech is unlocked while your researching a tier 5 tech, after the tier 5 tech is researched, there will be a relatively good chance you could be researching that tier 2 tech, although you won't know until its researched ... although since its on such a low tier there is a high probability that it was a "hidden tech" which you finally completed the requirements for. Many random hidden techs, which provide a significant advantage/change to the game, will probably make organic development of Nation more fun, of course you can still choose how much percentage of full research you are assigning to each group.

I do not want Science and Economy to be directly related. I would rather research always be 100% ... but just deciding how many percentage points to go into each grouping. Also, this static percentage would be based upon your total research, which can improve with buildings and projects. The over-all level of Education will effect the 100% ... I have mentioned in a previous post, that Education in such a method should be finite maximum, to a maximum of 200% aka tech progression at double the raw research rate. I also mentioned that no more than 100 points could be dedicated to one group .. unless such extra points were added at half or a third of efficiency. (200 points to make 150 points).

In the end, I think it would make science more unique and separate from economy.

A lot of the same problems of "you randomly got a really great spell" do apply to other types of research as well, though.  (Although, talking about problems with regular research does have some application to spells as well, so this thread seems somewhat useful for that part of the game as well.)

Speaking of different types of research, what resources do both of these types of research require?  It seems (at least theoretically) possible that spell vs. technology research could come into play in balance terms between different playstyles.  (For example, it might be that pure army focused and pure channeler focused strategies outcompete mixed strateges, such as where essence is used ot create a bunch of champions, because the pure army strategy does not need spells much, while the pure channeler is not focusing in cities as much, so has far less need for regular technology.)

I wanted to write a post about UI, but I think I will post a short comment (just before the crash), or should I say, a proposal of how - in my opinion - should tech development look like. Later I will try to add a screen shot presenting what I mean.

1. Divide the techs into three major groups: Civilization, Warfare & Other (it's probably better to find a more suitable name for it). In order to refer to a tech - for example - "Godly power", placed in the Civilization group, I will use such notation: CIVILIZATION:Godly_power.

2. Each major group should have 3 levels, described as roman numerals (I, II, III).

3. Each level consists of several techs. There should be no sub-techs (as they are now). While sub-techs can help in managing the tree, with major groups & levels, everything is already well structured.

4. The total number of techs shouldn't be big. I believe that researching a tech should require considerable amount of time & resources (these rate would, obviously, scale with levels). Please, don't make it yet another GalCiv2. While the game is great, the whole tree is so fragmented, that researching techs seems so meaningless.

5. For every level of a major group, there will be a tech tree. It would look like similar to a typical RPG skill-tree. Here are a few details:

• In order to research any tech from the higher tree, you will have to spend a fixed amount of resources (ie. technology points) on the lower level tree.
• Techs have various cost assigned to them. Which one you choose to progress, it's only your decision.
• You can start research on any tech in the level (assuming you have access to the level), bar the techs that require a prerequisite (mother) tech. In other words - all techs (in the level) are available, despite your investment in the tree (don't forget about the prerequisites).
• No tech has any kind of inner levels. If there will be any progressing-techs (such should be avoided), they will be probably implemented as a tech chain (prerequisites).
• Tech trees should be independent from each other. There shouldn't be any cross-level/cross-group prerequisites. Let's take a look at horses, and assume that we can 'develop' them. The easy way to do that is to put a OTHER:Horse_riding tech. Such tech would unlock OTHER:Caravans. We could also say that OTHER:Horse_Riding is a prerequisite for WARFARE:Cavalry. We have to avoid it, so we do something different. We either remove the prerequisites, and scrap OTHER:Horse_riding, or we put the aforementioned tech only to the warfare group.

6. Here is a list of how many techs should be available (in average) per every tech tree.

I : 6
II : 5
III : 4
Total per group: 15
Total: 45

7. To add a little bit more complexity to the game, the tech trees of Empire & Kingdom should differ. The number of shared techs (maybe with different graphics & description, to add more diversity) should be as small as possible, but not smaller. Of course, I understand how hard would it be to make a balanced game, and design 90 distinctive techs, that's why even if we could get like 30 non-shared techs (that means each faction would get 30 shared and 15 unique), I would be happy.

Red.13 out.

I think that's a great starting point for making the tech tree interesting. Randomness is good in moderation, I think. If you have a good idea of what to expect from your research, you can plan accordingly. Also, sometimes it could steer you in unexpected directions. Perhaps you had plans of going one way, but a series of milestone options end up pushing you along a somewhat different path. I think that could be a lot of fun!

There are a couple things that have to be considered, though. Some techs are pretty much essential - take farming. Let's say you start out researching civilization with the aim of getting farming. With randomness involved, would it be possible to go through two, three or even more milestones without ever being offered basic farming? That would be really frustrating. For more advanced and specialized things it's not quite as important, but when you get stuck on a necessity, that's frustrating.

You could handpick these techs and flag them so that they are always options if you research the relevant field. You could divide each field into sub-fields, lowering the odds of this happening. You could tie the odds of a tech whose prereqs have been met to how often they've been presented to the player: If I research 2 milestones in civilization and still haven't been offered one of the basic tier 1 techs, I could be guaranteed to be offered it next milestone, for example.

Regarding things like having a 1% chance for a player to get something unexpected - this could be good or bad. It could make or break some games, which is bad. If I get a lucky break early on and get one or two really great, really unexpected techs it could give me a huge advantage, which isn't desirable at all. On the other hand, this could be balanced by tacking on caveats. If you get to a milestone and are offered one of these techs, they could come with significant downsides (either as inherent in the techs, or added on). Perhaps choosing Doom Fire will lock me out of some other techs, or have some other effects that more creative minds than mine would have to come up with So then, you end up with a "Ooo! Nice tech! I wasn't expected Doom Fire! But is it worth it? Should I go with plain old Iron-smithing, because I'd rather not deal with the particular malus attached to Doom Fire?" 

Basically, there still needs to be a decision in picking which of the techs to take, even if one of them is a super rare one. If there are no caveats to the super rare one, then you may as well not even show the list of techs to choose from and just have it pick the super-rare one automatically. If you can do this so that there is still a meaningful decision to be made, then it will shine!

Well why not implement several options, and pick a default and have the rest selectable

Or if you have the capacity to research multiple techs more efficiently than researching just one at a time. For example you might be able to research 3 techs at 100% efficiency, 2 techs at 75% efficiency and 1 tech at 50% efficiency. Researching 1 tech would get you that tech faster than if you research others alongside it, but at an opportunity cost.