Progress trees should definately be merged

[cephalo]

After a game under my belt, I'm finding the two tech trees to be extremely linear. I think this aspect of the game would be much improved if they were merged and cross dependent.

Do any of you see an advantage to having separate civic and technology trees?

 

[VTMatt]

Personally I like them being separate. I find myself beelining different things in each tree, which I feel adds more customization to my strategy in a given game. (though "strategy" may be a little generous for me at this point...)

For example, I'll use the tech tree to head for a particular unit upgrade or building, while heading towards a particular government type or bonus card on civics.

I guess I see them as a similar mechanic which is utilized to achieve different goals, and I enjoy pursuing those goals in different orders, thus, I would feel pigeonholed into one particular path or build order if I could only head for one thing at a time with one tree.

Just my $.02

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Having a separate tech and civic tree is one of the best features of civ6 IMO. The big advantage is that it nerfs science from being the end-all-be-all of yields and makes culture a lot more important. I never want to go back to having just 1 tech tree.

 

[Uberfrog]

They're very separate in as much as completely different yields progress you through each one. I think this is a much more interesting mechanic.

Civ always has linear tech trees, the branches just help you prioritise you immediate policies and units/districts/wonders. I'm not sure combining them would improve that.

 

[ExemplarVoss]

Yeah, they're better separate. It actually feels a lot less linear, as i've ended up racing ahead in one, and just being ok in the other, and it is a very different experience.
Combined they'd just be a mess.

I also like doing something with culture. And really, civilizations don't figure out plays, literature and governments by 'doing science' to them.

 

[Grotius]

I like the separate trees too. But I do wish they were a bit leafier. Bushier. That is, a bit wider in each case -- say with 4ish decisions per node, rather 3ish.

 

[criZp]

Dislike it, too little content in each unlock. Take all the governments and cards and make them unlock in bulk at specific parts of the tech tree (tier 1 gov unlocked by reaching classical era, tier 2 unlocked by reaching renaissance era, tier 3 in modern era. Cards belonging to a given era unlocks when you hit that era) . Make it so the cards have to be purchased with culture, but make sure they're alot cheaper than social policies. All the other stuff like wonders, districts, abilities are then moved from civics to techs.

 

[cephalo]

I'm not an advanced player by any means, but I find that I just choose the one that takes the fewest turns, depending on which boosts I got. There really isn't any decision making going on or sacrificing one thing for another.

 

[steveg700]

Yes, there are many great reasons for civics and technologies to be separate.

For one thing, they are each acquired through different yields. Finally, science doesn't have a completely incestuous relationship with itself.

HAVING SAID THAT, that nonsense where you will lose access to a card by virtue of progress to a higher level civic is for the birds. Thank you very much, devs, but I *don't* want to lose access to the card that gave me a bonus to building medieval and renaissance era units just because I now have a card that gives a bonus to building industrial units. My scientific progress may not have advanced to a technology where I no longer need to build crossbowmen and knights.

 

[redwings1340]

I'm not an advanced player by any means, but I find that I just choose the one that takes the fewest turns, depending on which boosts I got. There really isn't any decision making going on or sacrificing one thing for another.

I did that my first game, but I'm not sure that's the best way to do it. Once I started looking at the tech and civics tree more, there are hidden benefits in tech that aren't inherently obvious, like feudalism giving farm adjacency bonuses, etc. Rushing to certain techs/civics is certainly viable if you plan it out ahead of time.

 

[Brianstorm]

I think their needs to be necessary techs both within trees and cross-trees, as in IV where you might need Iron Working for a tech on a different branch that's an era or two later (You should need the Nuclear Program Civic before you can go for Nuclear Fission for example). This would help counter the Eurekas/Inspirations, while also making them more important as well as making the game more logical. You also wouldn't be able to just go heavy on Science or Culture and truly "play the map". It's a bit weird they haven't since they obviously put the Eurekas in there to counter bee-lining, but it's only a half-measure.

 

[Ozisl]

I like the division. It lets you attempt a cultural or whatnot campaign without leaving you open to instadeath. It does get kinda bad that the end of the tech tree is purely military.

At least it isn't Civ:BE's tech web. <shudder>

 

[Biz_]

I'm not an advanced player by any means, but I find that I just choose the one that takes the fewest turns, depending on which boosts I got. There really isn't any decision making going on or sacrificing one thing for another.

this is only true because the tree is too much of a line

if there weren't as many prerequisites, then it would be optimal to ignore some of the boosts because you could ignore that tech/civic entirely

but when you need to collect them all because everything is a prerequisite for everything else, there's a lot less strategy since you just grab as many boosts as possible as fast as possible

 

[Katakanja]

I like the separate trees too. But I do wish they were a bit leafier. Bushier. That is, a bit wider in each case -- say with 4ish decisions per node, rather 3ish.

The vanilla civ 5 tree was pretty lacking in places too, I mean, remember how the classical 'era' was about 4 techs and lasted for all of 20ish turns? And that's without the added consideration of being split into two separate categories. Expansions will bulk out the thinnest areas for sure, never mind any tweaks Firaxis might make with balance patches and whatnot

 

[Biz_]

i didn't like the civ5 tech tree much, but the social policy tree was so much better than civ6's
it was actually a tree instead of a line

unlocking by era and then choosing which one you wanted to invest in is so much better than having to buy every single one, especially when you have to research stuff that yields cards which you'll never use

 

[Brianstorm]

The vanilla civ 5 tree was pretty lacking in places too, I mean, remember how the classical 'era' was about 4 techs and lasted for all of 20ish turns? And that's without the added consideration of being split into two separate categories. Expansions will bulk out the thinnest areas for sure, never mind any tweaks Firaxis might make with balance patches and whatnot

I think there's too many techs, especially in the mid-game where there's tech that don't give you anything but a possible Wonder! I'd rather see some merged and given longer research times.

Edit: Same with the Culture Tree as Biz pointed out

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yes, there are many great reasons for civics and technologies to be separate.

For one thing, they are each acquired through different yields. Finally, science doesn't have a completely incestuous relationship with itself.

HAVING SAID THAT, that nonsense where you will lose access to a card by virtue of progress to a higher level civic is for the birds. Thank you very much, devs, but I *don't* want to lose access to the card that gave me a bonus to building medieval and renaissance era units just because I now have a card that gives a bonus to building industrial units. My scientific progress may not have advanced to a technology where I no longer need to build crossbowmen and knights.

Well its the same as a warrior going obsolete with a swordsman.

They do need to make that information clear in the civic tree (other than the mouse over).... although it helps if you recognize that any (boost to XY era units) will replace the previous (boost to VW era units)

 

[steveg700]

Well its the same as a warrior going obsolete with a swordsman.

With one small but significant difference....Namely, if I've unlocked a tech that obsolesces warriors, I can make something better than a warrior!

If I don't actually have the tech to make a higher-tech unit, that unit isn't obsolete to me just because my civics have progressed.

Devs, let me decide I don't need that brown card anymore, plz.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

With one small but significant difference....Namely, if I've unlocked a tech that obsolesces warriors, I can make something better than a warrior!

If I don't actually have the tech to make a higher-tech unit, that unit isn't obsolete to me just because my civics have progressed.

Devs, let me decide I don't need that brown card anymore, plz.

I think its designed that way to encourage you to balance tech+civic development... (it can be annoying)

 

[CaiusDrewart]

I like the split of the science and tech trees, but the latter half of the science tree definitely needs some beefing up. The techs just don't do much. Rifling unlocks a better recon unit and nothing else? Telecommunications unlocks the nuclear submarine and nothing else?

There are way too many techs in the late game that I research knowing full well they are going to be completely useless.

The culture tree, in contrast, seems adequately fleshed out. The tech tree (or at least the late-game part of the it) got the short end of the stick.