Progress trees should definately be merged

[steveg700]

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

Well, it would seem contrary to the point of designing separate trees if players are penalized for excelling at one of them more than another, and by design some civ's will tend to do just that.

Devs, just let me keep me "obsolete" cards until I decide to discard them, plz. TY.

 

[Martinus]

Let's combine all complaints about the tech tree - it is too linear, but it allows to skip too many techs and beeline too fast. It also fills in too fast but there are too many techs.

 

[malekithau]

I like them separate. I would like a future civics research option though. How many times can you research Facebook?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I like them separate. I would like a future civics research option though. How many times can you research Facebook?

infinite (same with researching McDonalds (Globalization))
both are repeating techs

 

[Lord Tirian]

Having them separate is quite nice, to be honest. The linearity is much more problematic within the trees themselves. The civic tree is kind of ok, but tech tree feels sparse and not very interconnected - feels like there are roughly three parallel tracks there that could do with a lot more AND/OR connects to allow for more interesting paths through it and avoid some beelining issues.

The logical interconnect between the paths is already handled decently with eurekas/inspirations that link cross-tree (though maybe that could be a bit more pronounced, would certainly help with the late game techs having all eurekas as "use great scientist").

 

[zagosya]

I like them separate too but sometimes interconnection between them is questionable: for example, in order to get a boost for one tree I need to research something from another tree. But - too often I find myself in a situation when science is way ahead of culture. So I ask myself - is my culture too slow or my science too fast? What to do about that? This needs balancing.

 

[Elhoim]

Definitely not, the two trees are one of the best changes Civ VI has done.

 

[Matte979]

I really like to two threes. Sure it linear but so was all civ. Sure some info could be added and more on the end.

My biggest grips is the eras which are one era or one and a half off graphically. You have modern cities while you really not in the modern age. That and slightly to fast progression throw off the game in later years.

 

[Kingreaper]

Well, it would seem contrary to the point of designing separate trees if players are penalized for excelling at one of them more than another, and by design some civ's will tend to do just that.

Devs, just let me keep me "obsolete" cards until I decide to discard them, plz. TY.

Oooh, yes, give some way to deliberately discard them, so they no longer appear on the list.

 

[steveg700]

Oooh, yes, give some way to deliberately discard them, so they no longer appear on the list.

I just mean that as long as I have the card actually slotted, it's not discarded regardless of obsolescence. Once I remove the card, then it would be discarded normally.

 

[gberetfr]

I like also the new way of the 2 separate trees.
The best improvement I would like to see is more dead end techs (in both trees), meaning they are not required to progress further, but provide short-medium term bonuses, that you decide to go for if you wish/need according to your strategy at that time.
A good example I remember was Chivalry tech from Civ I which unlocked Knights units. (As you know and as they say in civilopedia "a powerfull medieval mounted unit").
Planning/needing war at that time => you would beeline to it
Else you could totally ignore it
Choices like that gives you really possibilities to decide your strategy and be an "actor" of your tech choices/progression. Rather than just deciding marginally in which order you will discover them as it is now.