Technology system in 2.0 is too confusing

[JuanitoRUS]

It seems to me that the new technology trees need to be fully redesigned. It's a good idea to make technology trees, but with the old techs, they look very confusing.

Before 2.0 there were random techs like Stellaris so you just don't keep in mind them and pick situationally. After 2.0 you have to plan your tech development, and it became very hard! Why?

Usually, games have tech tree-like "this for economic, this for new units, this for diplomacy". The economic tree opens new buildings, military new units, etc, adding new content to your game and make you stronger.

But in Imperator: Rome you have 4 trees and various trees often have similar effects, and I can't say that -3% building cost makes my country stronger. For example, there are military techs both in the military and religious trees, there is food tech in the religious tree. Do I need happier pops? Well, mmm, what should I choose, religion or oratory?... Do I need stability, what should I choose? And I have to look through all of them and then look at 50+ tech to find one that I need (I know there is a search but it actually doesn't work well). In addition to being too confusing, technology trees actually don't add something new in gameplay. 90% of trees are just modifiers, so there are 200+ various not connected each with other modifiers and I somehow have to plan this. But how to plan it? My brain can't process and remember 200+ modifiers because it's not a CPU.

I think the tech system should be reworked:
1. Make more intuitive trees
2. Replace modifiers with new-content techs that really change gameplay and make you stronger.

 

[DukeLeto42]

I don't think the issue is so much that the trees are too complex (it's got good markers for important techs in the tree, allowing you to map out how to get there, though I was tripped up once with not realizing how the prerequisites worked), but that all innovations are not tech-type specific, so development can feel rather imbalanced.

I will admit, though, that while the tree is impressive the old system of innovations did make it feel like they were a supplement to the progressive development of your nation, not the focus of development itself.

 

[Amlet]

I prefer it now, the sequential unlocking of progressive technological tiers is a mechanic too simple. The games need to be more dynamic and sandbox.
(me being ironic) The next request could be swap the pop system with a more static eu4's dev system.

 

[svalan_i_dalen]

@OP: The search funtionality is good for finding all tech with specific modifier.

 

[Bleek]

I like the tech tree.

It appears to be designed so that you pick paths, or generalise. But you can't master it all.

More complex and original than say, EU4, where typically there's a preferred route.

It opens up many different approaches for each playthrough.

 

[master_kong]

I was just wanting this: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...o-present-besides-the-current-new-ui.1457836/

It would help with the confusion and the crowdedness of the UI.

 

[Bleek]

I was just wanting this: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...o-present-besides-the-current-new-ui.1457836/

It would help with the confusion and the crowdedness of the UI.

To be fair, I didn't play before 2.0 (well, I pre-ordered and left after a few hours).

I like the idea of a switch between full tree and 'what's available' - that is a QoL feature indeed. Especially if your planning would show, so the available tech would be coloured appropriately too.

 

[Emperor8428]

I actually really like the tech system now. Before, the tech system was effectively another boring progress bar, where you either waited for enough gold, or conquered and sacked one of the special cities to fund a tech or two. But now, you actually get to make choices, and plan strategies (which I personally believe is the source of fun in a strategy game). The best path through the tech tree changes based on your starting position and your goals in the game - if you are reasonably large its probably best to ignore most of the military tree and just beeline towards the imperial challenge cb while picking up ae and ws reduction along the way. If you are a minor, it may be worthwhile to pick up a few of the techs that boost research efficiency, and then some military techs to make sure you have reasonably good quality to take on majors. If you want to build a megacity (sorry Lambert) then you should focus on getting free provincials investments, pop cap modifiers, and the wonder modifier. If you want to continue for further expansionist play, then you should probably look into picking up Militant Epicureanism and other critical wonder modifiers such as the assimilation bonus, governor loyalty, etc.

Essentially, my advice with the tech tree is to just dive into it, read through everything and pick out techs which you think fit your goals best and have fun figuring out your route towards them!

 

[LiberiusX]

Eh I’m neutral on the old vs new, but if I had to choose, I’d say I prefer 2.0. The old one just felt like a money sink, but did give that feeling of “I can’t wait to get to x level so I can get y innovation”. the new one is a bit overwhelming at first, but once you learn where the killer innovations are, you can do some fun things.

 

[JuanitoRUS]

I was just wanting this: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...o-present-besides-the-current-new-ui.1457836/

It would help with the confusion and the crowdedness of the UI.

The tech trees in civ games are good because EVERY technology in that games gives something new – a new building, a new unit, a new mechanic etc. Techs in Imperator instead of new content give modifiers. I really don't understand why people like modifiers like +3% to something, as for me it's boring. I prefer tech trees like XCOM, Civilization, where a new tech = new content, a new opportunity.

 

[master_kong]

The tech trees in civ games are good because EVERY technology in that games gives something new – a new building, a new unit, a new mechanic etc. Techs in Imperator instead of new content give modifiers. I really don't understand why people like modifiers like +3% to something, as for me it's boring. I prefer tech trees like XCOM, Civilization, where a new tech = new content, a new opportunity.

I, too, prefer mechanics to modifiers, but that suggestion of mine is not about that. Also, the "spreadsheet" design is a root problem for Pdx GSGs as a whole not just for Imperator. I can't comment on the Imperator 2.0 tech tree specifically though, since I didn't play enough to justify an opinion on it.

Edit: But I can say this, Imperator 2.0 tech tree definitely seems on the better side regarding Pdx GSGs spreadsheet slider. So it was a nice step in the right direction like most things in the game And that step wasn't enough for the corporation that all they care now is growing and revenues.

 

[IsaacCAT]

The inventions are not only modifiers. You cannot play the game if you do not go through the inventions tree.

Legions are gated behind inventions, as temples, theaters and League cities or the War by the Spear CB.

If you want to have a viable multicultural build you need to follow a certain path down the civic tree.

If you want to thrive as a syncretic society you need the left religious tree.

If you want to grow through diplomacy you need the oratory tree.

Inventions allow for many different playtsyles. They are not only modifiers.

 

[JuanitoRUS]

The inventions are not only modifiers. You cannot play the game if you do not go through the inventions tree.

Legions are gated behind inventions, as temples, theaters and League cities or the War by the Spear CB.

If you want to have a viable multicultural build you need to follow a certain path down the civic tree.

If you want to thrive as a syncretic society you need the left religious tree.

If you want to grow through diplomacy you need the oratory tree.

Inventions allow for many different playtsyles. They are not only modifiers.

In fact, there's the only one effective playstile called "eat it all", so AE modifiers + military techs are the most important ones, and then you can add some civic and religion to boost economy/pacify people sutuatively.

I can say about different playstyles in Civilization series, where you can war or go through peaceful tourism, or trade. But here, in Imperator, we don't have too much playstiles really, the difference lies in start position and diplomatic situation. That all is not playstyle, is strategy and modifiers for various strategies. In fact techs = extended version of law system, they use the same principle that laws do, the only difference that tech don't have the mutually exclusive ones.

 

[Bleek]

The tech trees in civ games are good because EVERY technology in that games gives something new – a new building, a new unit, a new mechanic etc. Techs in Imperator instead of new content give modifiers. I really don't understand why people like modifiers like +3% to something, as for me it's boring. I prefer tech trees like XCOM, Civilization, where a new tech = new content, a new opportunity.

Because patience and investment is rewarded with progression.

There are numerous points on the tech tree where you unlock something more significant.

 

[Mikhail_Mengsk]

I like the trees, but a lot of innovation are "the same bonus, with a different background explanation", and it's a bit boring.

I'd rather have less innovations, each giving a bigger bonus. Of course it would need a rebalance of the tech progress.

 

[Herennius]

I don't get why modifiers are necessarily boring. If I get for example one giving me a bonus to PI generation, I'm excited - as that will allow me to do more exciting stuff with the gained PI - a ressource I'm always short of. Sure, some modifiers coming along you way are situationally less useful (happiness/production out for tribesmen if you play a Republic/Monarchy) and I agree even that some could need a general balance pass, but not even every new feature, character interaction or whatever the tech tree can give you beside modifiers is useful in every possible situation.

And no, I also don't think that AE managment rules the game and going for the world conquest is the only effective way to play. I'm playing to have fun (which is my effective playstyle) and the offers of the tech trees satisfy my roleplaying needs

 

[Godd_Howard]

Is it though? Before you couldn't even see what you were getting next and here you have an entire tree you can look at and think about for hours. Is this some kind of meta trolling?

 

[LiberiusX]

Stacking tiny modifiers is a hallmark of PDS GSGs. CK3 and Stellaris kind of buck this trend, but it is very much alive in HOI4, I:R and Eu4.

individually, the modifiers tend to be almost meaningless, but by mid-game, they can get absurdly powerful.

 

[juanpacirca]

by mid-game, they can get absurdly powerful.

It takes me a while to realize that my modifiers are gone every time I start a new game after conquering half of the world, and keep on wandering why conversion and assimilation are going so slow or why my army was defeated so quickly. The little modifiers when stacked make a huge difference.

 

[Bovrick]

individually, the modifiers tend to be almost meaningless, but by mid-game, they can get absurdly powerful.

In my opinion, this is the reverse of how you'd want progression to go. The increments should each feel weighty and important, while the totality of your selections should not get out of hand, lest it breaks parts of the game.