Aren't the Fallen technically monster based, based off of their lore, etc? IIRC, there will be at least one Fallen faction that isn't just corrupted humans (the Urxen, or something like that?). I guess the point I'm trying to get at is why do you think an in-game adventuring society will be like how you describe it? From what we've been told in dev journals and videos, etc, researching adventuring tech lets you recruit heros, go on quests, explore dungeons, etc. In the magic tree there is a spell "Charm monster" that lets you control a monster.

To be completely honest, I just don't understand where your idea came from, because as far as I can tell nothing we have been told indicates it being like that (although it could very well be that I missed something ).

My other impression for an adventuring society (not going Gandalf) would be a society focused on recruiting NPC's, leveling them up, having them preform quests, etc, with the intent of discovering and completeing the Master Quest or whatever it's called. You would have few cities, and the purpose of those cities would be to gather as many adventurers as possible (in this, our ideas are very similar). But again, I fail to see why monsters would have anything to do with it, unless you complete a quest for a Dragon or something and it decides to join you as a reward.

Oh well, since I don't want to derail your topic too much, I'm going to create a seperate post about this.

EDIT: Here is said post https://forums.elementalgame.com/383565

I don't see that happening. The economy of the game is based on farming, research, gold and resource gathering. All of those things are in the civics tree. Because you need all of them to do anything, you can't split them up amongst the other trees. You could start duplicating things, at which point you've made the civics tree redundant.

Sorry, but I don't see how this idea is in any way feasible.

I don't see the need for extreme specialization (picking one line of research and leaving it there for the whole game) to be particularly viable. Honestly, that would be pretty boring. I'm also skeptical that it'd be feasible to have such utterly diverse unique play styles based on which tech tree you follow, and give us the freedom to mix and match. Many combinations would be incredibly difficult to reconcile, let alone balance to even a small degree.

As it stands, like seanw3 said, most people will typically research a little in every tree, but beyond that threshold there is plenty of opportunity to specialize. At least, when the research system is fleshed out and balanced better, I think that will be what happens. And to me, that's a lot more interesting.

The problem with the current research system, I think, is just that civics is too important. Either some of the civics techs should be moved into other lines, or other lines should get some additional techs that accomplish something similar to certain civics techs. Or, some civics techs could also be discoverable through other research lines. For example, maybe Harbors could be available in Civics and Warfare. That would make things interesting. The only problem I can see with it is if it'll take you 10 turns for your next Civics breakthrough and 5 turns for your next warfare breakthrough, and harbors is guaranteed to show up in both, then obviously if you want Harbors you'd go with Warfare. But maybe that isn't even a problem, or if it is maybe there's a simple solution.

Actually, in that thread I'm trying to look at the underlying structure of the tech system, rather than the techs themselves.  It'd be good for separate threads to actually talk about what goes in Warfare/Civilization etc.  Mine is just talking about how techs fit together - this one is talking about what the techs are.

That said, I do give brief mention to technology replication and redundant technology thoughts in my analysis (Appendix A).

I think there is a lot of confusion whether I am suggesting "picking one line of research and leaving it there for the whole game".  NO, I aren't.  It is just that I've present it that way.    In my system, there is "freedom" to mix and match.   I am making a point that ideally it is a freedom, but not a "requirement" to mix & match.     No matter how you shuffle the techs amount the 5 trees, if  no attention is paid to design a 1 tree game possible, 1 tree game aren't going to be viable ( a different economic type is not viable. )   

"Many combinations would be incredibly difficult to reconcile, let alone balance to even a small degree."

This make sense and expected.  But if we want EWOM to be revolutionary, having 5 types of Economic model can make the game much better, providing a very different play experience, add variety.   Shuffling civic tech amongst 5 trees still give you a population-based economy.   The OP idea makes certain economy already discussed in the forum viable,  a small but powerful magical kingdom,   small but powerful military kingdom.   And now I add a beast/lair based adventurer's kingdom.     I am proposing to every one that a purely population-based economy is NOT the only way.

(For pop-based economy, the more city/population you have, the more Stables/Magic schools you have, the more powerful you magic/military is.  How standard, how 'conventional' is that?)  EWOM can do better, be revolutionary; let it be a feature that people talk about!

After-all these kind of economy is not typical ones, extra care & more design/balance effort is required to make it work.    This kind of effort can happen in a mod, but it may fail or take forever.   SD's professional effort is needed to achieve this.  

Do you want to play another population-based strategy game, while ignoring other fun & viable possibilities?   

Not a bad idea, i had a similar one somewhere. However, i think you should mention possible victory conditions for each playstyle. To be competitive, each playstyle should be able to win a game.

HookedX,  thanks for your support.

I am sure the way you present the idea will garner more support from the fellow forumers.   However, my core idea is more revolutionary, so I want to use a more edgy way to highlight the revolutionary aspect of it.

I expect the first 3 specialization methods you've mentioned fully.   This is my minimal expectation for the game.   For the 4th one, "synergistic techs" is  usually  termed as  "tech combo" instead.    Tech combo will exist no matter how you design the tech tree,  this is a given.    The job of game designer is to make them not too weak, nor too overpowering.    So, its existence is fully expected.

Even the 4 specialization methods you've mentioned is still a population/city based economy, in my point of view.    In a game where you've 20 cities, while your opponent is having only 10 city of similar population, you will immediately know that you are stronger to them (generally speaking).     The amount of land you've captured roughly tells you how powerful you are.

My question is, why not let what I've Achieved already determines how powerful I am?   This is where Ranking Bonus come in.   It awards player in setting some goal, achieve it... and the goal is NOT only getting more land.   Their goal can be most elite army, best traders, best diplomatic, most happiest adventurers etc instead.

In the OP system, when you have 20 city and your opponent 10; you should have no idea if you are more powerful than him, or be faster to achieve the victory condition.  This make the game even more varied, than just the 4 specialization you've mentioned.