Conquest Tech Tree - Please discuss this idea

Hi there,

I have seen an idea for the tech tree (by @cr1 ), that would be great if I could get some more player feedback on. 

The idea was to have 3 tech tree paths, but it is only possible to choose one.

And the paths could be something like offense techs // defense techs // and for example energy/movement.

Please discuss and would be great to get everybody’s input.

Please note that this post is not a guarantee that we will do it like that, but it is an idea worth being discussed. :slight_smile:


it’s an interesting idea, but I couldn’t trust it to be implemented correctly, it will end up that an alliance chooses the wrong tech tree and gets crushed because other tech trees are way more powerful for the map in use.

Also, if there was a tech tree such as “reduce watchtower costs, reduce troop costs” then a rich alliance just gems them anyway, and picks the attack/defence tree and dominates the alliance that is trying to save on getting resources.

If flare want to do some testing with tech trees and their impacts, play advance wars or advance wars 2 for a few weeks.

I think they ideas are:


  1. for the conquest you can choose only one way, not all three ways.

like make uber attacks, uber defense or etc.

  1. they researches times should me increased and let you make all researches only in last day. 

  2. would be good if we wilould can reduce the time of researches by gems/gold


need to choose tge researches we can put in the trees. Only defense or only attavk tree is a mistake. 


But idea is to not let everyone have and attack rate and discount of costs and energie and etc and etx just only for gems. 

I agree that it wouldn’t be balanced properly.  
Also, at the moment most can get maybe 1/10 of the tree any way.

Maybe set up something like suggested, but instead of locking the other paths, make you’re 1st path you chose cheaper.


If the main concern is a few alliances geming the all the research, maybe balance the costs so that over 5 days most alliances can afford most of the tree.  Then if some gem to get that remaining techs, there won’t be such a huge difference,

Choosing the wrong path in the beginning would be way too punishing, I prefer the way the tech tree is done now, but it needs a shift: Increase research time to 6 hours and reduce the still high wisdom prices.

I like this. I think you should be able to get close to the end of the tree if you have a library for most of the Conquest.

Yeah, increasing cooldowns, and lowering wisdom costs would work.


Dnt agree. Anyway i dnt wang to be pushed to make ALL researches.

we should have the ability to not make them all

it will be of only we will be sure our enemies will not to do

I like the idea because you can choose a path of play styles for alliances this way. And how about we compromise rather than throw away an idea. Make it all the same research until you know how your conquest is going to go. Single path until the branches later or single utility until choosing attack/defense later, either way we can be VERY creative with how this is all implemented, but regardless specializing is better than getting a mixed bag because it can fix those who complain about diplomacy maps rather than EVERYBODY getting +1 defense rating to troops and then suddenly you can’t win your 2v1 diplomacy map because you can’t attack two alliances very well. Examples here like this:

                                                                                                  defense rating per troop -> defense rating to tower -> defense rating to player -> max number battles
builder cooldown -> tower cost -> player cooldown --E   offense rating per troop -> offense rating to player -> max number battles -> offense rating per troop (2)
                                                                                                  move cost reduction -> move cost reduction in enemy ter. -> max number battles -> energy regen

This is only an example and we can get far more creative than this example, and can even branch that further or have the beginning have 3 different start paths. And let me address those who say one path will destroy your entire strategy; If we increase the research times and keep the cost the same (in other words cost of wisdom per hr goes down), time will now elapse for your conquest to kick off/identify enemies and know which direction you need to go in your research for your alliance. This system is both flexible and balanced, because it leaves you vulnerable in other ways and that’s the entire point of such a system.

  1. Choose to attack better, therefore have better chance of taking towers down and take over special tiles or middle if they were able to complete their towers there

  2. Go into defense, this actually aids against 2v1 or 3v1 maps to be able to hold against teaming up

  3. Utility builds, like energy movement costs, enemy territory costs, ways to quickly start small wars and get your SV as a group. Ideal for active players vs less active players, or to strike when they’re sleeping, and increase uptime of players.

If you still don’t understand how this isn’t the most balanced way to make conquest interesting and fix many things we’ve been complaining about (like 2v1 maps), then I gladly invite others to address the issues. This fixes those who pay to win. This makes it easier to face 2v1 maps because sure, they can all go into offense, but it means their defense pays which in effect buffs your offense too. Now you’re on a map where not everybody is impossible to knock down their tower, it’s just hard to knock down YOUR towers after you defend your attacks. Adds an extra layer of choice rather than everybody having the same stats every conquest.

Just remember there are multiple ways to address some issues just how the wisdom costs can be fixed in several ways. And I see this as helping multiple issues all at once and like many things, can be honed to be even better. If there are other suggestions on how to fix all the other issues I am mentioning, please bring up a single way to address them all with a single system change such as this.

I think the 3 paths is a good idea. with the interlocking paths at intervals.

But the route though the tree is singular. 

So 3 levels then intersect 3 levels intersect.

so a different themed choices may be made but the order is important for the alliance to make.

If you don’t have much wisdom then it wont matter.

at the first conquest i was think we hd to decide one of the 2 way … but we can research all we want

… in my oppion this 3 way techs tree will be more stratetic and you can’t buy all cheap sience.

and the time at the beginning of sience must go lower because atm its almost not possible to reach the end of tree

I am not a big fan of the research tree as it is right now.  It has become pretty repetitive and there is not much strategy to it because we can only afford so much.  So every war, its pretty much the same thing.  Having 3 different research trees would give us different strategies that we would have to think about in relation to our Alliance strategy during Conquest.  This could also make Conquest even more uneven too.  If 1 Alliance is clearly bigger then the other alliances they will most likely go on Offense and just enjoy attacking the entire time.  So I think making multiple research trees would be a good idea, I think they also have to do a better job of matchmaking too. 

The current tech tree forces you to chose a path (it’s mostly peace on top, war on the bottom). 

You can get to the end of 1 path, but you need to focus on it and invest a lot of gems to speed up wisdom. Not many alliances are going to be able to get there. 

What you can’t do anymore is research ALL techs, because you will run out of time.