Éa, a fantasy mod for Civ5 -- teaser thread

[Pazyryk]

, I prefer a more "stagnant" game.

It's not a universal "preference" for me. It wouldn't work in base Civ5 which is supposed to culminate in space race or modern war. However, I do prefer it in a fantasy setting. It's just the way these civs are. This is one aspect of FFH that I didn't like. I would play Dovellio or Clan of Embers because I wanted to play hoards of barbarians or hoards of orcs. But instead I'm building libraries and universities like any other civ and trying to reach those higher techs like any other civ.

 

[PawelS]

About realism: there are 2 types of "realism" in games, one I like and one I don't. "Good" realism is making things believable and logical - so things work the way the player would expect them to work (that's why I don't like the HoMM series much - it's so abstract that it doesn't feel like a "true" fantasy world). "Bad" realism is adding unnecessary details only to make game elements as similar as possible to their real counterparts.

Anyway, if realism is important to you (and you made some good points about the need of Knowledge Maintenance), let's analyze the fact that it's a percentage of total beakers from a realism perspective: If research represents "intellectual activity" of different kinds, I think it's logical that maintaining the current knowledge should require an "amount of intellectual activity" depending on the number of users of that tech, which justifies making it depend on population or number of cities. But I can't see a reason why it should be a percentage of your total research...

I'm not saying you should be generally less limited in the amount of techs you can research, I'm saying the research reduction should depend on other factors than it does in your system. I think the main reason why you use percentages is that want to control precisely how many techs a civ can learn in given circumstances (by circumstances I mean being tech-focused or not). But I think a better system would be one that achieves similar results, but using different methods, that make the final number of techs less determined, and vary between games a bit depending on various factors. This will make the game less predictable, and increase the replayability value.

 

[Pazyryk]

About realism: there are 2 types of "realism" in games, one I like and one I don't. "Good" realism is making things believable and logical - so things work the way the player would expect them to work (that's why I don't like the HoMM series much - it's so abstract that it doesn't feel like a "true" fantasy world). "Bad" realism is adding unnecessary details only to make game elements as similar as possible to their real counterparts.

Civ5 also looses me with the plethora of forgettable policies. They are just too abstract. I mean, what is "Collective Rule" anyway? I think total abstraction works when the number of game elements/rules is small, chess being the ultimate example. As the number of elements/rules gets large, then it becomes increasingly important that each new thing have some hook in reality, or your particular fantasy setting, to make the item and its effect memorable. FFH does this very well: we all remember orc warrens and what they do and no one had to ask why. (Each new thing should meet a necessary function too, as you say, --we don't want our heroes to have to go to the bathroom. But I guess I'm saying that game function without a reality "hook" is bad too.)

Anyway, if realism is important to you (and you made some good points about the need of Knowledge Maintenance), let's analyze the fact that it's a percentage of total beakers from a realism perspective: If research represents "intellectual activity" of different kinds, I think it's logical that maintaining the current knowledge should require an "amount of intellectual activity" depending on the number of users of that tech, which justifies making it depend on population or number of cities. But I can't see a reason why it should be a percentage of your total research...

Once you say "total beakers" you are already in abstraction land. Yes, it represents new knowledge (gained by an active scientist or a peasant screwing around with an new kind of fishing hook) but the absolute points are irrelevant. I could have bigger populations making more research points but requiring more research maintenance. But what would be the point except more coding? Again, I do want BIG to help a civ pick up techs faster (they kind of need it early game to exploit more diverse resources) but I want research-focus to count in the long run for getting more total techs (without BIG research-focused doing too much better than SMALL research-focus ... but absolutely I don't want BIG to do worse).

I'm not saying you should be generally less limited in the amount of techs you can research, I'm saying the research reduction should depend on other factors than it does in your system. I think the main reason why you use percentages is that want to control precisely how many techs a civ can learn in given circumstances (by circumstances I mean being tech-focused or not). But I think a better system would be one that achieves similar results, but using different methods, that make the final number of techs less determined, and vary between games a bit depending on various factors. This will make the game less predictable, and increase the replayability value.

There are other factors. One I mentioned is sages building academies. These give a small decrease in research maintenance percentage not dependent on tech number (say from 95% down to 92% ... not sure exact value now but perhaps 3% to start with). So, in theory, there is no limit if you continue to produce sages. In practice, this will be useful to squeak out those last few high-end techs that you really want (i.e., the reason you are playing research-hog and producing sages in the first place). Building 70 of these to "finish" the tech tree is a theoretical possibility but not a practical one, at least not for any reasonable kind of game in < 1000 turns (not so much for #cities, but for #sages and the time it takes to build an academy -- as I said in OP, GP production is not at all like base Civ5 and the old Babylon/library rush won't work here). In any case, there is no point in finishing the tech tree. You already have your Immortals, or your Arquebussmen and Cannons, why do you need Mumakil too?

 

[Ahriman]

I don't want to get too intrusive again, but a couple of things:

Also there is another problem with this system: with a small number of techs that you can typically research, soon you will run out of things to build in cities, which makes conquest the best option, as opposed to builder-style gameplay.

Right, this kind of thing is a huge problem. Civ is designed to allow both builder and warmonger strategies, but that mix is totally based on having a tech-tree with consistent advancement to give you new stuff to build.

Absolute points don't matter, it's relative effects that matter.

In terms of power outcome, that is true. In terms of human psychology and what we enjoy about playing games, it is NOT true.

It has to be addressed by some combination of: 1) more possible buildings to build; 2) higher cost of buildings and units

Higher costs are tricky. First, there is an inherent problem with high costs for military units, in that it can really mess the AI up if it takes too long for the AI to replace military losses in their army. Second, the cost of buildings relative to their abilities is basically driven by the underlying discount rate of the game; how much is it worth to give up now to get how much benefit over the future. I think many buildings in vanilla Civ4 are already too expensive for their value, one of the things I like about VEM is that it tweaks the balance to make investment pay off more; this is a big part of making a builder strategy viable.

They also affect pacing, and how a military campaign works - much like shifting game speeds in Civ4, where build costs are changed but unit movement speed is not.

So just raising costs can have nasty consequences in terms of the internal game balance.

Having something for cities to do other than make units or buildings sounds promising.

Anyway, back to lurking.

 

[PawelS]

I could have bigger populations making more research points but requiring more research maintenance. But what would be the point except more coding?

Realism. It just makes sense for a bigger society to have more research, as well as more maintenance. Also, imagine two situations: a civ with lots of libraries, universities and other research infrastructure, and a civ without them (assuming they have the same techs and population). Why in both cases they should be able to maintain the same number of techs? I think a civ that has more research buildings, and other things that give science (not only Academies), should be able to maintain more techs - it just makes sense from realism perspective.

 

[Ahriman]

I think a civ that has more research buildings, and other things that give science (not only Academies), should be able to maintain more techs - it just makes sense from realism perspective.

Absolutely. This is why I don't like a proportional tech maintenance system, because it undermines the value of investing in research buildings. There is no (binding) arbitrary limit on military or population or culture or gold, it just feels odd to have an arbitrary limit on technology.

I also think that a big population should, all else equal, be able to give you more research. Bigger is better if you have the happiness to support it. More pop can give you more gold or hammers from working tiles, more culture or science from specialists, etc.
It doesn't have to be a direct science-from-pop like in Civ5, but there needs to be some way to turn a larger population into faster research and more tech.

 

[Pazyryk]

I see the problem that you all are pointing out. The base game has, what, 70 or so techs? My game has more total, but really only 10-20 from any one player's perspective. But that leaves me with few choices: 1) abandon my core concept and have all civs inevitably acquire all techs as in base Civ5, 2) increase number of techs by 5x or so, or 3) attempt to balance as I said above.

I only put #1 up there for rhetorical reasons. #2 is unlikely, though it will go up ~50% with the addition of magic (which will become a major motivating factor to be research-focused). So that really does leave me with #3. #3 breaks down to some combination of: a) more buildings, b) higher production costs for everything, c) other stuff to do with city production. I know folks complain about the slowness of building things in Civ5, and also the relative worthlessness of buildings. I agree with the later but not the former. (Of course, if the building was worthwhile, then maybe the long build time would feel like time well-spent.)

Buildings should open up some possibilities not available to your non-builder civ. In base it just gets you more of the basic yields that you already get from more population working more tiles. That's fine -- that's a basic function of buildings. The problem is that your tall builder approach doesn't work much different than wide non-builder. With base Civ5 patching, the former went from extremely inferior to very inferior to just a little inferior. It would be nice if it wasn't just "better or worse", but actually different.

In Éa there is less distinction between Tall and Wide (anyone can build a small outpost city without penalty), but there certainly will be a big distinction between Builder and Non-Builder. In general, my goal is that Non-Builder will have just enough gold, research and culture to get by, i.e., to support their army, to get those ~10 or so techs, and to pick up some vital policies. Depending on focus, a Builder will have sufficient excess in one or two of these areas to really do some different stuff. In addition to the obvious things like getting high tier techs and finishing policy branches, I have one or two things in mind for each "yield type" that you don't see in base. For example, culture will act as a sort of "multiplier" for good relations (at least with other Men, not so much with Heldeofol). This kind of thing will only be available for Builders.

 

[Pazyryk]

Realism. It just makes sense for a bigger society to have more research, as well as more maintenance.

Maybe. But my current system ensures that BIG always does better than SMALL. Yes, they get hit with the same % deduction, but BIG is putting out more points so getting those techs faster. And research-focus is all about lowering that %, so getting more in the long run.

Now if I put population in the equation for research maintenance, there is the risk that BIG will do worse than SMALL. So then I've made "absolute" points more to your liking, but the relative effects have gotten reversed. Sure, this is all in the math. If I do it right then it will have the same exact effect as above but the point number will look different. I'll consider that.

Also, imagine two situations: a civ with lots of libraries, universities and other research infrastructure, and a civ without them (assuming they have the same techs and population). Why in both cases they should be able to maintain the same number of techs?

"assuming they have the same techs" This is not a valid assumption. A civ with libraries and universities is a civ with Writing and Philosophy. This civ will have lower research maintenance % as well as more total points.

Why in both cases they should be able to maintain the same number of techs?

In history, it is hard to see any correlation between technological advancement at any one time and nation size. Maybe a little, but not much. It has much more to do with who your neighbors are (i.e., diffusion and conquest).

 

[PawelS]

"assuming they have the same techs" This is not a valid assumption. A civ with libraries and universities is a civ with Writing and Philosophy. This civ will have lower research maintenance % as well as more total points.

I mean that in both cases they have Writing and Philosophy, but in one case they haven't built the Libraries and Universities.

In history, it is hard to see any correlation between technological advancement at any one time and nation size. Maybe a little, but not much. It has much more to do with who your neighbors are (i.e., diffusion and conquest).

In my example the nation size is the same, but the "research infrastructure" differs. And it should make a difference when it comes to the number of techs a civ can maintain.


About "things to build": I think in your system a good idea would be to make a large number of buildings not require any tech. It should be basic stuff, like buildings that make use of local resources, and other "primitive" ones. They shouldn't give as much benefits as the technologically advanced ones, but their large number will give the player something to build for a long time.

 

[Pazyryk]

I mean that in both cases they have Writing and Philosophy, but in one case they haven't built the Libraries and Universities.

That might happen in base Civ5, but would not be "rational" game strategy in Éa. Every tech you get is precious. If you go Writing/Philosophy, it is because you are trying to set up your research infrastructure for the long haul. Sure, Writing is needed for Mathematics which has military value. But if you want to do fast early military rush, this is not a good approach.

In my example the nation size is the same, but the "research infrastructure" differs. And it should make a difference when it comes to the number of techs a civ can maintain.

You're really focusing on "end state" here, when any strategist will tell you (and I'm sure you know) that early boosts are much more potent then late boosts. This applies for Builder approach just as much as warmonger approach. A civ that has 2x population, 2x libraries, 2x universities is going to get those mid-level techs much much faster than a smaller or less research-focused civ. It also has the staying power to get over the "hump" (so to speak) to get those 4th, 5th tier techs. That's just simply out of the question for a civ that does not develop research infrastructure (even if research maintenance were the same for both, but it won't be).

About "things to build": I think in your system a good idea would be to make a large number of buildings not require any tech. It should be basic stuff, like buildings that make use of local resources, and other "primitive" ones. They shouldn't give as much benefits as the technologically advanced ones, but their large number will give the player something to build for a long time.

There are a lot more resource-based buildings (as in other re-balance mods), which usually have tech reqs but probably ones that you will meet anyway. I suspect that I will have to add more after initial release.

 

[Ahriman]

But that leaves me with few choices: 1) abandon my core concept and have all civs inevitably acquire all techs as in base Civ5, 2) increase number of techs by 5x or so, or 3) attempt to balance as I said above.

These aren't the only options. It is possible to keep your core design concept of a ~50 tech tree where each player might get 15-20 techs in a game through a combination of increasing the number of things granted by each tech (a tech could easily enable 3-4 different things), having useful things to do with city construction other than units and buildings, having increasing tech costs for higher era techs, etc.

You can keep your concept of reducing the potential for tech disparity across civs without hard-coding it. If a game is expected to last (say) 300 turns, you could set core research to 50 beakers per turn for each civ, imagine that they could get up to another 50 beakers from population, buildings, specialists, etc. Imagine that at the high end a civ could get 6 tech paths researched up to tier3, but no more. So, set tech costs such that:tier 1 techs cost 1000 beakers, tier 2 techs cost 1500 beakers, and tier 3 techs cost 2000 beakers.
6 tech paths combined would cost 27,000 beakers, or 90 beakers per turn average over the course of the game.
You don't need to enforce a tech maintenance system to stop people from hoarding techs.

But my current system ensures that BIG always does better than SMALL.

You don't need a % tech penalty to do this. Just have bigger give more beakers, you get the same effect, but without hard-coding an arbitrary cap.

I just can't help but think that players would get really really frustrated by your tech maintenance system. I know I would.

In history, it is hard to see any correlation between technological advancement at any one time and nation size

Technological advancement was highly correlated with regional population and population density. Technological advancements nearly always happened in high population regions. Not necessarily within a single nation, but mostly within a similar culture.

 

[Pazyryk]

You can keep your concept of reducing the potential for tech disparity across civs without hard-coding it.

This is the exact opposite of what I want on both counts. I want large disparity --that's why the maintenance varies from 5% - 10% (maybe even outside that range as a civ-trait but that will be a rare situation). And you (and PowelS) are still totally focused on end-state (which you will never actually reach) rather speed of picking up techs, which is far far more important strategically. I'm also trying to remove hard limits wherever possible -- I certainly don't want to introduce any. That's why sages can reduce it further. Theoretically, it is possible for sages to keep you going indefinitely, but there are opportunity costs for that.

It's really silly to say that it is "hard coded" just because any civ (with any focus) is going to have a practical limit, eventually. Look, gold costs limit the military size you can support. You can modify this a great deal by how much gold you make. Is this "hard coded"? If you decide to not to pursue Writing/Phil/etc. or produce Sages, then you will be effectively limited to 10 or so techs. If you do, you will still have a practical limit that is about twice this although theoretically unlimited.

In any case, it is likely that you will set your sights on a few higher tier techs (that may be tier 3/4 if you are primitive, or tier 4/5 if you are advanced) and you will never ever reach 100% maintenance. The only way you really reach 100% is if you gobble up many low-tier techs (i.e., go "wide", which should be a viable approach but the trade-off is that you will never get those high tier techs).

So, set tech costs such that:tier 1 techs cost 1000 beakers, tier 2 techs cost 1500 beakers, and tier 3 techs cost 2000 beakers.
6 tech paths combined would cost 27,000 beakers, or 90 beakers per turn average over the course of the game.
You don't need to enforce a tech maintenance system to stop people from hoarding techs.

The cost progression now by tier is 100, 150, 300, 900, 2700 [8100 for tier 6 but that isn't in phase 1]. That likely will need adjusting with game testing.

Yes, I do need it in some form or another. I don't want any civ picking up all (or even most) techs no matter how long they play. You don't really understand the endgame in Éa because I haven't talked about victory conditions. What I can say is that game length isn't "enforced" as in base: a game might go on much longer or shorter, depending (which is forcing many other behind-the-scenes changes that I'm not talking about here). That's one consideration.

Another consideration is that I don't want a very high research focus civ picking up Elephant Warfare, War Horses, and other 2nd/3rd tier techs just because they are super cheap (relatively speaking). A primitive civ might beeline for these as their "pinnacle" tech. To a very research focused civ, the tech cost here will be trivial, but the research maintenance is not. This forces the research focused civ to think twice. They may still want one of these for a good military, but they will not pick them all up willy-nilly just because they are essentially free (relative to their massive science production).

I didn't add this "just because I thought it was realistic". I added it because I need the game effects above. I could go on trying to convince you that my system is a better representation of medieval (or a typical fantasy setting) technological advancement than base Civ5 provides. But, failing that, I'll just have to resort to saying that I need these effects.

I just can't help but think that players would get really really frustrated by your tech maintenance system. I know I would.

Possibly. In truth, I was and still am highly frustrated with the base policy system that punishes you for building cities. Building cities is fun. So I removed it. Getting techs is fun too, but I really do have to limit it in some way, either with a hard limit (which I won't do) or some kind of cost. Any new "cost" mechanism is going to be disturbing at first.

Technological advancement was highly correlated with regional population and population density. Technological advancements nearly always happened in high population regions. Not necessarily within a single nation, but mostly within a similar culture.

My answer may have been a little Euro-centric. I was thinking of various periods with small civs (even city states) rising to prominence. In any case, there is still a huge bonus to BIG in my system so the point is not really relevant.

 

[Ahriman]

And you (and PowelS) are still totally focused on end-state (which you will never actually reach) rather speed of picking up techs

I dunno, it's precisely the speed of picking up techs that I find problematic with the maintenance system. It just feels totally wrong that the technological/advanced civ that has focused on scholarship will be slower at researching a particular tech than would an illiterate civ that doesn't know many techs.
Suppose you research a tech that turns out to be not very useful; you will then be punished for having researched that tech with slower research for the rest of the game.

I don't want any civ picking up all (or even most) techs no matter how long they play.

That's easy to do with tech costs alone and your game end conditions (victory and time). You don't need a hardcap which forces your marginal research down towards zero.

either with a hard limit (which I won't do) or some kind of cost.

Your cost mechanism *is* a hard limit. No matter how large my empire, no matter how scholarship focused, eventually my research maintenance goes up to 100% and I'm done with tech.
If you must have technological upkeep, then make it a fixed cost per tech (which could vary by tech tier), not a percentage.

My answer may have been a little Euro-centric.

Europe developed technologically precisely because Europe and environs had climate and topography to support a large population. Similarly Tigris/Euphrates, China, Japan, South Asia, Valley of Mexico.

 

[PawelS]

you (and PowelS) are still totally focused on end-state (which you will never actually reach) rather speed of picking up techs, which is far far more important strategically.

OK, so let's consider the problem of "speed of picking up techs": let's say you're at 90% reduction and you invest in research, for example build a building or choose a policy that increases it. Then every extra beaker you get will only count as 0.1 beakers for discovering a new tech. This is what I call "punishment" - the return from your investment is very low. If the reduction is not a percentage, after you produce enough beakers to upkeep your existing techs, 100% of extra beakers are used to discover more techs. This will make things more difficult to balance, but I think it's better, because it makes things less determined, and more depending on player actions. Making the upkeep a percentage is like making unit or building upkeep a percentage of your total gold income - it will "punish" your efforts to increase income, by making the extra gold partially go to waste.

 

[Pazyryk]

OK, so let's consider the problem of "speed of picking up techs": let's say you're at 90% reduction and you invest in research, for example build a building or choose a policy that increases it. Then every extra beaker you get will only count as 0.1 beakers for discovering a new tech. This is what I call "punishment" - the return from your investment is very low. If the reduction is not a percentage, after you produce enough beakers to upkeep your existing techs, 100% of extra beakers are used to discover more techs. This will make things more difficult to balance, but I think it's better, because it makes things less determined, and more depending on player actions. Making the upkeep a percentage is like making unit or building upkeep a percentage of your total gold income - it will "punish" your efforts to increase income, by making the extra gold partially go to waste.

I think you are understanding my basic objective (which isn't really flexible), but having a hard time swallowing the mechanism. That's fine. It's a very difficult thing to impose "practical limits" without actually adding hard limits, and even more so when I'm removing an "enforced" time limit on the game. There are practical limits on unit number in base (and needed too, the game is effectively broken if you had 1000 units). So that's what I need here but it has to impose a "practical limit" of about 20-25 techs for a civ that really really works for it, and obviously a much smaller number for a civ that does not work for it. I'm certainly amenable to different mechanisms, if they have the desired effect.

My initial design was a point deduction rather than % deduction. I had points deducted based on total cost of all known techs and some more deduction for "opening" new branches (at that time, branches were more defined and there was even less inter-connectivity than you see in the present tree). But I could never get it to do what I wanted in simulated runs (I make some basic assumptions and run these out on excel spreadsheets). I've played around with points per tech cost, points per tech, points per "branch", and then % for each of these, and then some combination of points and %. Of course, my assumptions here are likely flawed -- only game testing will really tell us anything.

 

[Ahriman]

My initial design was a point deduction rather than % deduction. I had points deducted based on total cost of all known techs and some more deduction for "opening" new branches (at that time, branches were more defined and there was even less inter-connectivity than you see in the present tree). But I could never get it to do what I wanted in simulated runs

I guarantee that the same general outcomes could be reached using a -X rather than -X% deduction. The only thing you can't guarantee is a fixed end cap on the number of techs, but that is a feature.

This kind of modeling is something I'm pretty good at (I'm a microeconomic theorist by training so I'm very used to designing and working with models, and I work on simulation modeling IRL), if you'd like me to give it a go. What are the assumptions you were working with, and the goals you're trying to achieve?

 

[Pazyryk]

, if you'd like me to give it a go. What are the assumptions you were working with, and the goals you're trying to achieve?

This is exactly the kind of question I like to see around here.

Assumptions:

1. There is no fixed "turn limit" on a game (i.e., there is no Time Victory). But, to put some kind of reasonable boundary on a game, let's just say that a player or AI might force a victory condition anywhere from turn 200 (on the very short side) to 600 (it could go longer but most players should get bored and want to finish up by then).
2. This is a stab in the dark, but I'm assuming that research follows a logistic function with "high research focus" approaching 1000 beakers at turn 250 - 300 and "low research focus" about 1/5 of that (they may never even have Writing to build libraries). Justification: Total pop is going to be more constrained than base by tile yield. Cities will reach food carrying capacity (unlike base...due to the flat food basket). On the other hand, building cities is not penalized as much as in base, so good space is going to be grabbed up. Also, there are more different ways to boost science (more buildings, sage activities that I haven't talked about here, and even some specific resource/tile yield).
3. A player doesn't need to finish a large portion of the tech tree. No victory condition requires it (though one of the five will require you to reach some specific high techs). This is quite different than base Civ5 so I list it here as an assumption.

Goals:

1. The game is "broken" if anyone finishes too much of the tech tree. I don't have an exact value here but let's say very roughly about 20 - 25 techs (I may be erring on the stingy side but that is going to be easier to fix in game balancing/testing than the other direction). Note that the tech tree was designed with this in mind, so, for example, one could reach Mithril Working with only 10 techs (but realistically a few more for food/etc.). The function of the tech tree is not to act as "a measure of game progress" as it does in base Civ5. It's main function in this mod is civ-specialization. It looses that function if any single player can finish too much of it.
2. A player should be able to say "the hell with libraries I'm Conan the barbarian!" if he/she chooses. In that vein, I want a "low research focus" civ to be able to set their sights on some 3rd tier techs, or a single 4th tier tech like Beast Breeding or Metal Casting, and to get there in a reasonable game span (say turn 300). It's fine if they pick up some more after that. But I don't want them picking up Philosophy, Architecture, Chemistry, and so on (with all of the cultural/science buildings) just because the game goes on a long time.
3. A "high research focus" civ should be setting their sites on several 4th tier techs and maybe a single 5th tier in a similar time-frame.
4. A "high research focus" civ should be discouraged (somehow) from picking up all of the 2nd/3rd tier techs. It's fine if they pick up a subset for a specific reason -- but I don't want them grabbing all of these just because they are trivially cheap compared to their massive science output. When this happens, I've lost part of the "specialization" function because all of the "low civ tech sets" become just a subset of the "high civ tech set".
5. I'm trying to avoid "hard restrictions" on techs (i.e., making certain techs completely unresearchable by a civ). I do have two specific cases of this, but I don't want to resort to it as a general mechanism.

Also, there are some additional "tools" to work with related to the civ/trait system that I haven't mentioned yet. For example, one civ (1st to Mounted Elephants) will have research points half-filled for all techs leading to Beast Breading. Another civ (1st to Mathematics) gets 1%/tech reduction in Research Maintenance for all techs downstream of Mathematics. Another (1st to open Scholasticism policy branch) gets 0.5%/tech reduction in Research Maintenance for all techs. (Exact details can change, of course, but that gives you an idea.) I haven't designed all of the traits yet but some will help a civ reach a particular pinnacle tech, others will help a civ go wide in the tech tree, others will just increase raw science output. It is intentional that some of these are more immediate (e.g., raw research points) and others only matter much later (e.g., small maintenance effects using my current system).

Another concept here that may or may not be helpful. Well... this is hard to figure out how to say. Let me make a sports analogy (which is dangerous for me since I know very little about it). This mod is more like a low scoring game (say hockey) rather than a high scoring game (like basketball). I'm not talking about length of game here. What I mean is that the concept of "progress" is not so important in Éa. You don't need to accumulate 100 points as in basketball (my analogy to Civ5 "finish the tech tree" or "finish 5 policy branches"). One goal might be enough, maybe.

 

[Pazyryk]

OK, so let's consider the problem of "speed of picking up techs": let's say you're at 90% reduction and you invest in research, for example build a building or choose a policy that increases it. Then every extra beaker you get will only count as 0.1 beakers for discovering a new tech.

Let me just give two very detailed scenarios where you are at 90% research maintenance, so you fully understand the current system (as it is now coded):

1. You are a savage barbarian. You have never learned Writing, but you have completed 11 techs (the first two don't count toward Res Maint) putting you at 90% research maintanance. Let's say you've picked up all the prereqs for Beast Breading (8 techs) and then Agriculture, Mining and Currency for some extra food, production and gold. Probably you are already rampaging along with your war elephants. But of course, your real objective is to make your enemies piss their pants when they see your Mûmakil. Fine, you'll get these eventually. When you do, you're done with the tech tree. You don't have any libraries to sell anyway. Don't worry about other techs. You have all you need to win.
   
   
2. You are a research obsessed civ. You have all of the techs up to and including Transcendental Thought (for 5% per tech reduction in Res Maint). Let say another flat -15% for this and that (civ-traits, academies, some other stuff that I won't say now). So to be at 90% you probably have 23 techs already. Keep in mind that we are talking very late game now. Let's take a look at the tech tree. Maybe you already have Mithril Working (that's 14 techs together with Trans Thought and all prereqs), Architecture for some massive culture (18 total), and then we have to feed ourselves, lets say the 4 "food" techs plus Calendar (23 total, if I did my math right). You've picked up Currency and some other nice stuff as prerequisit, certainly everything you "need". Of course, you have neglected navy but maybe you had good reason to go for Mithril instead. Maybe now you have your sights set on navy techs, or maybe you'll pick up Medicine first (so you're big cities won't... oh wait, I don't want to talk about that yet). But here is the thing. You are not going stop with two more techs. You have the libraries and universities to produce more sages. You already had sages running about doing a variety of different things (this is axiomatic if you are a research-focused civ). But now (at this very late stage in the game) their main value to you is building academies. Each of these is a flat -3.3% reduction in Res Maint. Let's say that you are generating 1000 raw research points anyway. So that's 33 points per turn per academy. Won't get you the whole tech tree, sure (not in a reasonable length game anyway), but it's not a trivial amount either. It will get you to your next objective. Better to sell all your libraries and universities now? Maybe. But you neglected Navy this whole time (your choice). Maybe you should do something about that. Now, in Civ5 you would expect to pick up the 2nd tier Sailing tech (cost 150) in 1 turn. Well, let's say you were at 100% maint but just finished an academy so you now have only 33 points after maintenance. You will get it in 5 turns (if you still want a high tier tech now, all I can say is that you should have planned your research path better). There are always hard choices to make, and always something left to want.

I concede that the system might be psychologically disturbing, to the first-time player, especially if the player thinks that "research points" have some sort of physical meaning. Some folks may run away from the mod. But I do like the difficult choices that it provides.

 

[PawelS]

Thanks for the explanation, I'll see how the system works when I give your mod a try. Although I don't like the fact that I can build as many cities as I want - you seem to limit some things (research) heavily, while not limiting other things (expansion) at all... I think in my mod I'll use your concept of Knowledge Maintenance (with a flat cost depending on tech, number of cities and population), but in a way that allows you to finish the entire tech tree, if you're a research-focused civ. But civs that aren't focused on research will reach the point when they spend all their research points on maintaining their existing techs. I like the idea that you can focus on other things than research, and higher tech units won't have so overwhelming strength advantage over the lower tech ones as in base Civ5. My tech tree is more tall than wide, it's similar to the one in vanilla game - I'm not going to make it a way of customizing your civ, that's what social policies are for in my mod...

(Sorry for talking about my mod in the thread about yours, but I wanted to compare them in this aspect.)

 

[Pazyryk]

Expansion is limited too, but primarily by terrain rather than policy arrest or happiness arrest. You have to look at these changes as a whole set, rather than focusing on one single thing. Expansion is both more and less than base Civ5. More expansion in the sense that resources are relatively much more valuable, so REXing and then intense warfare over resources are likely. On the other hand, non-resource tiles are not so great. Unless you are an Ag-focused civ, you are likely to have large expanses of undeveloped land within your borders even into late game.

Total city number will not be too different ... perhaps a little more than base. But "land use" will probably be about 20% or less of base Civ5, comparing a late Éa game with Industrial Era. (Some projection on my part as I haven't gotten past turn 100 or so yet.)