I was playing an OCC game and carefully micromanaged my beakers to get an advance the next turn. When I did not, I looked to see if anything unexpected has happened and I was surprised to see everything went as predicted. I dug up the Samson's formula for cost of research and checked everything again. The conclusion was clear: the formula was not right in this case. Knowing the formula has been around for years, I started digging deeper and found several more inconsistencies. I am going to present my data and seek other player's opinion on this matter here. But before I proceed, I should review what I believe to be the formula first. Search on CFC reveals many mentions of the Samson's formula. Most of these do not contain the details and provide a link to the original article by Samson at Apolyton site. Unfortunately these links do not work any more. However, on two occasions the details are provided and since the two are identical it makes me believe that this is all the detail that is available: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=379489&postcount=21 http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=9430649&postcount=15 If someone here believes there is more to Samson's formula than is copied in the above links, please provide the details. The cause of the discrepancy in my game, was that despite what the formula says the tech multiplier does not always go up by one with every 3 techs you are ahead of your key civ. The penalty is +1 for 3 techs, +2 for 6 techs, but not +3 for 9 techs. It jumps to +4. I have verified that this happens with consistency. Similar jumps happen with consistency at other differences as well. As I was collecting data points for this purpose, by opening old saves, I noticed data that was inconsistent in other ways. I kept looking and collecting data till I happened to open a very old save from the days I was learning how to play Civ2. The tech multiple was inconsistent and lower than expected. Then I had a eureka moment. I noticed that the year was 1500 but I was researching techs that I typically do in early AD years. I went into the cheat mode and changed the year by lowering the turn number by about 100. The tech multiple changed to the expected value! Thus, the tech multiple is based on game turn among other things. Looking at the table of Base and Bonus values vs. Tech number that is in the original article by Samson I cannot help thinking that this cannot be the case. No designer will make a design by assigning numbers like this. If I want to design a tech multiplier based on tech number I am going to come up with a formula and not a table. I have not looked at enough data points to come up with a formula on how number of turns affects tech multiple. Nor do I have an explanation for all the anomalies I have observed. I have started this thread because I want your input and want to make sure that there is not more research into this that I am already aware of.