Era of Miracles fantasy mod - developer diary

[PawelS]

Name is a bit weak. How about "migrant laborers" or "project financing" or "paid labor" (ie as opposed to bonded or slave labor)?
Not much better I realize.

I think "Paid Labor" is better, thanks.

Cult of Mammon also sounds quite specific; does that fit with your religious lore? An alternative would be something like "merchant elite" or "merchant class", or "oligarchy" the idea basically that you get happiness from allowing non-aristocrats who are wealthy to accumulate power.

Yes, that name remained from an early version of my ideas, when I didn't know about the introduction of religion in the expansion. Changed to Oligarchy.

The A line seems pretty powerful relative to a lot of the other lines in various trees.

Hmm, I think the A line in Craftsmanship is at least equally good, as usually production is more important than gold... But of course some balance changes can be introduced due to playtesting.

The C tree seems pretty weird in that it is supporting very different types of playstyles, particularly C3. Does a city-state manipulation policy really fit well in a military unit line?

Well, C2 makes you get more units from militaristic minor civs (they are not city-states in this mod, as they have multiple cities), so C3 works to strengthen your relations with them, also being allied with a minor civ can help in a war much more than in vanilla game, because they have bigger armies and more strategic resources due to their multiple cities, so if you prepare for a war, the C line is a good thing to have... Also generally I don't like when it's obvious which play style is supported by which policies, I prefer when there are multiple effects, and you need to think which policy suits your current needs best (it's the same as with buildings that have multiple effects, we talked about them earlier in this thread).

Coming soon: Wisdom

 

[Ahriman]

Also generally I don't like when it's obvious which play style is supported by which policies, I prefer when there are multiple effects, and you need to think which policy suits your current needs best

This doesn't make much sense to me. Policies by definition last for the whole game. So in choosing policies, absolutely you should be making a selection that fits your long-term playstyle rather than whatever your current needs are.

Tech choice can be to some extent to fit your current needs, because tech selection to some extent affects the order in which you get things, not which things you get (at least in vanilla, it varies depending on the tech tree design). But policy choice isn't like that.

The three policies in a subtree IMO should be related thematically and strategically. The C path here is military related, it would make sense to add another military modifier. A city state modifier really has very little to do with military relations, and in particular it has little to do with C1.
C1 and C2 fit together fine, but C3 could be something like lower military upkeep costs (to pay for the large army that you have purchased with C2).
I imagine it could be something like "private armies" (though that name is lame). The idea being, your various wealthy people hire, train and equip their own military forces and then contribute them to the state in times of war. So the state doesn't bear as much of the upkeep costs directly.

 

[PawelS]

This doesn't make much sense to me. Policies by definition last for the whole game. So in choosing policies, absolutely you should be making a selection that fits your long-term playstyle rather than whatever your current needs are.

Tech choice can be to some extent to fit your current needs, because tech selection to some extent affects the order in which you get things, not which things you get (at least in vanilla, it varies depending on the tech tree design). But policy choice isn't like that.

If you mean choosing the entire policy trees then yes, it's a choice for the whole game. But the order of getting particular policies can by dictated by current needs. But my main point is that not everything should be obvious, I think the game is more interesting when there are some things "bundled" together, so sometimes to pick something you need you have to also get something you don't really need. This is somewhat similar to technologies - a technology can unlock something you need badly, while also unlocking something you don't need that much, also as I said earlier most buildings in the mod will have more than one effect. I think such "multi-effect things" add more complexity and depth to the game.

The three policies in a subtree IMO should be related thematically and strategically. The C path here is military related, it would make sense to add another military modifier. A city state modifier really has very little to do with military relations, and in particular it has little to do with C1.
C1 and C2 fit together fine, but C3 could be something like lower military upkeep costs (to pay for the large army that you have purchased with C2).
I imagine it could be something like "private armies" (though that name is lame). The idea being, your various wealthy people hire, train and equip their own military forces and then contribute them to the state in times of war. So the state doesn't bear as much of the upkeep costs directly.

Reduced military upkeep is going to be in another policy tree (probably Chaos or Domination). I don't want to have all gold-related bonuses in Wealth, because it would increase the player's net income to unreasonable levels

Also, I made two changes in Wealth policy names: Oligarchy was good, but I decided to change it to Financial Elite, which describes this policy better IMO. Also I changed Paid Labor to Contract Work, as suggested by Allirion via PM. Thanks!

 

[PawelS]

And now, Wisdom.

• Opener: +1 Science per City
• A1 Scribes: +1 Culture and +1 Science from every Library and Monastery (Monastery serves a different function than in the vanilla game, it's similar to the Civ4 version - increases culture and science, allows the Priest specialist, and doesn't require any resources to be built)
• A2 Joy of Discovery: +1 Happiness from every University and Observatory (I think I'll do something to prevent building University in all cities, perhaps it will be available only in cities specialized in Science; the same with Bank and cities specialized in Gold, or I'll make it require a number of lower level buildings in your cities, like Cathedrals in Civ4; ideas are welcome)
• A3 Applied Science: +1 Science per Specialist
• B1 Ancient Mysteries: +4 Mana from Ancient Temples, +4 Science from Ancient Ruins (both types of special improvements are placed on the map at the beginning of the game)
• B2 Mana Focusing*: more Mana from Nodes and some buildings (details not yet determined; I'm going to rename the Faith yield from the expansion to Mana)
• B3 Arcane Mastery: All Mage units get +25% ranged attack, free Great Mage (a type of GP that can be used in combat)
• C1 Combat Learning: units get +50% XP from combat
• C2 Monstrology: all units get +25% bonus against enemy Monsters (Nature gives a bigger bonus, but only to Recon units)
• C3 Intercultural Studies: +10% Science in assimilated cities ("assimilated" means captured cities after building Assimilation Center, which has the same effect as Courthouse in vanilla game), get extra Science from Minor Civs (again Minor Civ stuff in the same branch as things related to combat )
• Finisher: Free Technology

* Can anyone guess where this name comes from?

 

[texdionis]

Are you going with the name "Monstrology" intentionally? Because "Teratology" is the equivalent term in our reality for the study of monsters.

 

[Ahriman]

Reduced military upkeep is going to be in another policy tree (probably Chaos or Domination)

Ok, but the CS bonus still doesn't really make sense in this sub-tree.

Oligarchy was good, but I decided to change it to Financial Elite, which describes this policy better IMO. Also I changed Paid Labor to Contract Work, as suggested by Allirion via PM.

These are ok, I guess my reservations are that medieval and (with a handful of Italian exception) renaissance societies didn't really have a financial elite. Financial elite means banking; borrowing and lending. What is more realistic is to have an economic elite; these people will probably be merchants, not bankers. "Financial" is sometimes misused to mean anything economic, but it doesn't really mean that. Oligarchy is nice in that it means rule by the economic elite, it doesn't have anything specific to do with banking, which was a pretty small part of overall economic activity until modern times.
Paid labor I think also might make more sense than contract labor, because labor contracts similarly weren't widespread - particularly among laborers - until modern times, in part because the laborers were illiterate and wouldn't understand a contract. Whereas paid labor, in terms of paying workers in money rather than having a service obligation or [paying in "security" was a significant innovation.

I think I'll do something to prevent building University in all cities, perhaps it will be available only in cities specialized in Science

Rather than literally blocking its construction, you might make it so that it is only worth building in cities specialized in science, say because it has a high maintenance cost and give a % yield bonus that is only worthwhile if you're using sages and the like.

+4 Mana from Ancient Temples, +4 Science from Ancient Ruins (both types of special improvements are placed on the map at the beginning of the game)

These will need to be fairly common, otherwise this is probably overly restrictive for a tier-opening policy. An interesting idea though.

Can anyone guess where this name comes from?

That's in Master of Magic, isn't it?

Combat Learning

Alternate names: College of war, military science, advanced doctrine, educated officers

 

[Calavente]

I have just a general comment on policies.
Maybe (just maybe) it can be better if most "trees" have at least some part of the name that is repeated upon the different policies. :
I liked the Public works I --> Public works II --> Public roads progression. One is clearly an improvement of the other while the third names have the same "public" adjective in it that brings cohesion to the group.

for example the "B1 City Militias - / B3 Territorial Defense - / B2 Levies ." could be replaced by something akin to "City Militia"--> "Homeland militia"--> "Conscripting the Militia"

I'm making those suggestion because in most cases the effects are mainly in a same philosophic line ; and it would then allow to limit the number of names to learn and ease the understanding of the relation between each policy.

However to render the things more interesting/break the symmetry or to bump in a same line some different concepts, you can have sometimes what you already do, mixing 1 name that seems to have nothing to do with the other two names... but maybe not always.

Well it is only cosmetics so, do as you want


I thought a bit about craftsmanship. for me it is opposed to somthing like "industrialisation" or .. maybe opposed to "chaos" ? but that might not fit with what you want to do with chaos..
craftsmen (in my view) should improve either the "every day" life : better tools for working, increased culture, maybe increased production output a bit;
the weapons : better weapons ; but maybe it should reduce the production rate (building and unit alike as they can do more and better with the same thing but spend more time on it). so maybe allow : building that provides strategic ressources if one is already in the city radius .. (if you have a +2iron mine, the "master smith" building gives you +1 iron ressource.) Thus craftsmen orientation would enable more elite units but with a general reduction of construction rate for units.


Otherwise I thought about a policy that could encourage/facilitate a conquest approach :
Imperialist : +3happy per annexed city (that can build up a lot.. but at the same time it does not completly pay for the unhappiness brought by new city) but add a -20% -20% -20% in annexed cities.
Thus you can go aconquering and maintain cities but with a cost.
or maybe 1 happy per garrisoned unit in annexed cities. (but with a drawback elsewhere).

my 0.2

 

[PawelS]

@texdionis: Teratology is something different, it's about congenital disorders, not about fantasy monsters. But I'm not sure if "Monstrology" is a good name, perhaps I'll change it to "Monster Anatomy".

Ok, but the CS bonus still doesn't really make sense in this sub-tree.

If you say so... Perhaps I'll reorganize the trees somewhat, and break the symmetry so it won't be always 3 branches with 3 policies each. But I think it fits as an additional effect of the policy that gives science from assimilated cities - it's about better scientific cooperation with other cultures.

These are ok, I guess my reservations are that medieval and (with a handful of Italian exception) renaissance societies didn't really have a financial elite. Financial elite means banking; borrowing and lending. What is more realistic is to have an economic elite; these people will probably be merchants, not bankers. "Financial" is sometimes misused to mean anything economic, but it doesn't really mean that. Oligarchy is nice in that it means rule by the economic elite, it doesn't have anything specific to do with banking, which was a pretty small part of overall economic activity until modern times.

This policy increases happiness from Mints and Banks, so I think it fits better as "Financial". Of course fantasy games should get inspiration from real history, especially medieval times, but I don't think these times must be accurately depicted.

Paid labor I think also might make more sense than contract labor, because labor contracts similarly weren't widespread - particularly among laborers - until modern times, in part because the laborers were illiterate and wouldn't understand a contract. Whereas paid labor, in terms of paying workers in money rather than having a service obligation or paying in "security" was a significant innovation.

I think "paid labor" sounds strange, because labor is usually paid... Well, it is in modern times, perhaps it wasn't always like this in medieval times, but still the idea for paying someone for his work was widely known and doesn't sound like something special that would deserve a policy. As for the contracts, they don't have to be signed with individual laborers (which can be illiterate), but with groups, and the leader of such group would understand what the contract means.

Rather than literally blocking its construction, you might make it so that it is only worth building in cities specialized in science, say because it has a high maintenance cost and give a % yield bonus that is only worthwhile if you're using sages and the like.

This can cause problems with the AI, which would build things where they don't give any net benefit.

These will need to be fairly common, otherwise this is probably overly restrictive for a tier-opening policy. An interesting idea though.

Yes, perhaps I'll add another effect to this policy to make it a more viable choice.

That's in Master of Magic, isn't it?

True. One of the best games of all time.

Alternate names: College of war, military science, advanced doctrine, educated officers

I like "Military Science" and "Educated Officers", but I kinda like my "Combat Learning" idea too...

I have just a general comment on policies.
Maybe (just maybe) it can be better if most "trees" have at least some part of the name that is repeated upon the different policies. :
I liked the Public works I --> Public works II --> Public roads progression. One is clearly an improvement of the other while the third names have the same "public" adjective in it that brings cohesion to the group.

for example the "B1 City Militias - / B3 Territorial Defense - / B2 Levies ." could be replaced by something akin to "City Militia"--> "Homeland militia"--> "Conscripting the Militia"

I'm making those suggestion because in most cases the effects are mainly in a same philosophic line ; and it would then allow to limit the number of names to learn and ease the understanding of the relation between each policy.

However to render the things more interesting/break the symmetry or to bump in a same line some different concepts, you can have sometimes what you already do, mixing 1 name that seems to have nothing to do with the other two names... but maybe not always.

Well it is only cosmetics so, do as you want

This is quite an interesting idea, actually I'm not happy with some of the current policy names, so it's possible that I'll change them in fashion that you propose.

I thought a bit about craftsmanship. for me it is opposed to somthing like "industrialisation" or .. maybe opposed to "chaos" ? but that might not fit with what you want to do with chaos..
craftsmen (in my view) should improve either the "every day" life : better tools for working, increased culture, maybe increased production output a bit;
the weapons : better weapons ; but maybe it should reduce the production rate (building and unit alike as they can do more and better with the same thing but spend more time on it). so maybe allow : building that provides strategic ressources if one is already in the city radius .. (if you have a +2iron mine, the "master smith" building gives you +1 iron ressource.) Thus craftsmen orientation would enable more elite units but with a general reduction of construction rate for units.

My initial idea about Craftsmanship is that it should be a production-based policy. But your ideas are interesting - I like the idea of a "quality vs quantity" policy which makes units better, but makes them take longer to produce (but perhaps it will be one of the Order policies), and generally it makes me think about adding negative effects to some policies... About buildings, I don't think it's currently possible to make a policy enable a building, but if/when it's possible, it's a good idea to consider.

Otherwise I thought about a policy that could encourage/facilitate a conquest approach :
Imperialist : +3happy per annexed city (that can build up a lot.. but at the same time it does not completly pay for the unhappiness brought by new city) but add a -20% -20% -20% in annexed cities.
Thus you can go aconquering and maintain cities but with a cost.
or maybe 1 happy per garrisoned unit in annexed cities. (but with a drawback elsewhere).

my 0.2

Another good idea for policy with both positive and negative effects, I think I'll use it for one of the Domination policies...

 

[Ahriman]

because labor is usually paid... Well, it is in modern times, perhaps it wasn't always like this in medieval times, but still the idea for paying someone for his work was widely known and doesn't sound like something special that would deserve a policy

It's it's just a policy name so I hesitate to harp on.... but having the majority of your workforce actually be paid in money really was a big deal. Labor *wasn't* usually paid. Most medieval or older societies relied massively on slaves or serfs, and most soldiers served under feudal obligation rather than for pay. Certainly most artisans were still paid in money, but the idea of labor contracts was almost unheard of. Some of the very earliest formal labor contracts were for mercenary companies in Renaissance Italy, the Condottieri, who were actually named after the word for their contracts, precisely because this was so unusual.

but I kinda like my "Combat Learning" idea too...

To me, combat learning sounds like a game mechanic, rather than a social policy or institution.

 

[Allirion]

so, i really have to defend my suggestion? Well then:

Contract Work does not equal Work Contract, and is even kind of the opposite to labour contracts.

You are talking about labour contracts, having a written contract about what your rights are (payment, vacation, labour time etc). But that's not it.

Contract work means that you don't have an employer that pays you even if there is nothing to do (in kind perhaps, providing for food and accomodation), but are trying to sell your work force to the highest bidder (resulting in not getting paid when you don't have a contract at the time). For example carpenters, they close a contract with you, and when they are done they try to get assignments from others.

 

[rocklikeafool]

so, i really have to defend my suggestion? Well then:

Contract Work does not equal Work Contract, and is even kind of the opposite to labour contracts.

You are talking about labour contracts, having a written contract about what your rights are (payment, vacation, labour time etc). But that's not it.

Contract work means that you don't have an employer that pays you even if there is nothing to do (in kind perhaps, providing for food and accomodation), but are trying to sell your work force to the highest bidder (resulting in not getting paid when you don't have a contract at the time). For example carpenters, they close a contract with you, and when they are done they try to get assignments from others.

There was very little of this in the middle ages. Since fantasy is inspired by the middle ages, it makes very little sense in a fantasy setting.

 

[Calavente]

about the "financial elite" name..
wouldn't "guild" be an appropriate name?
Guildes were indeed (both in reality and in Fantasy) the associations of the merchants/craftsmen. So a policy that relies on giving more power to the merchants (as opposed to the religious / military / nobles) would lead to a strengthening of the guild organisations.
I htus think that "guild-something" would be more appropriate thematically than "financial elite or banking elite....etc"

So if you have a policy that is "Guild council" or "Guildocracy", it might show that the power is detained by the guilds (the merchants and financial elites).

you could have a line that starts at :
"craft associations" --> "City guilds" --> "Pan-empire Guilds" ---> "Guild Rights" --> "Guildocracy"

 

[Allirion]

There was very little of this in the middle ages. Since fantasy is inspired by the middle ages, it makes very little sense in a fantasy setting.

Of course there was, mostly in cities. Independent contractors, freelancers (i know, Renaissance, but the idea is much older), seasonal workers, day labourers. Especially by the time of the urbanization in the late middle ages, the idea of being self-dependent and working for everyone, who needed someone for a limited period of time and was willing to pay, was on the rise.

 

[rocklikeafool]

Of course there was, mostly in cities. Independent contractors, freelancers (i know, Renaissance, but the idea is much older), seasonal workers, day labourers. Especially by the time of the urbanization in the late middle ages, the idea of being self-dependent and working for everyone, who needed someone for a limited period of time and was willing to pay, was on the rise.

That was not contract work; that was owning a business. Besides, even then, the majority of the population were serfs, who worked for nothing other than food, a home, and whatever their lord chose to give them.

 

[Ahriman]

wouldn't "guild" be an appropriate name?

Doesn't quite fit with the concept IMO. Guilds would make mores sense to me in the Craftsmanship tree, whereas the idea here was about rule by a small number of the very wealthy.

Of course there was, mostly in cities. Independent contractors, freelancers (i know, Renaissance, but the idea is much older), seasonal workers, day labourers. Especially by the time of the urbanization in the late middle ages, the idea of being self-dependent and working for everyone, who needed someone for a limited period of time and was willing to pay, was on the rise.

There were lots of people in cities who worked for money. Almost none of them had an actual contract.

Contract labor in the sense you are talking about is as distinguished from employees, but both contractors and employees use labor contracts, and both are modern inventions. Independent contractors are a 20th century innovation; there is no concept of an independent contractor before a period where you have significant labor law that covers employees (the whole point of being an independent contractor is that you just give them money, and not all the other benefits).

But anyway, it's just a name, so I'm fine to drop this issue.

 

[PawelS]

About "Financial Elite": for me it's not important if something like it actually existed in the Middle Ages or not. It's enough for me that in many fantasy settings there are banks and financial-oriented "civilizations", for example in "A Song of Ice and Fire" there is Braavos and its Iron Bank (and bankers which can be called "financial elite"), while in the Seven Kingdoms there are no banks or anything that could be called "financial elites", so they represent a civ that hasn't chosen this policy (and also doesn't have the tech to build Banks).

About "Contract Work" - by this policy I mean something like this: if you want more workers to finish something faster, you can hire them. And it doesn't have to be a formal contract, as Allirion said if you pay someone for doing something specific, instead of paying for just being employed by you, it can be called a "contract", I think such possibilities existed in the Middle Ages. Also I imagine that such workers can offer their services at marketplaces, hence the extra production from them.

About Guilds: there will be some Guilds as buildings (and possibly a Guilds tech), perhaps I'll also make some changes to Craftsmanship policies (or their names), so some of them will be about Guilds.

 

[PawelS]

Freedom: (excludes Domination)

• Opener: +1 Happiness per City
• A1 Creativity: extra Happiness converted to Culture
• A2 Cultural Development: +2 Culture from Town, +1 Culture from Trading Post
• A3 Tolerance: +20% Culture in assimilated cities
• B1 Joy of Life: +1 Happiness per 10 citizens
• B2 Free Arts: +1 Culture per Specialist
• B3 Middle Class: Specialists cause only half Unhappiness
• C1 Questing: more friendship from Minor Civs for completing quests (there is an XML tag that is supposed to do it, if it doesn't work then I'll have to change it to something else or do it using the DLL)
• C2 Heroism: +50% hero generation from combat (there is a type of heroes that are generated from combat like Great Generals in normal game, but they are direct combat units, not only they give the leadership bonus)
• C3 Greatness: +25% Great People generation in all cities (Please give me a better idea for the name )
• Finisher: Free Great Person of your choice

 

[Calavente]

whoa... creativity (A1) seems a fun idea
how do you check your overall "happiness surplus" to see if you can found a new city ?
B1 (joy of life) is per city or civ-wide ? (one 12sized city plus 2 9sized cities would bring 1happy or 3?)

nice policy tree

 

[Allirion]

regarding "Greatness": what about "ambition" or "perfectionism"

 

[texdionis]

As for units art, I suggest to take a look at the Faerun Scenario available in the mod browser (latest version of a couple days ago), at last a bunch of relevant fantasy units have been successfully designed for CiV: mages, druids, giants, assassins, clerics, paladins, demons and.... dragons! Yay! Nice work