The way Civ represents each turn as a certain year number has been criticized a lot. In the Wonders thread dh_epic suggested simply doing away with year numbers and only representing era. Once, a long time ago, I proposed having the year number change every time a new tech is first discovered, so the year number automatically matches the technology level.
This thread is the place to debate this whole subject - how should years be tracked, if at all?
I think the best way is a combination of the two ideas above and Rhye's reply to dh_epic's idea:
Years are hidden from display at first. Every turn progresses one year, and whenever a tech is first discovered, the year is adjusted to the year that tech is marked with, that tech's discovery year. The year only changes by tech if that tech's year is later than the current year. Era and turn number are displayed throughout the whole game, and starting with the discovery of Calendar, you are shown the year number.
The year number will always match the tech pace, and you get that added touch of needing a calendar to see what year it really is. :)

Personally I prefer dividing the years into eras (ancient, classical, medieval, etc.) and make the techs from previous eras cheaper and from later eras more expensive.

Hey Blas, nice compass! I´m a -8.75, -3.79! :D

I would prefer to keep the years the way they are. The other ways seem unintuitive and overcomplicated.

There are two purposes to having the year counter:

1) Gameplay: To know how far the game has come.
2) Immersion: To give you the feeling of history passing.

#1 is easy. You could replace the clock with just a turn counter. It's just as valid to hear "200 turns have passed" as it is to know that it's 1400AD.

What we're talking about is #2, giving players a feeling of immersion.

Eras might work. Or, you could be even more detailed than the eras: Ancient Era is divided into Stone Age and Bronze Age... Classical Era is divided into Iron Age and Imperial Age... Middle Ages are divided into the Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages. The "Rennaisance" age is divided into the Gunpowder Age and the Science Age. In other words, do it by era, but make the eras more detailed -- so it's almost like years.

There's lots of alternatives. But the key is finding a way to give the user a feeling of history passing. The player wants to be able to look at the game clock, look at the map, and say "yeah, this is the iron age, with swords and legions building big empires!"

Shouldn't much of this be taken care of already by our modding of civilization's starting technologies and modded tech costs and year counters. We do have early colonization in the 16th century, swordsmen in the early centuries AD....

If I were to change anything it would be a little randomness in the progression of year numbers (instead of 10 years, 6-14 years). But that is not specific to this mod.

EDIT: Of course, I'm also all for starting the year count at 1 for each individual civ and shifting to a BC-AD scale once a particular religion is founded.

Eras might work. Or, you could be even more detailed than the eras: Ancient Era is divided into Stone Age and Bronze Age... Classical Era is divided into Iron Age and Imperial Age... Middle Ages are divided into the Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages. The "Rennaisance" age is divided into the Gunpowder Age and the Science Age. In other words, do it by era, but make the eras more detailed -- so it's almost like years.

This is nice! Should the eras be activated by techs or by predefined years?

I would prefer to keep the years the way they are. The other ways seem unintuitive and overcomplicated.

Same for me... I think counting years is important. I love it to look back to a game and say "Ah, 50 BC I conquered Egypt... 350 AD there was the war against Persia.. etc".

Yeah, that´s good, but I hate when I found my first city in America and see that it is 1350AD :crazyeye:

Eras might work. Or, you could be even more detailed than the eras: Ancient Era is divided into Stone Age and Bronze Age... Classical Era is divided into Iron Age and Imperial Age... Middle Ages are divided into the Early Middle Ages and High Middle Ages. The "Rennaisance" age is divided into the Gunpowder Age and the Science Age. In other words, do it by era, but make the eras more detailed -- so it's almost like years.

This is nice! Should the eras be activated by techs or by predefined years?

To me, the eras should be unlocked by techs. Writing, Sailing, and Bronzeworking unlock the Bronze Era, for example.

You'd still be able to track your accomplishments by saying "Oh, by the 50th turn I'd conquered Egypt, and it was still the Bronze Age!"

Less stress about getting those years absolutely perfect.

Yes, I like dhepic's approach, if limited to the no-calendar period.

Yes, I like dhepic's approach, if limited to the no-calendar period.

I agree. This is a pretty radical concept though and really changes one of the cores of civ but it gives us more room to allow history to unfold without putting a limit on time.

I assume you would tie the introduction of new civs to an era instead fo a turn number then. For instance Greece would come into being in the bronze age and the fall of rome would occur at the beginning of the dark age.

I personally would prefer to keep the good old years, especially once you research calendar. I do understand what all of you are saying though, it wouldn't be the end of the world if it got changed.

I also like having the years, it's mostly tradition for me. I like to see where my civ is in relation to the year, regardless of I'm always ahead or not.

I vote we keep the years as they are. Early wonders would be nice, but they're not crucial.

SilverKnight

P.S.- In case anyone was wondering, I only make some things bold to help skim-readers. I tend to babble when I post... :blush:

If you change it maybe you can make it optional. Because I also want to keep the years.

To me, I don't fuss either way. But I think the two are almost mutually exclusive. You can either have:

1) A traditional fixed year timeline.
2) Events placed accurately by year / era.

But NOT both.

To elaborate, you either get:

1) A fixed year timeline, but with a lot of historical inaccuracy. Religions being founded too early, wonders being built too late, and a space ship in 1920.

2) Event-based timeline, with events dictating the era/year, thus achieving lots of historical accuracy. But the timeline varies from game to game (even if every game has the same number of turns).

It comes down to what people feel is more important: consistency of years between games, or to have history unfold accurately.

In real History, civs didn't count years with numbers until calendar was invented. Using the era before its discover makes sense.

It comes down to what people feel is more important: consistency of years between games, or to have history unfold accurately.
I still vote on the consistency of years. It's one of the many small things I love about Civ! :)

SilverKnight

What about: Until calendar, division in eras. When unlocked, there is a base progression of years, which changes when you adopt a religion. I don't have time to explain better and maybe it's too complicated. I'll come back

Interesting. But it may be too confusing. You will never feel the time passing.

To me, I don't fuss either way. But I think the two are almost mutually exclusive. You can either have:

1) A traditional fixed year timeline.
2) Events placed accurately by year / era.

But NOT both.

To elaborate, you either get:

1) A fixed year timeline, but with a lot of historical inaccuracy. Religions being founded too early, wonders being built too late, and a space ship in 1920.

2) Event-based timeline, with events dictating the era/year, thus achieving lots of historical accuracy. But the timeline varies from game to game (even if every game has the same number of turns).

It comes down to what people feel is more important: consistency of years between games, or to have history unfold accurately.
The event-based timeline makes way more sense. The significance we place on real-life dates is event-based. The reason numbers like 1492, 1933, 1945, 1948, 1969, 2001, etc., actually mean something to us (for instance, when somewhere where numbers are not years there is a number that represents a significant year CE, I notice it and find it interesting) is that certain events took place on certain years. Yes, it's interesting to notice that in 1942 you were just finishing the work on Germany's first tank, but it's meaningless even in a historical what-if kind of way. It's far more meaningful if you notice that a major war between all of the world powers breaks out late in the industrial era and quickly changes the power balance, leading into a quite different modern era.

you can stop discussing this and start playing with a hidden date!

That's great, but we still want event-driven timelining for the whole game!

I personally do NOT want an event driven timeline. I think its nice being able to say "Oh yeah look at me, I'm the Germany who's got gunpowder 100 years ahead of schedule" and such. I like being able to compare civ to real life and say yeah my civ sucked, or yeah my civ kicked Real Life's rear.

So I would make the event driven timeline a selectable option in an ini file or something. Perhaps a seperate version of whatever python controls the dates that we can just not put in the mod folder if we don't want it.

I think a whole event-driven timeline would be too complicated to do

Rhye, I loved the eras system! Personally I found it much better than the year system. Time flows more freely, and I don´t find myself looking at the year and comparing my progress. One excellent side effect of this is that you don´t know when the other civs are going to appear, thus making preparations for their coming less common. Personally I would really love an option for complete eras system, with no years.

Well, you can still count the turns and know that Spain will come in at, say, turn #150... This is why I propose a range for appearance, say, turns 150-160 for Spain in my example... also, this way the order of Euro-civs could be variant

I must admit I like the system as it is now :) . Excellent job, Rhye :goodjob:

I think a whole event-driven timeline would be too complicated to do
Just like Elhoim said, you could keep the era system for the whole game. We can put together a highly detailed list of era, so that eras change every 10-30 turns, with each era triggered by about two techs. It could even be non-linear, with each era coming in at the appropriate time tech-wise and only some general rules for when it's too late for an era (in case certain techs are generally neglected for too long).

No please not... The era system is fine in the beginning but later I want to see the exact date.

No please not... The era system is fine in the beginning but later I want to see the exact date.
Can you explain to me how "exact date" adds something positive to the game, except for it being something you're used to?

I also support that the years are meerly hidden before calendar and that time unfolds normally after calender. Realistically, events do not control time! Time is a constant thing that is not effected by the actions of man at all. Just because some new tech (sailing for example) is discovered doesn't mean that suddenly it must be a certain year! The year came before the tech, not the other way. I don't know if my answer is very clear, but please do not change the current time too much for the sake of "perfect history".

Can you explain to me how "exact date" adds something positive to the game, except for it being something you're used to?

It just gives you a feeling of history which is in my opinion very important in civ4. The eras are already in the game (you enter an era by discovering certain techs) but I need an exact turn number e.g to look back in a game (250 AD I conquered Greece is just more precise than I conquered Greece in the Iron Age). Of course you could also count the turns but then again the "history feeling" is missing. The timeline is needed to document the course of the game and gives you the chance to compare your game with real history (e.g trying to establish the Roman Empire untill a certain date).

Well, you can still count the turns and know that Spain will come in at, say, turn #150... This is why I propose a range for appearance, say, turns 150-160 for Spain in my example... also, this way the order of Euro-civs could be variant

Yeah, but you have to be looking for it, by counting the turn, and looking for them backwards in the victorie screen... When you see the years, you know by a glance how much time you have left until the appearance... Of course I would like semi random appearence time like you do, and by no means this was proposed to replace it. :)

It just gives you a feeling of history which is in my opinion very important in civ4. The eras are already in the game (you enter an era by discovering certain techs) but I need an exact turn number e.g to look back in a game (250 AD I conquered Greece is just more precise than I conquered Greece in the Iron Age). Of course you could also count the turns but then again the "history feeling" is missing. The timeline is needed to document the course of the game and gives you the chance to compare your game with real history (e.g trying to establish the Roman Empire untill a certain date).

I agree with you that it gives a feeling of history, but in a "looking back" or retrospective way. What I mean is that the Romans at that time didn´t say: "What year is it?" "450 before Christ" "And who is Christ??" "Some dude who is going to come in 450 years and free some people we still haven´t conquered...". Years are depicted in a very western retrospective history way, and while is nice to know how you are doing against history, sometimes I feel tied to it, very tied. It´s like: "It´s 1490! I must be discovering America with the Spanish!". With the eras system I felt free of the burden of history, and that is why I like it. I don´t say it must be this for everyone, that´s why I wanted it to be optional.

Also I found the system less subjective than the BC-AD, as eras are somewhat more common and shared than that dating system. It is funny to use the BC-AD when having Judaism as your state religion, as jews have a different dating system. Perhaps it would be great that the dating system changes depending on your religion or time era, and if you have no religion you use the "Common Era" instead of "Anno Domini".

After using the era system I found myself free of the burden of "living up" to history, and just played the game at my pace without knowing what will come or what I "had" to do. Please Rhye, make an option for using this system the whole game! Thanks!

It is funny to use the BC-AD when having Judaism as your state religion, as jews have a different dating system.
It would be really cool if the calendar was tied to the religous system. Or, even to do things according to the "Common Era" if you don't have a state religion.

I also support that the years are meerly hidden before calendar and that time unfolds normally after calender. Realistically, events do not control time! Time is a constant thing that is not effected by the actions of man at all. Just because some new tech (sailing for example) is discovered doesn't mean that suddenly it must be a certain year! The year came before the tech, not the other way. I don't know if my answer is very clear, but please do not change the current time too much for the sake of "perfect history".
I agree that it's weird for tech to control the year number. It was a nifty idea, but I don't support it anymore. What I really want now is only detailed era display along with turn number display. Like Elhoim said so well, the era system frees you of the burden of history. You can still compare what happens when, but you don't have the option of totally accurate-looking comparisons with reality in a game what will never be accurately like reality. There's a discrepancy between the game and real history that cannot be fixed if you keep a system that counts years in relation to the birth of Christ, if for no other reason, then just because Christianity can start in a very broad range of time. And that is by no means the only problem with the current system.
It just gives you a feeling of history which is in my opinion very important in civ4. The eras are already in the game (you enter an era by discovering certain techs) but I need an exact turn number e.g to look back in a game (250 AD I conquered Greece is just more precise than I conquered Greece in the Iron Age). Of course you could also count the turns but then again the "history feeling" is missing. The timeline is needed to document the course of the game and gives you the chance to compare your game with real history (e.g trying to establish the Roman Empire untill a certain date).
But "250 AD" is a meaningless thing in a world where events did not unfold just as they did in reality. A very certain chain of events led to years being numbered as they have been, and for instance, the game doesn't mirror the switch from the Julian calendar to the Gregorian. The numbers used in-game are simply meaningless if not event-driven as they were in reality (the pace never changed in reality, only the method of counting).

Another issue we have not discussed here is the way in-game "wars" (really highly hostile conflicts) often take decades if not centuries, when in reality wars can take just a few months. The hundred-year war was an exceptionally long one, not a trivially short one. If we eliminate counting of years, you can see things more reasonably and consider wars to be times of very heated conflicts with a few armed clashes and actual wars in them. You won't have "war from 567CE to 985CE", you'll just have a conflict spanning much of the middle ages. I wouldn't be against renaming in-game wars "hostility" ("Tokugawa has declared hostility on us!","Are you sure we should declare hostility on Montezuma?"), which makes much more sense on this scale.

Please Rhye, make an option for using this system the whole game! Thanks!

I don't know how to make options

I think we ought to remember that this is only about preserving a feeling of immersion. There's a handfull of people who got pissed off that wonders were happening a few centuries too early, or a few centuries too late. Hiding the year was the easiest way to solve the problem.

Later in the game, with the wonders more spread out in the tree, it's a bit easier to get the timeline right. Hiding the ancient era (before Calendar) will hopefully resolve the rest.

dantrax, did you like the current implementation?

I don't know how to make options

I don´t know either... Perhaps asking the HOF team can help, as they made in game options for turning on and off full mods... Personally I´m happy with a file I have to replace, but a option to turn it on and off would be nice.

Later in the game, with the wonders more spread out in the tree, it's a bit easier to get the timeline right. Hiding the ancient era (before Calendar) will hopefully resolve the rest.

In my case is more than the wonders that are "out of place". Like the discovery of America to the "shortening" of years (jumps of 40 at the beggining to 1 per turn at the end). For me full eras would be a new and more enjoyable experience than the constant reminder of subjective years. But as I said before, it is only a matter of personal experience, so an option in this matter would be the best solution, as not everyone is as traumatized as me regarding things happening at the historical time.

It shouldn't be hard to at least create an "ugly" options system - an ".ini" type file where you can turn on non-default options with binary switches (1 or 0). Or if it's just one option, you can even make it so all you have to do is place a file called "noyears.txt" in a certain place and you get the eras system throughout the game.

I think the current implementaiton, with no year display before calendar, goes a decent way to fixing a lot of the problems with Wonder-timing. So yeah, I think this is an improvement.

Anything beyond that, Rhye, is up to you. It would be gravy.

I only now got to try out the game with era display. I have to admit I felt rather lost playing as Rome and never seeing the year number change. I still don't want years counted the way they used to be, but I definately need to see turn numbers along with era.
Also, Rhye, can you tell us for the Historical Challenge what turn numbers the years AD 50 and AD 200 correspond with?

depends on the tech you have

I thought years are still the same, just hidden until Calendar. So how does it actually work now?

yes but until they're hidden, the age depends on your techs

All I need to know is what turn numbers those years have, because the challenge is all based around completing certain goals in a very tight timeframe. Right now one has to just wait until Calendar is discovered or until civs start spawning to figure out that you've failed the challenge. This wastes precious testing time.
EDIT: And please reply to the Pax Romana thread, Rhye, I've suggested some changes to the mod to make the challenge possible and I'd like to know what you think about them.

A turn display would be a nice thing.

Can't turns be seen from the victory conditions screen: "x turns left!".

Can't turns be seen from the victory conditions screen: "x turns left!". Yes, but that's not as comfortable as having the number right in front of you.

okay the turn number is added in the savegame string

Can you release a new version with this fix soon? It's very annoying to be unable to reload (and to play with neither turn number nor year showing.)

no, this is not a fix. As an addition, it will be part of the next release.

Bumping for full game era display ;)

When I first played Civ IV I thought the year system would be great, but I quickly grew to hate the way it worked - in the original game on any speed, the modern era would arrive sometime around the 1600s, and it just didn't seem right that Buddhism was founded in 4000 BC.

The era system, if it is divided into smaller (but accurately titled) ages would be great for an accuracy obsessive such as myself. Sometimes it is very nice to be able to interpret the time for yourself, and having the year set in stone doesn't let you do that.

It also removes the "It takes 15 years to move one tile" feeling, whereas here they are just turns in longer or shorter eras.

I´m sorry about my obsession with it, but I fell in love with the system, and I am sad for my inability to mod it into RFC and vanilla (now warlords).

I definitely think that if you numbered the turns, and divided the game into 20 ages (rather than 7), you could have LOTS of timeline accuracy and still allow people to track how fast they're doing stuff. I'm okay with whatever Rhye says, though.

Besides in Civ the progress of the world is defined by tech advance rather than the timeline.