Civ dating scheme needs improvement

[Danicela]

I think the game should begin in 5000 BC and not 4000 because the year system is in late compared to the technologies you make, also in the Civilopedia, it's told that Archery have been made in 5000 BC...

 

[MrCynical]

I'd prefer a Civ with only a turn number, not a date, so all the interminable arguments about dates, which are irrelevant to gameplay, can be laid to rest.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

[ad absurdum]
Of course you should also eliminate
unit names (no more Spearman v. Tank)
Civ names (Why are the Aztecs fighting the Japanese?)
Leader Names (Why is Genghis Khan Expansive?)
Building Names (How does a Castle protect an entire city?)
Resource Names (Why can't Horses Spread?)
Terrain Names (why can't we go over mountains?)
Tech names (why does Code of Laws Require Priesthood?)
Civc Names (How do I have Free Speech with Police State?)
oh almost forgot
Improvement Names (how do windmills give Food?)

Oh and religion names (Why is Buddhism founded before Judaism?)

Terms like Happiness, Health , Food, Culture, Hammers, Gold should be dropped as well (Stuff#1, Stuff#2, etc.)

We shouldn't be talking about Cities with 'population' in an 'empire or civilization... comparing those to real life cities, populations, empires and civilizations shows how ridiculous it is and just encourages pointless debates.


[/ad absurdum]

The option for it to display turn number would be good, but keep the date.

 

[Esox]

"I built the spaceship on turn number 5995! Woo-hoo!"

Part of the fun of Civ is creating a history that can be compared to the one that we (okay, for correctness sake, the vast overwhelming majority of players) already know.

 

[MrCynical]

My objection to the date system is that it is the source of more arguments and stupid debates than just about everything else put together. No matter how much you mess around with the system, you can't get both combat between individual units and tech research from the stone to the modern age without the game becoming an utterly impractical length. No matter how much you scale things, one way or the other it will bear no resemblance to reality.

For all of the other things; civs, improvements, civics, it is possible to come up with something vaguely consistent with reality, and more importantly gives a clear in game function. Whether Genghis is expansive or not, I know that he is in game, and what expansive does. Now suppose I see that the ingame date is 1846AD. Yes I can work out how many turns have passed, and how many are left, based on the game speed, but given that all important time related info in game is displayed in numbers of turns, why on earth is there this pointless conversion phase? Yes, you need some flavour to immerse yourself in the game, but it should not merely add an annoying layer of conversion to be done. Why waste time fiddling with something that can never bear any resemblance to reality? Just dump the whole thing, put in a purely functional system.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

My objection to the date system is that it is the source of more arguments and stupid debates than just about everything else put together.

Actually this is the ONLY argument I've actually seen in regards to the dates. (OK maybe of the hundreds of other threads I can think of a few others that are vaguely related)

For all of the other things; civs, improvements, civics, it is possible to come up with something vaguely consistent with reality, and more importantly gives a clear in game function. Whether Genghis is expansive or not, I know that he is in game, and what expansive does. Now suppose I see that the ingame date is 1846AD. Yes I can work out how many turns have passed, and how many are left, based on the game speed, but given that all important time related info in game is displayed in numbers of turns, why on earth is there this pointless conversion phase?

Well in that case another display OPTION should be added (RL Time, Date, Game Turn)... all useful depending on whether you want to get
RL
Immersion
or
Spreadsheet gameplay


They should NOT Eliminate the Date

And for the Really important gameplay data ie #Turns Left, you can check the Victory Screen.

 

[Danicela]

I think they should make like in CTP : Turn number AND Year.

So for exemple : Turn 10 - 3600 BC

But I noticed that always we get things AFTER than they should be created
=> Cavalry in 1875 instead of ~1700
=> Christiannity in 1000 instead of 1. (the Civ4 year..)
=> Axemen in -1000 instead of ~-2500.

I'm not sure of the dates, but like for techs and buildings, i'm sure that each thing is made too late in the game compared to when they have been made in our History.

 

[PanzerEric]

[ad absurdum]
Of course you should also eliminate
unit names (no more Spearman v. Tank)
Civ names (Why are the Aztecs fighting the Japanese?)
Leader Names (Why is Genghis Khan Expansive?)
Building Names (How does a Castle protect an entire city?)
Resource Names (Why can't Horses Spread?)
Terrain Names (why can't we go over mountains?)
Tech names (why does Code of Laws Require Priesthood?)
Civc Names (How do I have Free Speech with Police State?)
oh almost forgot
Improvement Names (how do windmills give Food?)

Oh and religion names (Why is Buddhism founded before Judaism?)

Terms like Happiness, Health , Food, Culture, Hammers, Gold should be dropped as well (Stuff#1, Stuff#2, etc.)

We shouldn't be talking about Cities with 'population' in an 'empire or civilization... comparing those to real life cities, populations, empires and civilizations shows how ridiculous it is and just encourages pointless debates.


[/ad absurdum]

The option for it to display turn number would be good, but keep the date.

Krikkitone has just said it all on this interminable subject. Time to close out this ridiculous thread gentlemen.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Actually, in quick and normal mode, things might come quite a bit later than we would expect them to, but in marathon, it's the other way around. It all comes down to the fact that you can't get a turn any shorter than a year, so while quick speed only tapers down to a year per turn in the 21st century, marathon mode actually does this much earlier.

 

[Older than Dirt]

Dating among civs can cause problems with all that miscegenating going on.

 

[impervius]

This isn't exactly a suggestion, but I think it warrants some thought. I did a search for this in general discussion, but couldn't find anything.

Shouldn't Civ have an alternative timeline in place? Why should it start in 4000BC? Specifically, why should the year be labeled as BC or AD? If we consider that the BC/AD system wasn't devised until after the birth of Christianity, then perhaps Civ should reflect that.
I recently played a game in which Christianity was founded around 500 BC. Yet, it took 500 years until the titular "year of our lord" came about in the game I was playing.
I wonder if anyone cares. I think it's pretty lame.

Of course I know you're gonna say that the year is supposed to provide an easy comparison for real human history. Well, I say "bah!" I suppose having a single, immortal ruler is supposed to provide a comparison to human history, too? What I'm trying to say is that Civ is NOT real life, it's nothing like it, and the dating scheme shouldn't be there to compare the two. Although it's fun to say you launched a space ship to Alpha Centauri in 1898, it just doesn't make any sense.

Thoughts?

thing is though, the game can't know when christianity is to be founded, so BC can't really be used at all, i think it should remain as-is

 

[eric_]

IMO tadsters post had nothing to do with religion, it was just using the notion that Xtianity can be founded at a year other than 0 as an example of how the dating system is flawed.

For me, personally, I like the dating as a way to compare my progress to the course of human history.

"Oh, cool, I have musketmen and it's only 1000 a.d."

or

"Damn, I'm fielding macemen and it's 1926."

That sort of thing.

Sure it's incongruous to found Xtianity in 500 BC or Islam in 100 AD or whatever, but it doesn't bother me. I am cognizant of the fact that the dating scheme is pretty much 100% arbitrary.

 

[Palpster]

I'd still rather win a Cultural Victory in the year 1924 than in turn X (X depending on game speed setting).

Besides, if the calender using BC and AD is a problem so should a lot of others things be. What'd be the next suggestion, only Egypt can build the pyramids? It's a game about fantastical, alternate histories. And since it's about history I guess it would have to include a standard calender. Like I said, finishing something in Turn X, just isn't as appealing as doing it in the year 1885, well, not to me anyway.