Civ dating scheme needs improvement

[tadster]

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?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well the dating system is Purely for Color [It is ONLY there to compare the two] just like having the Aztecs, Germans, Greeks, etc. in the game, the Only reason for that is to compare real and Civ History.

So they shouldn't change it, although having the ability to see the turns left/turns gone by would be useful.

 

[Zombie69]

From the title, i take it you want the option to date Isabella and Catherine, rather than just be friends?

 

[Bushface]

.

So they shouldn't change it, although having the ability to see the turns left/turns gone by would be useful.

Go to the Victory Conditions screen, top left corner IIRC, although I think this only shows "turns remaining"

 

[Chandrasekhar]

^Well, you can subtract that total turns by the amount of turns left, though I'm not quite sure why you'd need to.

And Zombie, you forgot to mention Victoria... mmm, mmm.

 

[Nufuhsus]

From the title, i take it you want the option to date Isabella and Catherine, rather than just be friends?

When I first read the topic title I was thinking you wanted to have something similar to the dating scheme in GTA:SA LOL

 

[Paladin NW]

The Western / Christian calendar is a generally accepted standard measure of time. I think it is a safe to presume that anyone who plays this game knows it (or at least the currently used modified form); without going into to detail the modifications this calendar has undergone (nor debate about the Julian & Gregorian versions, etc.).

It is not required that you have any belief in Christianity to use that calendar. Nor does it in anyway invalidate any other calendars just by its existance, or even by it being the current standard by which nearly all international organizations use.

As an aside it was, I believe, the 1805 (A.D.) campain in the Napoleonic wars in which the Austrians were using the Julian calendar, and the Russians were using the Gregorian calendar when they set a date for linking thier armies. Needless to say their co-ordination suffered, and Napoleon was able to defeat them in detail.

Perhaps even more obscure is the fact that Revolutionary France (prior to Napoleon becoming the leader) had adoped its own calendar, rejecting the "Christian" calendar, it was NOT a big success. Most of the people of France either could not understand it, or just ignored it, despite the threat of Draconian punishments. There is a reason that this period of French history is called "THe Terror"!

It was not uncommon for most calendars to be based on the birth (or reign of Kingship/leadership) of some individual. This tends to make for very complex calendars. Many calendars are of limited utility because they are (to some degree) inaccurate (or at least have not been revised as has the current Western calendar). Or like the Roman calendar were based on the (at least partially) Mythalogical date of the Founding of Rome. I believe the Chinese calendar has much in common with the classical Roman calendar.

I presume from the tone of your post the Islamic calendar would also be unacceptable due to its religious underpinnings (or are you only anti-Christian?); and in any case it is (IMHO) difficult to use and understand for the measurement of the 365 (and 1/4 more-or-less) days that it take the Earth to go around the sun.

I would venture a guess that it would be very difficult to create a patch that would allow a player the option of using an alternate calendar. And that presumes that who ever wrote the code for such a patch would be able to syncronize multiple calendars. IMHO there are a lot more serrious issues with Civ IV. (I am here because my version of Civ IV was crashing frequently before I loaded the 1.61 patch, and now crashes constantly).

In conclussion the devs could have just put in a generic turn counter. However, I think many of the people who play a historically based game have at least an interest, if not considerable knowledge of history, and so prefer to have the perriods of time in the game measured by a calendar which they are familiar with.

As for your final argument I am going to assume it is just a rant. Otherwise why stop at time? Why not insist that Aluminum, not Iron be the resource required for swordsmen, or Tapiocca replace Oil, in fact since this is "Not the Real World" replace the people with Elves, or evloved tool using dogs, or space aliens? This game, like most other computer games was designed by peole who live in, and know most about Western Civilization. Most of the technology, advancements, and assumptions come from Western Traditions.

I suggest you review the statement on religion on pg 77 of the game manual ; IMHO it also allpies to many other matters as well.

 

[tadster]

Paladin, thanks for spending your first post on my thread.

To be of use a Standard must be Understandable

Exactly. The years in civ go from 4000BC to about 2050AD. But the events that take place in any given game have exactly no bearing on what the date says. The specific example I used was that Christianity can be founded in 500 BC and this has no effect on the dating scheme. This causes an immersion problem. How am I supposed to believe the year is the year the game says it is if I found Christianity in 500 BC? If the year in the game is not the year the game says it is, then why does the game show the year? The in-game date does not in the slightest help anyone make meaningful comparisons to real world history because the game is so unlike the real world. What comparisons would there be to make? If you meditate upon this, you may come to similar conclusions.

Technically, no one should know what the year is when the game is started because everyone is far from the tech needed to establish a date (Calendar, Astronomy, etc.). Even so, if a civilization wanted to start a calendar, they'd probably start at 0, or 1--not at 4000BC. To be safe, I think civ should forgo the year thing all together and replace it with a turn counter.

I think you mistook my dissatisfaction with the civ dating scheme to be an anti-Christian post. It was an anti-stupid-idea post.

Thanks for your suggestion to read p. 77 of the game manual. If Firaxis really has "no desire to offend anyone," then perhaps they they ought to replace the BC/AD terminology with the less volatile BCE/CE nomenclature (Before Common Era/Common Era). That would fulfill their goal to treat all religions equally.

However, let me remind you again that my post has nothing to do with religion. It has much to do with the dating scheme, which is, in my humble opinion, LAME.

 

[PanzerEric]

From the title, i take it you want the option to date Isabella and Catherine, rather than just be friends?

lmao, although I know you meant it in jest.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The dating system is taken to allow a comparison to our history, it has no other reason. The other method (the turn counter) might be worth putting in, just as it might be worth naming the Civ Leaders by thier Traits, rather than using Historical Figures. But I would not consider eliminating it.

 

[Pantastic]

Thanks for your suggestion to read p. 77 of the game manual. If Firaxis really has "no desire to offend anyone," then perhaps they they ought to replace the BC/AD terminology with the less volatile BCE/CE nomenclature (Before Common Era/Common Era). That would fulfill their goal to treat all religions equally.

However, let me remind you again that my post has nothing to do with religion. It has much to do with the dating scheme, which is, in my humble opinion, LAME.

What makes the BCE/CE nomenclature 'volatile' outside of the religious connotations of the year 0? Complaining that they're not treating all religions equally because they use a dating system accepted over most of the world that uses a religious's figure's birthdate as year zero means that your complaint most definately has to do with religion.

 

[AvianAvenger]

Im going to have to agree with tadster on this one, a turn counter would be more usefull, i find myself often going into the victorys screen just to see how many turns i have left.

I think it would also be cool to have turns & time kept untrack of untill calendar is founded, leave off the BC/AC and just start at 0 and work your way up from there. The game is suppost to be about re-writing history not playing along with it, so why not allow for this part of history to be re-written as well?

@ Paladin NW
I dont know what ticked off such a huge rant for a first time post but he was by no means trying to be anti-christian or anti-anything for that matter. (well maybe anti-timeline )

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well having More options for the time display, now it is just Date and Time, would be good.

So
Date (BC/AD)
Time (Real Life)
and
Turn

should all be reasonable options for the display

 

[AvianAvenger]

Well having More options for the time display, now it is just Date and Time, would be good.

So
Date (BC/AD)
Time (Real Life)
and
Turn

should all be reasonable options for the display

The realism mod already has them which is good, but im just playing standard civ at the moment.

 

[Baru]

The date/time is very annoying when you are on Marathon, everyone is going for the space race in the late 1700's.

 

[Mewtarthio]

Exactly. The years in civ go from 4000BC to about 2050AD. But the events that take place in any given game have exactly no bearing on what the date says. The specific example I used was that Christianity can be founded in 500 BC and this has no effect on the dating scheme. This causes an immersion problem. How am I supposed to believe the year is the year the game says it is if I found Christianity in 500 BC?

Simple. There's this really cool guy named "Colin Davis." When some important event happens in the AD years, attribute it to him. "BC" now stands for "Before Colin" and "AD" stands for "Anno Davisi (The year of Davis)." Now your dating system makes perfect sense in the context of your game.

If the year in the game is not the year the game says it is, then why does the game show the year? The in-game date does not in the slightest help anyone make meaningful comparisons to real world history because the game is so unlike the real world. What comparisons would there be to make? If you meditate upon this, you may come to similar conclusions.

The dates aren't perfect, but they can serve as rough approximations across game speeds. Plus you really don't want to offend Colin Davis by cutting his part in the game.

Technically, no one should know what the year is when the game is started because everyone is far from the tech needed to establish a date (Calendar, Astronomy, etc.). Even so, if a civilization wanted to start a calendar, they'd probably start at 0, or 1--not at 4000BC. To be safe, I think civ should forgo the year thing all together and replace it with a turn counter.

I find the dating system to help immerse oneself in the game. Sure, you could replace it with a generic turn counter to fix realism issues, but you could also legitimately claim that the game would be more realistic if all civs were renamed "Purple," "Red," "Green," "Blue," etc; you don't have to worry about facing ridiculous matchups like Roosevelt permallying with Stalin to fight Montezuma, but it makes the game seem more bland.

Thanks for your suggestion to read p. 77 of the game manual. If Firaxis really has "no desire to offend anyone," then perhaps they they ought to replace the BC/AD terminology with the less volatile BCE/CE nomenclature (Before Common Era/Common Era). That would fulfill their goal to treat all religions equally.

I've always found that terminology to be a little suspect and somewhat insulting to people's intelligence. "We have now developed a new dating system that is not based on a particular religion! Behold the Common Era!" "What was used to determine the start of the Common Era?" "Er... The birth of Jesus..." (Actually, the term "Common Era" was originally used by Christians). If they really wanted to be fair to all religions, they'd reset the calendar entirely towards a specific, secular date, like the end of WWII.

 

[Joel Von Hall]

If you don't like the date then play Total Realism mod. It has eras instead of years.

 

[JavierLQ]

I think that it is just a way of standaricing things, make sure everyone is "on the same page" as most people know the timeline ( I don't mean like christ was born this day etc, more of like events happened when).

They did this with other things, such as currency. Why can we not name our own currency, and thus having transfer rates with other empires etc? Although I think that the standarizing of the timeline is a lot less complex to currency, it just makes everything simpler. You don't see anyone complaining that the timeline is too complex for them do you?

In my opinion, I don't mind it, although now thinking about it..it would be nice at be able to name my currency (whohoo gonna go make the Aztecs rule the world..the Mexican peso will rule the world!! )

 

[Baru]

this may be going against the general lightness of this thread. I actually am really pissed off about the timeline. I wanted this to be a game of influence, if not me, than someone else sould control the measure the days. Would it not be better if whoever discovered calendar first decided how the calender went? Pick your own great person to decide it?

 

[JavierLQ]

this may be going against the general lightness of this thread. I actually am really pissed off about the timeline. I wanted this to be a game of influence, if not me, than someone else sould control the measure the days. Would it not be better if whoever discovered calendar first decided how the calender went? Pick your own great person to decide it?

One of the only ways I can see this happening is if there was a system for it sort of like the religion system. After all, even the minority can influence an outcome..so there would need to be a way to "spread" the calendar, as others have mentioned, not everyone uses the same system...