Do we need the year-counter?

[Mitsarakos]

- I think the games should'nt have any year-counter for the following reasons:
1) It brings the game to a forced end, even if the player has often a very promising and enjoyable game.
2)Its like knowing when one will die. For example, how would you feel if you did know the exact date of your real death? You would certainly count your remaining days! So it is not funny.
3)If we know the date, we can imagine what progress have our best enemys done, and what weapons they have. If we don't know the day, it will be like a surprise!!
4)Turn-counter is OK

 

[Ahriman]

A year-counter and a fixed end point are separate issues. You can have a turn counter with or without a fixed endpoint, and a year counter with or without a fixed end point.

I prefer a year-counter to a turn-counter, because it gives more of a feel of playing through history, which is one of the big selling points of Civ.

Though I ususally get bored and stop playing (or win) long before the fixed end point is reached, I prefer a fixed end-point because it helps concentrate the focus on achieving some goal (like victory conditions, or being the highest score player) within that deadline. I *like* the "counting your remaining days" feature; it gives you a deadline to meet, so you can't just sit on your ass.
And even with the fixed endpoint, the game always gives you the option to keep playing if you like.

Knowing what progress your enemy has is easier to figure out by knowing your own tech level and seeing what units your enemy has than by looking at the year-counter.

 

[David7]

- I think the games should'nt have any year-counter for the following reasons:
1) It brings the game to a forced end, even if the player has often a very promising and enjoyable game.
2)Its like knowing when one will die. For example, how would you feel if you did know the exact date of your real death? You would certainly count your remaining days! So it is not funny.
3)If we know the date, we can imagine what progress have our best enemys done, and what weapons they have. If we don't know the day, it will be like a surprise!!
4)Turn-counter is OK

1. The "Just one more turn" thing showed up after a win/loss on Civ 4.

2. You can win before that.

3. You could do this anyway by counting turns. In real life, leaders of course could know the dates.

Anyway, if the game went on for much longer, people would eventually just finish the Space Race.

 

[kurtkage]

Sorry but I am also in the camp of I like the year counter, for the same reasons mentioned above. I like the immersion factor in an alternate universe where I discovered gunpowder in X year or what have you.

The time victory is another matter. Usually I will leave it on but if I intend to play a game where I want to be in modern era and do long modern wars (I like to defend weak civs or vassals and have vietnam or gulf war liberate the little guy wars hehe) I will turn off the time victory condition. Can't wait until ciV to do these kinds of wars with the new combat

Anyway the answer is, Custom Game - Uncheck Time Victory and you won't have your set death date any longer.

 

[Disgustipated]

of course. One can argue all day long gameplay trumps realism, but come on. I think most gamers want to be immersed in the game world. So by the same token we want to know what year it is. Just knowing how many turns elapsed doesn't feel like you are in an actual world. It helps in establishing benchmarks as well.

In any case has anyone ever went to the year 2050 or whenever the game ends? I never have. I have no idea what happens, though I suspect it probably just tells you won a time victory. Is there any graphic for winning a time victory?

 

[chongli]

I prefer a year-counter to a turn-counter, because it gives more of a feel of playing through history, which is one of the big selling points of Civ.

Agreed. The year counter provides one of the strongest connections to history which is the heart and soul of the game.

The whole point of the game is for the player to create their own version of history. A lot of satisfaction can be derived by comparing the player's own game history with real history. Obviously, this would be impossible if the game did not keep track of the years.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I personally like how it was done in RFC. You didn't have individual years, but Ages (Bronze Age, Classical Age etc etc). This let me still feel like I was traveling through history, but removed that niggling feeling of "its taking me 25 years to travel between cities". This would, at the very least, make a good option!

Aussie.

 

[Mitsarakos]

OK, you have convinced me (God save demokracy!). No problem with the year counter. Its OK.

 

[chopstyx]

I agree with what people have said so far, that the year counter provides a good 'reality check' for your game against real historical events.

However, I always think Civ 4 missed a trick when they didn't have an optional year counter working with the religion system. Surely 0 AD should've started the same turn Christianity is discovered? Or perhaps each human player's year should relate to the religion in which their civilization has as the state religion? Even though the Gregorian calender is internationally accepted, some country's still use other calendars domestically, and it might've been nice to see that. It would be especially nice to see conquered / vassal states having to change their entire calendar system to yours, even if it would mean little game-wise.

Seems to me like an easy optional thing that could've been included - might've even been done in a mod, anyone know?

 

[Ahriman]

Surely 0 AD should've started the same turn Christianity is discovered?

This would be incredibly confusing. We'd be better off without a year system at all than with a year system that was not easily comprehensible to the player.

Also, what about a world where Christianity is not a/the dominant religion (or the religion of the dominant Powers)?

 

[chopstyx]

This would be incredibly confusing. We'd be better off without a year system at all than with a year system that was not easily comprehensible to the player.

Yes, that's why I said optional. People who can't comprehend it or don't want it would be able to use the current year system. I'm not saying remove the current system.

Also, what about a world where Christianity is not a/the dominant religion (or the religion of the dominant Powers)?

As I said, each human player's year could relate to the religion in which their civilization has as the state religion. I said nothing about making everyone follow the Christian year markers. Most religions have a zero-year, whether it's the birth of christ, the Hirja or something else.

 

[awesome]

makes sense, but wouldn't really add too much to the game

 

[chongli]

Also, what about a world where Christianity is not a/the dominant religion (or the religion of the dominant Powers)?

Which in the case of Civ 4 was most of the games. It's always been one of the first three religions in my games.

 

[Ataxerxes]

Which in the case of Civ 4 was most of the games. It's always been one of the first three religions in my games.

In RFC, Christianity usually was the or one of the dominant religions because it had a greater spreading rate.

In BTS, I don't understand how it would be one of the first three religions unless you had the "choose religions" checked in the custom game screen. Playing regular BTS I've never seen Christianity founded before Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism. Quite often Confuscianism was founded before Christianity. With choose religions, it would probably be among the first three.

I agree with the date counter and keep it at BC, AD. It will be the most comprehensible to the most players.

Aussie Lurker, I'm confused. I play RFC and the date counter comes on when you research Calendar and stays on for the rest of the game, doesn't it?

 

[Ahriman]

In BTS, I don't understand how it would be one of the first three religions

I think he means: the dominant religion was usually one of the first 3 founded (Hindusim, Buddhism, Judaism). Not that christianity was one of the first few founded.

Which is also my experience.

 

[kurtkage]

IMO they should change the BC / AD thing to the scientific modern versions of BCE (before common era) and CE (common era) that does not have the religious conotations.

Sorry not to derail the thread.

 

[deanej]

I think BC and AD existed first without religious connotations before being hijaced by the church. IMO the BCE/CE stuff is stupid. Common Era? What's that supposed to mean? Is there an uncommon era? I think astronomers still use BC/AD, though with the catch that there is a year 0 (which there should be).

 

[Suho1004]

I think BC and AD existed first without religious connotations before being hijaced by the church.

What is this supposed to mean, "hijacked by the church"? The AD dating system was originally devised to calculate the dates of Christian festivals; BC stands for "Before Christ" and AD stands for "Anno Domini," or "In the Year of the Lord." The system started out with the church and most definitely had religious connotations.

[Edit: A little rooting around on Wikipedia reveals that the guy who invented the system was a Scythian monk, so it would be hard to say that the system did not have religious connotations.]

 

[deanej]

Well, I thought I remember reading somewhere that the church reassigned the abbreviations from whatever they originally meant. Keep in mind that Jesus was born in 6 BC.

 

[Graceheart the Leopard]

I personally like how it was done in RFC. You didn't have individual years, but Ages (Bronze Age, Classical Age etc etc). This let me still feel like I was traveling through history, but removed that niggling feeling of "its taking me 25 years to travel between cities". This would, at the very least, make a good option!

Aussie.

If my memory serves correctly, you get to know what the year is once you research Calendar.