Realistic Dates by Era

[Praetyre]

I wonder if THIS would be better???

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12610009&postcount=437

There is an option to turn off the date entirely, you know; Afforess even had a poll on making it default to avoid similar complaints.

This topic has been thoroughly beaten to death. Could somebody compile a list of previous threads on it? I think I may have even contributed (albeit somewhat minorly) to a discussion on it in the AND era.

Anyway, here's my working homebrew schema for Eternity, conversion to faster speeds will naturally require some alteration, and not on a simple division basis or even percentage-adjusted division either (look to the right side for the current plan;
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amy22MYHcFPLdG5Mc0tSR05UQ1h4MzlWakNCSnA4emc#gid=2

 

[strategyonly]

There is an option to turn off the date entirely, you know; Afforess even had a poll on making it default to avoid similar complaints.

This topic has been thoroughly beaten to death. Could somebody compile a list of previous threads on it? I think I may have even contributed (albeit somewhat minorly) to a discussion on it in the AND era.

Anyway, here's my working homebrew schema for Eternity, conversion to faster speeds will naturally require some alteration, and not on a simple division basis or even percentage-adjusted division either (look to the right side for the current plan;
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Amy22MYHcFPLdG5Mc0tSR05UQ1h4MzlWakNCSnA4emc#gid=2

Sorry but you need a "google" account to read that??

 

[Tboy]

I wonder if THIS would be better???

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12610009&postcount=437

I'd back this as included, at least as an option. After all, it seems odd that in an alternate world where Christianity may well not be the dominant religion, everyone's using its dating system. Seems simpler and easier to work than other proposals, too.

 

[Praetyre]

Sorry but you need a "google" account to read that??

Do you? I've never tried viewing these documents without being logged in, so I couldn't say. I'll post a transcription of it if that's the case.

 

[Dancing Hoskuld]

Do you? I've never tried viewing these documents without being logged in, so I couldn't say. I'll post a transcription of it if that's the case.

I think you need to grant access or make them not private or something to allow people to view them without being logged in.

 

[MagnusIlluminus]

I'd back this as included, at least as an option. After all, it seems odd that in an alternate world where Christianity may well not be the dominant religion, everyone's using its dating system. Seems simpler and easier to work than other proposals, too.

This has also bothered me from time to time as well. Especially when I've founded "Christianity" well (hundreds if not thousands of years) into BC, or when it doesn't get founded until several hundred AD.

The age by age thing that SO linked to could help with that. If I were a programmer I'd try to make one that counted separately for each Civ based on the founding of their Capital, primary religion, or various other factors. Unfortunately, I am not.

 

[Praetyre]

Hmm, seems there's two problems;

1: The url isn't showing properly; you need to copy paste the url manually and delete the space between the e and the mc#=gid2 (a touch of relativity in the link, mixed with Chaos Theory?)
2: DH is right, I hadn't set it to public view. Thought that it would allow viewing by default, or on further investigation and remembrance, viewing from linked folks by default. Seems to have been my experience in the past... anyway, it's fixed now.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Now I can see C2C Turns Plan Concepts.

 

[Praetyre]

Thanks for that, Hydro. Should've thought of it...

It's the 30,100 turn plan you want, just to reiterate.

 

[MagnusIlluminus]

Clicking on Hydro's link asks me to login. That's not a problem for me, but it may be for others.

 

[civfan613]

What about a PERSONAL calendar???
It works fine for SINGLE player and actually would need only minimal tweaking even for MULTI player.
Simple turn-to-date adjustment recalculation, that's it.
(For turns [1 to x1], date system #1; for turns [x1+1 to x2], date system #2, etc. Switching eras would readjust the x's. This funny way, you can actually get thrown to the past, if you meddle too much with your tech tree. Or ay other similar way to adjust date, dunno.)
True, different players would live in different eras then, but WHO CARES for OTHER players???
Also, this would help to tweak the quests, in case (and I'm VERY hopeful on that) RFC gets introduced into C2C eventually.
You'd only CARE for YOUR date, not the GLOBAL one.
After all, there's always the TURN variable to compare, in case you'd need it for some reason.
Actually, this would even make those quests much more neighbor-independent, since it'd only check for YOUR era, not anyone else's (or it could as well, but it wouldn't affect yours anyways).
Like: "Enter Era X before turn Y, and prevent anyone else from doing the same" or something of the sorts.
This would even enable "time machine" quests, with you "sending someone from the future".
Like: "Have a number of Spies at 2000AD, that will be sent (by a Time Machine, you must have it built too) to some other civs' capitals (of your choice) that didn't go through WW2. They'll suicide in that civ's 2000AD, looting 50% of that civ's gold. Only live Spies can suicide. Gather 10k gold this way." Nice quest, right?

 

[Lordhasen]

wouldn't it be easier to make the calendar slower ? When a Civ reach the industrial era a year should take 4 to 8 turns . This would be a good Representation of the speed of a industrial Civ .
The Industrial Revolution has make a lot of things faster ( thanks to new communication and transportation technology ) so by making the calendar slower we show how fast life has become .

 

[Yudishtira]

wouldn't it be easier to make the calendar slower ? When a Civ reach the industrial era a year should take 4 to 8 turns . This would be a good Representation of the speed of a industrial Civ .
The Industrial Revolution has make a lot of things faster ( thanks to new communication and transportation technology ) so by making the calendar slower we show how fast life has become .

It's progress that needs to slow down, not time. This would make your research even faster...

I think I'd like techs to be exponentially more expensive to research significantly early. I suggest if you try to research an early medieval tech in 700BC (ie. early Classical), it should cost 5 times what it normally does. To research it in early Ancient (eg. 7000BC), it costs 5x5 = 25 times normal. Of course, you would need some index of how far through an era you are - technologically-speaking - and a "standardized" scale of when the eras begin/end.

This model has the advantage that it is never going to adjust too much, because if the calendar catches up with you, the techs are back to normal price. I don't know if it will be enough (and you could always raise the factor of 5 until it was enough - or lower it if you thought it was too effective lol), but anyway it is guaranteed to be better.

 

[Lordhasen]

It's progress that needs to slow down, not time. This would make your research even faster...

Off course , the Accelerating change makes progress faster and faster .
So i thought to Represent exponential growth in Knowledge we make the calendar slower .
For example . If you invent steam power 776 instead 1776 then it should be possible to to Land a man on the Moon 969 . But because the calendar is to fast you can land a man on the moon just around 1660s .
I think this is unrealistic why should my Civ slower in research just because on earth the steam engine was inventet a 1000 years later ?

I think there should be 3 calendar options .
1. Normal ( like now )
2. Earth calendar ( your systeme of techs be exponentially more expensive before thre time period )
3. Milestone ( my idea of making the calendar slower once some Milestone techs are discovert)

 

[stoferb]

I don't think it's the calendar that needs to change so much, instead there should be research penalties for big empires. Add 10% tech cost for every new city or 'maintaince beakers' perhaps. This would have the added benefit of making smaller nations able to compete.

 

[Dissonance]

It's progress that needs to slow down, not time. This would make your research even faster...

I think I'd like techs to be exponentially more expensive to research significantly early. I suggest if you try to research an early medieval tech in 700BC (ie. early Classical), it should cost 5 times what it normally does. To research it in early Ancient (eg. 7000BC), it costs 5x5 = 25 times normal. Of course, you would need some index of how far through an era you are - technologically-speaking - and a "standardized" scale of when the eras begin/end.

This model has the advantage that it is never going to adjust too much, because if the calendar catches up with you, the techs are back to normal price. I don't know if it will be enough (and you could always raise the factor of 5 until it was enough - or lower it if you thought it was too effective lol), but anyway it is guaranteed to be better.

You know... I personally like that. A less gamey way would be to institute a small penalty per (significant) tech that nobody else has discovered yet.

 

[Yudishtira]

You know... I personally like that. A less gamey way would be to institute a small penalty per (significant) tech that nobody else has discovered yet.

Thanks - yes it's quite good isn't it? But I'm not sure what you mean by gamey... Your way addresses getting ahead of other civs, not unrealistic dates. Secondly but probably related, if you are only waiting for one other civ, then the two of you can still run away with the unrealistic tech rate the way one can now.

Apart from bulbing quite a lot, I tend to meander through the tech tree in a leisurely manner. So I usually have one AI almost keeping up with me (and even ahead on one or two techs). [Currently it's Trudeau of the Congo, and he got Architecture - Stained Glass - Invention and now Education before me, and will probably get some more Great Wonders out of that (Notre Dame and Leonardo's currently)]

 

[Thunderbrd]

I don't think it's the calendar that needs to change so much, instead there should be research penalties for big empires. Add 10% tech cost for every new city or 'maintaince beakers' perhaps. This would have the added benefit of making smaller nations able to compete.

Hmm... I kinda like that though I'd maybe not make it THAT intense. I do tend to think that the ages may not be the issue so much as the techs are too cheap, particularly in the beginning.

 

[DRJ]

I don't think thats the right direction, Thunderbrd.

Regarding "Eternity" speed: if 40-turn techs would become 50-or 60 turn techs in beginning it would tip towards unplayable imo (for me at least).

I like and support the idea that techs in eras most of the other civs haven't reached yet must be more expensive.

This will be another indirect tech diffusion modus, only that the backward civs will not receive a bonus for old techs but the leading civs a malus for newest techs.

The AI would have to learn that the newest tech would be more expensive and not the premium choice all the time. Unless it grants a trading monopoly for a tech, a very good military unit or something like +trade routes etc that would legitimize the bigger investment asap.

 

[climat]

This may be another factor which hadn't been discussed, techs from goody huts and unexplored islands.
I noticed that players can get techs from goody huts in all difficulties and even the probablity of getting techs is almost same except in Settler and Chieftain difficulty.
I think players should not be able to get techs from goody huts when they use "high difficulties" above Noble. Or, using "No goody hut" option may be recommended.