Why does Firaxis still use BC and AD?

[zhivik]

As a non-native English speaker, I get the impression that using the BC/AD label gives some sense of history, given that AD is not in common use anymore. I do understand the religious meaning behind it, but as a non-religious person I don't really mind it. It may have originated as a religious notation, but it has turned into a largely cultural one. Please mind that the AD label wasn't uniformly introduced for quite a long period of time, even in Western Europe, even though it was created in the 6th century.

Regarding the BCE/CE thing - I am afraid I have to agree that it is kind of unnecessary and things like these give political correctness a bad name. I am very much in favour of phasing out terms that are insulting (like "cripple" for "disabled", for instance), but I don't see the point of doing so for everything that has even the slightest chance of offending someone. Here is an actual example. I am from Bulgaria and during the first 12 years of my life, I lived under a communist system. What they tried to do is to replace the religious dating label (we use "before/after Christ", like in France) with BNE/ANE, where NE stood for New Era. Well, after communism was over in 1990, these labels didn't stick and people very quickly reverted to "before/after Christ". It shows how meaningless the new labels were, and how people didn't care for them. After all, the Gregorian calendar is based on the year Jesus Christ was born, and trying to pretend it is something else sounds ... fake.

I do understand that some people might have a problem with that. However, since Christians themselves don't attribute any religious meaning to the Gregorian calendar anymore, I don't see why people from other religions should do so. For better or worse, the Gregorian calendar is the most widely used in the world at the moment, so it is the easiest to understand. I wouldn't mind an option to use civilization-specific calendars (someone may even do a mod out of this), but I do believe that the Gregorian calendar gives the best indication how much you diverge from real-life events. If the AD label is indeed very insulting to someone (I do not pretend I understand completely other cultures or religious beliefs), then take it away and keep the system in line with what is commonly used at the moment.

 

[jddods]

I voted for the status quo but I don't really care. When I started with Civ II, I used to look at the date. Now I focus on the turn number.

 

[nukehumvee]

I have no problem of either "BC/AD" or "BCE/CE". But I think, alongside the common calendar, the game can introduce individual calendars for civilisations based on whether they have researched Calendar, kinda like the Mayan Long Count ability in G+K.
For example, when whatever civilisation I'm playing has not researched Calendar, then the individual calendar doesn't show anything.
- The turn I complete Calendar would be year 0.
- The individiual calendar should display the year relative to the "year zero" or the origin of my calendar alongside its relative Domini/Common Era year.
- If I researched Calendar in 500 BCE, then the "year zero" would be 500 BCE, and 2018 CE would then be the 2518th year of my calendar.
- If I established a religion 300 years earlier, then the system should retroactively refer to that religion as being established 300 years before "year zero".

Just an idea.

 

[WillowBrook]

I have no problem of either "BC/AD" or "BCE/CE". But I think, alongside the common calendar, the game can introduce individual calendars for civilisations based on whether they have researched Calendar, kinda like the Mayan Long Count ability in G+K.
For example, when whatever civilisation I'm playing has not researched Calendar, then the individual calendar doesn't show anything.
- The turn I complete Calendar would be year 0.
- The individiual calendar should display the year relative to the "year zero" or the origin of my calendar alongside its relative Domini/Common Era year.
- If I researched Calendar in 500 BCE, then the "year zero" would be 500 BCE, and 2018 CE would then be the 2518th year of my calendar.
- If I established a religion 300 years earlier, then the system should retroactively refer to that religion as being established 300 years before "year zero".

Just an idea.

Minor issue for doing this in Civ VI is that there's no calendar tech.

Others have suggested seeing year zero for the year you found your religion and something different if you don't found a religion.

 

[nukehumvee]

Minor issue for doing this in Civ VI is that there's no calendar tech.

Others have suggested seeing year zero for the year you found your religion and something different if you don't found a religion.

Just work the tech back in. I see no problem.

 

[tat501]

Isn't it strange that a game embracing so many different cultures, and one that allows a rewrite of history, still uses BC, instead of a different counter?

I wouldn't mind seeing the counter start at 0 and tally up till 12.000, or simply them changing BC to BCE and AD to CE, just to forego the obvious connection to Christianity.

What do you guys think?

Because its so well known. We all have a mental picture of how long ago 2000 BC was, and how long ago 1999 AD was, because we are living in a world that uses the birth of Christ to mark time. If you're not Christian I guess it's annoying, but one third of the planet is Christian, and the most influential part of the world historically (Europe and North America) are Christian (Europe at least culturally speaking, if not actively religious). Changing it would be unnecessarily confusing for many, and an immersion breaker to boot.

 

[Vandlys]

Because its so well known. We all have a mental picture of how long ago 2000 BC was, and how long ago 1999 AD was, because we are living in a world that uses the birth of Christ to mark time. If you're not Christian I guess it's annoying, but one third of the planet is Christian, and the most influential part of the world historically (Europe and North America) are Christian (Europe at least culturally speaking, if not actively religious). Changing it would be unnecessarily confusing for many, and an immersion breaker to boot.

Even though I might not agree entirely, your arguments are sound, aside from it being 'an immersion breaker'. Immersion is not to have Scythia/Aztec/Egypt/Arabia/China/Rome/Greece/Japan/etc. use BC and AD, from the moment they developed agriculture.

 

[Perseus Gold]

Most of the people on this site would defend whatever the status quo is. Why would this topic be any different.

 

[Thormodr]

Most of the people on this site would defend whatever the status quo is. Why would this topic be any different.

If it ain't broke...

Add more features to it?

 

[tharg]

BC/AD is the only calendar I am familiar with and don't see any reason to change it. Don't you also get the turn number displayed as well as the year?

I am not a Christan and don't really see what that has to do with anything.

Maybe someone has done a mod to configure your own calendar. Using the calendar for the Civ your playing might be amusing and educational, but also really confusing.

 

[Slip de Garcon]

CE/BCE only seem to be used by slightly PC historians.

As the Civ VI community is somewhat broader I don't see the issue.

The whole BCE/CE vs BC/AD thing is a great example of the modern trend for trying to make things less offensive just by renaming them. If it just means the same thing who cares?

 

[SammyKhalifa]

CE/BCE only seem to be used by slightly PC historians.

As the Civ VI community is somewhat broader I don't see the issue.

The whole BCE/CE vs BC/AD thing is a great example of the modern trend for trying to make things less offensive just by renaming them. If it just means the same thing who cares?

I don't think it's a matter of offensiveness at all, but an attempt to "modernize" and distance themselves from the original meaning.