Ab Urbe Condita?

[Abstracted]

So it looks like IR is going to use AUC dating, like EU Rome before it. Which is cool, and adds historical flavour. But it is the bitter flavour of anachronism! Varro only came up with 753 BC as the date for Rome's foundation in the 1st century BC, and it wasn't widely accepted until the next century. Even then, nobody really used AUC for practical purposes - they went on using consular years until eventually they adopted the Diocletianic Era and then the Christian Era.

But do not fear, there is an alternative! The Seleukid Era was created only shortly after the beginning of the game, when Antiochos I refused to reset the regnal date upon the death of his father, and continued to date by his arrival in Babylon in 311 BC. Antiochos is even alive at game start! (albeit probably a kid). This was the first universal dating system, and thus all those Romans, Greeks and Gallo-Roman monks who came later were merely copying their illustrious Seleukid predecessors. Wouldn't you rather play from 7 SE?


(In all seriousness, I am somewhat unenthused about perpetually mentally subtracting the date on the screen from 753. I assume there's a coding issue with having the date reverse itself at 1 AD, but couldn't that be solved by just starting the clock from an arbitrary point and changing the localisation of the dates?)

 

[viola]

Flavour is flavour, even if not properly historical. I don't think that the AUC system being anachronistic is a problem.

 

[Vollheld]

But it is the bitter flavour of anachronism!

You are right, it might be anachronistic. The problem is, that different cultures had different calendars or ways of counting the years.
The Seleukid startdate might historically be correct, but I can't imagine that anyone else then the Seleukids ever used this system.

The AVC system is imho pretty good:
1) Rome was (or became) the most powerful "state" in the era of the game. The Romans brought their culture to the peoples they subjugated or had influence on. So a Roman system is plausible.
2) It adds the flavor of being a part of a continuing history: 450 years have already past and Rome didn't become the superpower we all know it for. The best way to describe this flavor is: just imagine how it would be, if the game simply starts at year 1 and counts onwards. It just wouldn't feel "right", although there would technically nothing wrong with that.

Doesn't matter which system you take, you can't make it right for every culture/empire/people because there were so many calendars at that time, but the game only supports one universal system. E.g. would it be a super flavor if the muslim empires in EUIV got their calendar which starts at 622 AD, but it's afaik impossible with the engine (please correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[Abstracted]

Well, yes, I don't think you could actually get away with using SE dating in a game called Imperator:Rome.

But it did become widely used across the Near East, outliving the Seleukids themselves by centuries! Which is a lot more than can be said for AUC.

 

[SchwarzKatze]

I suppose someone can make a mod called "Diadochi: Seleucus" to change the calender

 

[Eldoran]

So it looks like IR is going to use AUC dating, like EU Rome before it. Which is cool, and adds historical flavour. But it is the bitter flavour of anachronism! Varro only came up with 753 BC as the date for Rome's foundation in the 1st century BC, and it wasn't widely accepted until the next century. Even then, nobody really used AUC for practical purposes - they went on using consular years until eventually they adopted the Diocletianic Era and then the Christian Era.

But do not fear, there is an alternative! The Seleukid Era was created only shortly after the beginning of the game, when Antiochos I refused to reset the regnal date upon the death of his father, and continued to date by his arrival in Babylon in 311 BC. Antiochos is even alive at game start! (albeit probably a kid). This was the first universal dating system, and thus all those Romans, Greeks and Gallo-Roman monks who came later were merely copying their illustrious Seleukid predecessors. Wouldn't you rather play from 7 SE?


(In all seriousness, I am somewhat unenthused about perpetually mentally subtracting the date on the screen from 753. I assume there's a coding issue with having the date reverse itself at 1 AD, but couldn't that be solved by just starting the clock from an arbitrary point and changing the localisation of the dates?)

Does it really matter? The only think a calendar must achieve is to measure time. What its beginnings are isnt really important.

You can use celsius or fahrenheit but it doesnt really matter cause both measure the same in a similar way. And even though kelvin is somewhat superior due to it being absolute and not relative like celsius and kelvin it isnt used by normal population

If you want to argue for any time origin we should measure it from the neolithic revolution. So today could be described as 2.6.12018 Human Era

 

[sparta105]

Does it really matter? The only think a calendar must achieve is to measure time. What its beginnings are isnt really important.

You can use celsius or fahrenheit but it doesnt really matter cause both measure the same in a similar way. And even though kelvin is somewhat superior due to it being absolute and not relative like celsius and kelvin it isnt used by normal population

If you want to argue for any time origin we should measure it from the neolithic revolution. So today could be described as 2.6.12018 Human Era

I see someone else wathces Kurzgesagt as well

 

[alvaro]

IMO a AVC format is a good thing but a hover tooltip in christian numbers would be even better
messing too much with calendars would be a mess. I mean even greeks couldnt agree on one unified system for Greece territories.

what then with the galician HRE? oh carallo!

 

[Eldoran]

I see someone else wathces Kurzgesagt as well

Well you got me

 

[AKronblad]

In contrast to mostly everyone else, I favour negative years and the BC/AD system for easy referencing. The game then starts in the year -303, which increases by 1 with each year passing: -302, -301. For localisation purposes, a negative number could be expressed as e.g. "303 BC" and a positive as "14 AD".

Some people complain then that it's weird to refer to an event that hasn't even happened yet and that it is uncertain when this event will actually happen in an individual game, but then they have missed point of the year merely serving as an easily interpretive number (for historical referencing, etc.). As @Eldoran said: "The only thing a calendar must achieve is to measure time. What its beginnings are isn't really important."

For historical immersion it's then much more important to have TWO consuls in the ROMAN republic (in place at game start) rather than to have the AUC time reference.

 

[Markus Marius]

In contrast to mostly everyone else, I favour negative years and the BC/AD system for easy referencing. The game then starts in the year -303, which increases by 1 with each year passing: -302, -301. For localisation purposes, a negative number could be expressed as e.g. "303 BC" and a positive as "14 AD".

Some people complain then that it's weird to refer to an event that hasn't even happened yet and that it is uncertain when this event will actually happen in an individual game, but then they have missed point of the year merely serving as an easily interpretive number (for historical referencing, etc.). As @Eldoran said: "The only thing a calendar must achieve is to measure time. What its beginnings are isn't really important."

For historical immersion it's then much more important to have TWO consuls in the ROMAN republic (in place at game start) rather than to have the AUC time reference.

I agree. Especially with the TWO consuls.

 

[Johan]

Its far better than "bce", as negative numbers is awkward.

 

[wielkiciensteam]

Its far better than "bce", as negative numbers is awkward.

Would there be a tooltip though to show us bce date?

 

[AKronblad]

Its far better than "bce", as negative numbers is awkward.

Are negative years awkward to accomplish from a programming and game engine perspective?

Maybe then a double presentation in which AUC is used, but localisation (and/or a built-in recalculation for presentation purpose, say CE = AUC - 753) presents in BC/AD or BCE/CE or negative/positive terms.

Maybe even an option for the player to decide which year format to be presented in-game? Even if behind-the-scene calculations are using AUC.

 

[erez87]

Its far better than "bce", as negative numbers is awkward.

BC doesn’t have to be negative numbers. The only problem I see is year zero, just make sure year 1bc ends with year 1ad beginning? I mean sure it’s extra programming, but once it’s programmed it would make thing so much neater. And can be used in other games.

 

[Panzergruppe]

BC doesn’t have to be negative numbers. The only problem I see is year zero, just make sure year 1bc ends with year 1ad beginning? I mean sure it’s extra programming, but once it’s programmed it would make thing so much neater. And can be used in other games.

There never was a year zero.

 

[Thure]

BC doesn’t have to be negative numbers. The only problem I see is year zero, just make sure year 1bc ends with year 1ad beginning? I mean sure it’s extra programming, but once it’s programmed it would make thing so much neater. And can be used in other games.

It would still be negative, because after 303 there would be 302...

 

[Eldoran]

It is counting as if but not shown as negative. But thats actually the argument for auc cause measuring time progress with declining numbers is really odd and even more anachronistic (cause no one actually countet their courrent time down) than auc in 300 bc.

It isnt simply a confusing system to use bc here cause as the game progresses the numbers are decreasing.

as i said it doesnt matter that much but bc would be the least sensible thing to do

 

[erez87]

There never was a year zero.

I know. That's why it's a problem. In numbers there is a zero, in years there aren't.

Is counting down really all that strange? We all know BC better than AUC anyway... I don't really care which is used. But for a bronze age game in the future, even AUC can't be used...

 

[AKronblad]

Should hopefully be fairly easy to accommodate negative numbers in the game engine, and I don't see that much of a problem with having a "year zero" actually (even if actually proved to be wrong).