Ab Urbe Condita?

[Captain Frakas]

The best way would be having the game engine using Julian days to number turns and to add conversion algorithms to some calendars, and the capacity to indicate the used calendar and era when scripting a date.

For example:
710.3.15.AUC [Anno urbis conditae of Roman calendars]
44.3.15.JBC [Before Christ of the Julian and proleptic Julian Calendars]
268.12.25.BAG [Anno Graecorum of the Babylonian calendar]
1705425.JD [Julian Days]
would be different allowed ways to script the exact same game turn.

If it work with scripts, the game might as well show it in the interface: You play a Muslim state or character in CK, EU or V, then the interface will show the date according to the Hegira era of the Muslim Calendar and Ramadan will effectively happen during the Ramadan month...
It would also allow to set dynamic start of new era: for whatever reason, an event effect set the current day as the new new year day of the new year I. It might be a flavourful reward some achievements... or simply allow to represent the very common use of eponymous rulers.
There could also be an option to block the interface date to the player's favoured calendar.

I feel it would be amazing, however, it would also, alas, certainly be too much work for a purely cosmetic aspect of the game that might mainly please few calendar geeks .

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

So let's assume that Paradox decides to use AUC as the base year reference (BaseYear), which seems likely, used for all calculations, etc. Not a big deal if the bullet points below could also be implemented.

• An alternative year reference (AltYear) is presented as a tooltip when hovering over the AUC (BaseYear) year in the upper right corner of the screen.
  • Would be part of vanilla.
  • Suggested by several people in this thread already.

• The difference between BaseYear and AltYear is moddable in the defines file (or equivalent), AltYear = BaseYear + YearDif.
  • Example in defines is then difference_base_alt_year: -753
  • This would allow modders to apply other types of AltYear of their choice
  • They would also be able to mod the BaseYear to their likings, say the Year of the First Olympic Games (776BC as year 1), which if you want to relate that to BCE/CE would involve difference_base_alt_year: -776 instead), which would greatly enable modding opportunities).
  ​
• The AltYear is presentable in localisations.
  • As an example using EU4's nomenclature something as follows:
    • $ALTYEAR$ or [GetAltYear]).
  • This would also make modding in this respect more flexible and fun.

You keep making the assumption this is trivial to do.
How do you know this?
Are you really that conversant with the engine?

That solution is a possible one if writing a new engine, and on the face of it seems like it might work.

*But* this isn't a case of writing from scratch. They have to work with what they have, and what they can put in without breaking it.

 

[AKronblad]

You keep making the assumption this is trivial to do.
How do you know this?
Are you really that conversant with the engine?

That solution is a possible one if writing a new engine, and on the face of it seems like it might work.

*But* this isn't a case of writing from scratch. They have to work with what they have, and what they can put in without breaking it.

Well, we sort of know this:

• Paradox is looking at using AUC, it seems.
• EU4 (from 2013) already uses $YEAR$ and [GetYear] in its localisation.

Based on that, contents of previous EU4 updates (2013-2015), and my experience as a EU4 modder, I believe that the following is possible by Paradox:

1. Adding a subtraction formula in the exe file (based in a constant in defines) to obtain alt_year.
2. Adding a tooltip in the UI's upper right corner based on 1 above.
3. Adding localisation parameters, e.g., $ALTYEAR$ or [GetAltYear] á la EU4) based on 1 above.

If Paradox can make a new game and has already made EU4, I believe that they are capable of adding 1-3 above.

Hopefully you're just trolling though. Otherwise, I suspect ignorance at your end, because you keep raising objections and never really make suggestions of your own.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Great.

So use a constant subtraction formula.
That can't possibly cause the "year 0" problem at all can it?

If it was as easy as all that for them to add, don't you think it'd have been implemented when people asked about pre AD dates for CKII?
I mean, it may be possible. I don't know. But if it was just a matter of setting those up, I'd have expected someone at Paradox to have already thought about it...

I'll admit to only having done some very, very minor modding, most of which didn't touch systems at all. That's the main reason I haven't made many suggestions as to what can and must be changed.
I'm also not sure that I *have* to make a suggestion on how to integrate BCE when I don't want them to do so, and honestly don't feel it adds much of anything useful.

It'd be like asking why I don't have a suggestion on Sunset Invasion being improved. I don't think it should even be there.

You're also completely missing having a point 1 in your comment.

 

[AKronblad]

Great.

So use a constant subtraction formula.
That can't possibly cause the "year 0" problem at all can it?

If it was as easy as all that for them to add, don't you think it'd have been implemented when people asked about pre AD dates for CKII?
I mean, it may be possible. I don't know. But if it was just a matter of setting those up, I'd have expected someone at Paradox to have already thought about it...

I'll admit to only having done some very, very minor modding, most of which didn't touch systems at all. That's the main reason I haven't made many suggestions as to what can and must be changed.
I'm also not sure that I *have* to make a suggestion on how to integrate BCE when I don't want them to do so, and honestly don't feel it adds much of anything useful.

It'd be like asking why I don't have a suggestion on Sunset Invasion being improved. I don't think it should even be there.

You're also completely missing having a point 1 in your comment.

It seems that you're underestimating thr capabilities of Paradox. I mean, I'm able to do that (and have done that) modding EU4 to translate Year Of The First Olympics (year 0 = 776 BC) to presenting BC/AD, albeit through variables and thus quite crude and not very integrated (as modding solutions usually are). So if I can do it, Paradox surely can.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

It seems that you're underestimating thr capabilities of Paradox. I mean, I'm able to do that (and have done that) modding EU4 to translate Year Of The First Olympics (year 0 = 776 BC) to presenting BC/AD, albeit through variables and thus quite crude and not very integrated (as modding solutions usually are). So if I can do it, Paradox surely can.

So how did your solution do with year 0 (BCE/CE)?
How robust was it?

 

[AKronblad]

So how did your solution do with year 0 (BCE/CE)?
How robust was it?

Not a problem. You just need to be aware of it and keep it in mind when scripting.

Plus it's no big deal actually to be one year off in CE, if you decide to ignore it.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Not a problem. You just need to be aware of it and keep it in mind when scripting. Plus it's no big deal actually to be one year off in CE.

Aside from the whole immersion thing.
Hitting a year 0 is going to be problematic, at least for me.

Or the whole point of wanting to compare my "44 BCE" empire to the historical one. If I'm going to be trying to make that comparison, I want it to be accurate.

 

[AKronblad]

If I'm going to be trying to make that comparison, I want it to be accurate.

But, based on your earlier posts, you're not interested in making that comparison, so for you it shouldn't really be a problem. Or are you secretly "one of us", wanting to make that comparison in disguise?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

But, based on your earlier posts, you're not interested in making that comparison, so for you it shouldn't really be a problem. Or are you secretly "one of us", wanting to make that comparison in disguise?

Either you missed my point here, or I'm failing in trying to be clear.

*If* someone is comparing their empire at X date to the historical result, then they should be doing it on the correct date.

With CE (or BCE) being displaced by a year, they aren't comparing at the right date.
The same applies for those who want historical events at historical points.

And way to go, cutting out the immersion point...

 

[luitzen]

Would make it for the scripters hard. The scripts often have triggers like 'year = 450'... which is easy if it is AUC or AD. If we use abstract numkbers from 0-1000 the scripters and modders would have to use abstract numbers in mind 'We need a trigger for the year 450 AUC/1066 AD, how do I have to use it in code? Oh. It's 7484!'

I totally agree, but I'm saying that's how simple it could be.

Better would be to use AUC in the files, so modders can enter dates in AUC, but that doesn't stop you from actually displaying the time inside the game any other way.

 

[AKronblad]

Either you missed my point here, or I'm failing in trying to be clear.

*If* someone is comparing their empire at X date to the historical result, then they should be doing it on the correct date.

With CE (or BCE) being displaced by a year, they aren't comparing at the right date.
The same applies for those who want historical events at historical points.

And way to go, cutting out the immersion point...

Ah, you're unselfishly thinking about other people?

So if Paradox and its programmers succeed in somehow finding a way to manage to adjust to BC/BCE, you're fine?

Aside from that tooltip popping up when hovering over the year, disturbing historical immersion?

 

[luitzen]

You keep making the assumption this is trivial to do.
How do you know this?
Are you really that conversant with the engine?

That solution is a possible one if writing a new engine, and on the face of it seems like it might work.

*But* this isn't a case of writing from scratch. They have to work with what they have, and what they can put in without breaking it.

Paradox doesn't need to create a new engine, it needs to make a small update to an existing engine.

In the end it is about a visual representation, it's not about changing any internal mechanics. Creating a new game such as Imperator:Rome is gonna be a huge task and I do not believe it can even be done without making any updates to the engine and even if it is possible, Paradox developers would want to make some adjustments.

Taking this into account, making some adjustments to allow for new ways to display a date is not gonna be a big thing in the grand scheme of things.

 

[SwordOfCentury]

Ah, you're unselfishly thinking about other people?

So if Paradox and its programmers succeed in somehow finding a way to manage to adjust to BC/BCE, you're fine?

Aside from that tooltip popping up when hovering over the year, disturbing historical immersion?

They already have succeeded!
But i deeply suspect they are pluralistic in their religious beliefs.

Besides that the Roman empire was Christian longer than it was pluralistic.
Ahhh.. maybe the Paradox HQ are ateists...?
That would explain things...

=)

 

[luitzen]

Aside from the whole immersion thing.
Hitting a year 0 is going to be problematic, at least for me.

Or the whole point of wanting to compare my "44 BCE" empire to the historical one. If I'm going to be trying to make that comparison, I want it to be accurate.

I'm assuming that Paradox is writing their games in either C or C++, but these things are possible in most coding languages.

Anyway, dates will be stored in some kind of data structure. It's very easy to create a (member) function that you can call on a date (or pass the date as an argument) that gives the date in BC/AD (or any other date) in the correct format which you can then use to represent the date the correct way. That's not hard to do and only requires a few lines of code.

 

[AKronblad]

Very well, now Paradox surely knows what some people want and what other people want. And what some people believe that the Paradox designers and programmers have the ability to accomplish, and what other people believe is too difficult for them. It's now in Paradox's hands.

 

[luitzen]

So assuming C++ is used and the data is written in a certain data structure.

Let's say that the date 1st of March, 485 AVC is stored in a date-time object (with all kinds of properties) called this_date.

Now the following code would let me display the date:

std::cout << this_date.day() << "-" << this_date.month() << "-" << this_date.year();

This would display the date in the console (not graphically) and in reality it's going to be a bit more complicated, but if I add the following code to the class definition:

int Date::year_as_ADBC() const {
    if(year < 754) {
        return year - 754;
    } else {
        return year - 753;
    }
}

And I would have to change the code for displaying the date:

std::cout << this_date.day() << "-" << this_date.month() << "-" << (display_ADBC ? this_date.year_as_ADBC() : this_date.year());

Where display_ADBC is a boolean that holds either true or false.

Now in reality it would be a bit different and adding more calendars is going to make it a bit more complicated, but not incredibly much so, but I hope I've shown you that it doesn't need to be very hard.

 

[Thure]

• The difference between BaseYear and AltYear is moddable in the defines file (or equivalent), AltYear = BaseYear + YearDif.
  • Example in defines is then difference_base_alt_year: -753

This would lead to a year 0 which doesn't exist.

 

[AKronblad]

This would lead to a year 0 which doesn't exist.

Ha ha! You're two hours late, @Thure
! This has already been discussed . But I expected you to chip in eventually, not only this delayed.

 

[po8crg]

Will this be implemented with the actual Roman calendar?

ie months are January (29 days), February (28), March (31), April (29), May (31), June (29), Quintilis (31), Sextilis (29), September (29), October (31), November (29) and December (31) with a 23-day intercalary month inserted between 23 and 24 Febuary by the college of pontifices, but as a political decision to give a longer term for those consuls they liked and a shorter one for the ones they didn't like. Then you could have a decision to reform the calendar to the Julian one (and you get to see the pontifices cock it up by having a leap year every three years instead of four because they can't count, and then Augustus has to actually fix it properly and rename a couple of months into the bargain).

If not, could you at least use Quntilis and Sextilis instead of July and August; it'll be really weird to see months named after characters who haven't even been born yet.