Guess the start date

[AKronblad]

450 AVC

And that is a good thing isn’t it?

It would actually be cool if years in this game could be expressed as BC and AD. Easier to use, and (ignoring referencing to Christ and Dominus) more applicable on all countries present in the game, not only Rome.

If that is the case, then 450 would be 450 BC, which is more in line with the "the glory days of Athens to the establishment of the Roman Empire four centuries later"; the end being well with 27 BC (When Octavian was granted the title of Augustus by the Senate), 423 years (or a little more than four centuries) later.

Just my five cents...!

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

It would actually be cool if years in this game could be expressed as BC and AD. Easier to use, and (ignoring referencing to Christ and Dominus) more applicable on all countries present in the game, not only Rome.

If that is the case, then 450 would be 450 BC, which is more in line with the "the glory days of Athens to the establishment of the Roman Empire four centuries later"; the end being well with 27 BC (When Octavian was granted the title of Augustus by the Senate), 423 years (or a little more than four centuries) later.

Just my five cents...!

No.

That 450 is AUC. We've had that repeatedly confirmed.


BCE only makes sense retroactively. If Christianity never gets started, or gets wiped out before becoming dominant, then there's no reason for it to ever be used.
If Christianity is something that can be created dynamically, rather than an fixed event happening about 780 AUC (about 30 CE) referrencing a Jewish messiah and his grab bag of Hebrew and Greek followers, then the designation of CE makes no sense, since your calendar change over has to be retroactive.

 

[AKronblad]

No.

That 450 is AUC. We've had that repeatedly confirmed.


BCE only makes sense retroactively. If Christianity never gets started, or gets wiped out before becoming dominant, then there's no reason for it to ever be used.
If Christianity is something that can be created dynamically, rather than an fixed event happening about 780 AUC (about 30 CE) referrencing a Jewish messiah and his grab bag of Hebrew and Greek followers, then the designation of CE makes no sense, since your calendar change over has to be retroactive.

I believe/hope that the 450 AUC is just an early prank. And that Paradox later will confirm BC. THAT would be great.

And I view the use of BC/AD as a game play reference only (applicable whenever or if "Christ is born" in a particular game), and a better one than AUC. In my opinion AUC is less neutral since it is really only of relevance to Rome (imagine playing as Maurya...!) and more confusing (many players I believe would always make the transformation to BC/AD in their minds anyway to compare to historical outcomes, I would at least and I would be struggling every time).

 

[Rhaegar1]

I believe/hope that the 450 AUC is just an early prank. And that Paradox later will confirm BC. THAT would be great.

And I view the use of BC/AD as a game play reference only (applicable whenever or if "Christ is born" in a particular game), and a better one than AUC. In my opinion AUC is less neutral since it is really only of relevance to Rome (imagine playing as Maurya...!) and more confusing (many players I believe would always make the transformation to BC/AD in their minds anyway to compare to historical outcomes, I would at least and I would be struggling every time).

Seriously what's the deal with people on this forum not being able to see the difference between a prank and the Devs explicitly stating facts when it doesn't suit their beliefs? Both Johan and trintragula have been explicitly saying it's 450 AVC and TT as been openly discussing why this year is so great to start in the topic made by someone who felt a different date would be better (who totally failed to actually put forwarda convincing argument to make his case by the way).

 

[Thure]

Also the map showing 450 AUC is CLEARLY a map of 303 BC. The states fit 303 BC perfectly. A 450 BC state date would have totally different state setups.

 

[AKronblad]

Seriously what's the deal with people on this forum not being able to see the difference between a prank and the Devs explicitly stating facts when it doesn't suit their beliefs? Both Johan and trintragula have been explicitly saying it's 450 AVC and TT as been openly discussing why this year is so great to start in the topic made by someone who felt a different date would be better (who totally failed to actually put forwarda convincing argument to make his case by the way).

For one thing, there really was nothing glorious about Athens in 303 BC (or 450 AUC, if you like that better); that glory was long gone (450 BC was more within a period of Athenian glory). And secondly, the Roman empire was in that case established three centuries later (around 3 BC, or 27 BC, even with 11 AD, if I'm generous), not four.

So I'm not unable, I'm just unwilling...

Anyway, we'll see in due course.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

I believe/hope that the 450 AUC is just an early prank. And that Paradox later will confirm BC. THAT would be great.

And I view the use of BC/AD as a game play reference only (applicable whenever or if "Christ is born" in a particular game), and a better one than AUC. In my opinion AUC is less neutral since it is really only of relevance to Rome (imagine playing as Maurya...!) and more confusing (many players I believe would always make the transformation to BC/AD in their minds anyway to compare to historical outcomes, I would at least and I would be struggling every time).

It's a useless gameplay reference.
Unless were going back to the bad old "this event happens without fail on this date" system, there is no guarantee that there will be circumstances leading to the Christianity becoming a major force, or even for that matter rising at all. What if Syria Palestina has been converted to Hellenic faiths? What if there isn't a Jewish population left?

If the ministry of this "Messiah" figure arrives at a different date, then it'll be out of step with the CE designation.

It *would* make sense to use separate calendars for different states, but they'd need to have a consistent year (not a guarantee, with antiquity using various permutations of solar and lunar calendars, with different rules for intercalary months), and there needs to be a sensible way to show it numerically ("The year of Gaius Julius Tertius and Tiberius Fabius Scaevola" isn't easy to place relative to "The year of Faustus Cassius Afer and Manius Marius Rufus" without more context), and to make it easier to contrast with other empires

 

[AirikrStrife]

Argument for BC/AD is because most people think that way, it is a good argument for making the game easier to comprehend. Personally I would want something feeling more authentic and with some meaning in the timeline (as said many times, counting down to what?) If they're able to do optional counting systems, that would be the best but I guess it depends on how easy it'll be to implement (has been discussed on forum wheather clauswitz can handle it, I don't know myself).

Personally if we were to have any other date than AUC, it should be based on something in used in the era, from some quick searches, the best one would seem to be to use the seleucid calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_era since it was used throughout the hellenic world. If playing hellenic states I would even prefer to use this so I would definitly enjoy having the option to use AUC or AG (as both counts up it shoudln't encounter the problems of bc/ad)

http://www.chs-fellows.org/2016/11/01/seleucid-era/

 

[AKronblad]

It's a useless gameplay reference.
Unless were going back to the bad old "this event happens without fail on this date" system, there is no guarantee that there will be circumstances leading to the Christianity becoming a major force, or even for that matter rising at all. What if Syria Palestina has been converted to Hellenic faiths? What if there isn't a Jewish population left?

If the ministry of this "Messiah" figure arrives at a different date, then it'll be out of step with the CE designation.

It *would* make sense to use separate calendars for different states, but they'd need to have a consistent year (not a guarantee, with antiquity using various permutations of solar and lunar calendars, with different rules for intercalary months), and there needs to be a sensible way to show it numerically ("The year of Gaius Julius Tertius and Tiberius Fabius Scaevola" isn't easy to place relative to "The year of Faustus Cassius Afer and Manius Marius Rufus" without more context), and to make it easier to contrast with other empires

I disagree: it's a useful and easily understood gameplay reference. And less useless than AUC. With "gameplay", I mean for players to easily understand which year it is; nothing more (not about authenticity or anything like that, or having a fixed year when Christ is born in-game). And then BC/AD is more easily understood and more neutral than AUC, I would believe. Add to that, using AUC for countries other than Rome, and "case is closed". You see, the most likely reason for Paradox using AUC is not the arguments that you've put forward, but that they don't want to deal with negative years (if 450 BC is interpreted as -450) and/or the year being reduced and/or (if extending beyond 0BC/AD) switching from a negative year to a positive or changing to increasing the year count instead of reducing it.

 

[AKronblad]

Argument for BC/AD is because most people think that way, it is a good argument for making the game easier to comprehend. Personally I would want something feeling more authentic and with some meaning in the timeline (as said many times, counting down to what?) If they're able to do optional counting systems, that would be the best but I guess on how easy it'll be to implement (has been discussed on forum wheather clauswitz can handle it, I don't know myself).

Personally if we were to have any other date than AUC, it should be based on something in used in the era, from some quick searches, the best one would seem to be to use the seleucid calendar https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seleucid_era since it was used throughout the hellenic world. If playing hellenic states I would even prefer to use this so I would definitly enjoy having the option to use AUC or AG (as both counts up it shoudln't encounter the problems of bc/ad)

http://www.chs-fellows.org/2016/11/01/seleucid-era/

For Hellenic and Hellenistic states, a reference to the first Olympic Games (776 BC, or -23 AUC) could make sense. But then again, what about all other countries that are neither Roman nor Hellenic nor Hellenistic?

 

[AirikrStrife]

For Hellenic and Hellenistic states, a reference to the first Olympic Games (776 BC, or -23 AUC) could make sense. But then again, what about all other countries that are neither Roman nor Hellenic nor Hellenistic?

I don't know exactly how widespread seleucid era were, particularly not this early, but at some point it would arguably be the most used chronology within the world as the game covers it.

Comparable to how AD in euiv makes no sense to anyone outside of the christian world.

 

[AKronblad]

Comparable to how AD in euiv makes no sense to anyone outside of the christian word.

I definitely agree with that.