Is it possible to switch the dating system?

[durbal]

By the same logic, you can argue that the same percentage of players have been raised to orient their sense of time with years ticking up and not down. Thus, for gameplay purposes presenting the year in BC as opposed to AUC would be one hell of confusion for them.

What you meant to say is that presenting the year in BC could be more useful from an immersion purposes, kind of, because they can compare it to our history. Although it seems to be much less close to history than HoI4 and even EU4 do, because many important countries are still relatively small, there are a lot of them and they don't like to blob but like to explode, based on the few AI timelapses we already have on youtube.

lolwut. People are accustomed to the dating system, not to the absolute values of integers increasing. That's like saying people flying in orbit around a planet shouldn't feel strange when 'falling' upside down or sideways, because by the same 'logic' they should be used to the laws of gravitational attraction.

 

[babuchas1]

I have played a lot of Rome total war 1 and 2. Millions of players have done that for years. I do not know anybody complaining about those games using date in BCE years. I have not seen players crying confused, incapable of playing the game because they could not understand that 350 BCE comes after 351 BCE. Maybe it happened in Sweden, but not in the rest of the world, as far as I know.
That been said I think giving the date in AUC is nice for immersion, but giving the option to have it in BCE or / and AUC is the right way to go.

 

[Hanako Seishin]

The reason given for not having the BC date ingame has nothing to do with confusion or whatever else, it simply was not possible with the way the engine is built and would require overhauling some parts of code...which they deemed to be too much hassle for too little gain (and hey, I don't disagree with them).

Oh, come on, non this nonsense again. The BC date is ALREADY in the game, right there in the tooltip. What kind of engine do you think allows a particular number to only be displayed in the tooltips but not in the top bar? What is "simply not possible" is for there to exist a technical reason why the number that is already calculated for the tooltip can not be displayed in the top bar instead.
I'm personally fine with AUC, just wanted to point out there is no and can not be a technical limitation on the engine side for a display date. There can be a limitation on an internal date, but the player doesn't have to see that, internally the game might as well count time since Big Bang to avoid negative numbers, but display something entirely different, as converting dates is just trivial arithmetic.

 

[Ethanww2]

Why do you even need to relate the date to a BC date? For gameplay purposes it is irrelevant.

It's the system everybody (living in a western country) has used for everything their entire lives? And yes BCE/CE is the same system just with different letters.

 

[nAssailant]

Gonna need a source on this. If the Clausewitz engine really doesn't have an easy way of displaying a string (that's already been calculated) in one place instead of another, then it's an even bigger meme than I realized.

Oh, come on, non this nonsense again. The BC date is ALREADY in the game, right there in the tooltip. What kind of engine do you think allows a particular number to only be displayed in the tooltips but not in the top bar? What is "simply not possible" is for there to exist a technical reason why the number that is already calculated for the tooltip can not be displayed in the top bar instead.
I'm personally fine with AUC, just wanted to point out there is no and can not be a technical limitation on the engine side for a display date. There can be a limitation on an internal date, but the player doesn't have to see that, internally the game might as well count time since Big Bang to avoid negative numbers, but display something entirely different, as converting dates is just trivial arithmetic.

The problem is not just displaying the date. That's why there is the option to display BC when hovering over the AUC. They just take the AUC date, perform a calculation (take the abs. value of the AUC year minus 754), and then display that as "BC". Easy enough to do and can be done on the fly, if only because the only thing that is ever going to be used for is just displaying a number to a user (i.e. not used by any other system in the game, such as events or scripting, etc.)

The issue is that virtually every thing in the game relies, one way or the other, upon a certain thing happening a certain date after some "trigger". To do this with dates counting down would require some change, in the worst case rewriting huge swaths of code in systems that weren't designed that way in the first place. I mean, you're changing things to have things happen technically *before* they were triggered to do so, because the date you see is going backward but the background has it going forward. Tooltips, events, ages, etc. would all need this abstraction from the timing method the game actually uses, which is unnecessary overhead and can lead to all sorts of problems.

Only the devs know exactly why, but it was decided early on that it was better to just leave everything with the dates counting up (i.e. AUC).

Honestly, it's not that big of a deal. It definitely fits the theme better, since the ancient world had no BC or AD or CE. Frankly I think players will become used to it almost immediately.

 

[Flamur]

Oh, come on, non this nonsense again. The BC date is ALREADY in the game, right there in the tooltip. What kind of engine do you think allows a particular number to only be displayed in the tooltips but not in the top bar? What is "simply not possible" is for there to exist a technical reason why the number that is already calculated for the tooltip can not be displayed in the top bar instead.
I'm personally fine with AUC, just wanted to point out there is no and can not be a technical limitation on the engine side for a display date. There can be a limitation on an internal date, but the player doesn't have to see that, internally the game might as well count time since Big Bang to avoid negative numbers, but display something entirely different, as converting dates is just trivial arithmetic.

If you can't comprehend how displaying a number and calculating a date counting inversely are different, technical things - then luckily for you nAssailant has explained it using quite basic terms/examples. It's really not that difficult to understand why it requires re-writing code.

The problem is not just displaying the date. That's why there is the option to display BC when hovering over the AUC. They just take the AUC date, perform a calculation (take the abs. value of the AUC year minus 754), and then display that as "BC". Easy enough to do and can be done on the fly, if only because the only thing that is ever going to be used for is just displaying a number to a user (i.e. not used by any other system in the game, such as events or scripting, etc.)

The issue is that virtually every thing in the game relies, one way or the other, upon a certain thing happening a certain date after some "trigger". To do this with dates counting down would require some change, in the worst case rewriting huge swaths of code in systems that weren't designed that way in the first place. I mean, you're changing things to have things happen technically *before* they were triggered to do so, because the date you see is going backward but the background has it going forward. Tooltips, events, ages, etc. would all need this abstraction from the timing method the game actually uses, which is unnecessary overhead and can lead to all sorts of problems.

Only the devs know exactly why, but it was decided early on that it was better to just leave everything with the dates counting up (i.e. AUC).

Honestly, it's not that big of a deal. It definitely fits the theme better, since the ancient world had no BC or AD or CE. Frankly I think players will become used to it almost immediately.

 

[Gibsy]

By the same logic, you can argue that the same percentage of players have been raised to orient their sense of time with years ticking up and not down. Thus, for gameplay purposes presenting the year in BC as opposed to AUC would be one hell of confusion for them.

What you meant to say is that presenting the year in BC could be more useful from an immersion purposes, kind of, because they can compare it to our history. Although it seems to be much less close to history than HoI4 and even EU4 do, because many important countries are still relatively small, there are a lot of them and they don't like to blob but like to explode, based on the few AI timelapses we already have on youtube.

I don't know if it's because I have played games set in the period many times or because I've studied the period, but it's baffling to me that people find the ticking down of years to be so disconcerting and/or confusing.

I have no problem with the use of AUC however.

 

[Reman]

The issue is that virtually every thing in the game relies, one way or the other, upon a certain thing happening a certain date after some "trigger". To do this with dates counting down would require some change, in the worst case rewriting huge swaths of code in systems that weren't designed that way in the first place. I mean, you're changing things to have things happen technically *before* they were triggered to do so, because the date you see is going backward but the background has it going forward. Tooltips, events, ages, etc. would all need this abstraction from the timing method the game actually uses, which is unnecessary overhead and can lead to all sorts of problems.

Again, I'm gonna need a source on this one. Where in the world are you people getting this information??? I feel this is like the "Clausewitz engine doesn't support multithreading" debacle all over again, where people use the relative lack of verifiability to assert ludicrous nonsense as fact.

The only dev post on this topic the search function brought up was this:

The game uses AUC since it is indeed odd to have a countdown to something before it happens in game

Nothing about technical infeasibility, just their opinion that it was a bit weird given the time period. For people like me who've studied history with the BC/AD split, such weirdness is fine if it allows me to have a better reference point, as many have pointed out in the thread already.

I don't know if it's because I have played games set in the period many times or because I've studied the period, but it's baffling to me that people find the ticking down of years to be so disconcerting and/or confusing.

Indeed. The Civ games count down from 4000 BC, and yet in all my time playing the series I've never heard anyone complain about it ever.

 

[Marirosa]

It seems to me plain worng to use AUC years and gregorian days/months. Why not to use Numa Pompillius calendar along with AUC years (with maybe an option to use kalendae, nonae and idus if you want to go full inmersive).

 

[Hanako Seishin]

If you can't comprehend how displaying a number and calculating a date counting inversely are different, technical things

Actually, that's EXACTLY what I'm saying: just displaying a number is different from using it in internal calculations and thus the displayed number can be changed trivially without touching any of the internal calculations code.
But apparently what you are saying is that you're not satisfied with the game just displaying the date to you in BCE, you want it to handle it as a negative number internally too? Why and how would it matter? Is it, like, disrespectful to Christianity to perform math in AUC? Or what? I just can't imagine any reason why you would care how the game handles the date internally.

 

[Dark Hobbit]

lolwut. People are accustomed to the dating system, not to the absolute values of integers increasing. That's like saying people flying in orbit around a planet shouldn't feel strange when 'falling' upside down or sideways, because by the same 'logic' they should be used to the laws of gravitational attraction.

How often do you even add "AD" to the year in your life or speak in terms of BC? Unless you're studying ancient history, probably not much. The only reason we use our current date system is that it is a universally understandable reference point that allows us to relate to the stuff that previously happened in history. And in it, we always calculate the date of a future event in the following way: if it's 2019 and Imperator:Rome comes out in 2 years, then it comes out in 2021, right? And what is easier for us to do, just add years as we always do or remember to subtract them every time? Of course, could be done and you get used to it after a while, but why change the way we are used to doing it, to begin with?

I have played a lot of Rome total war 1 and 2. Millions of players have done that for years. I do not know anybody complaining about those games using date in BCE years. I have not seen players crying confused, incapable of playing the game because they could not understand that 350 BCE comes after 351 BCE. Maybe it happened in Sweden, but not in the rest of the world, as far as I know.

Indeed. The Civ games count down from 4000 BC, and yet in all my time playing the series I've never heard anyone complain about it ever.

I'm not very sure those are correct comparisons. I played all Total War's and some time in Civ's, but to be honest, I don't think I've much looked at the date. It is irrelevant for the gameplay, because everything works in turns. Well, unless you want to compare to real life, that is, but you probably wouldn't be doing that all the time and would still estimate the time before something happens in turns, wouldn't you?

 

[Orkonkel]

"Truce expires at 9th of October, 239 BC."

"It is now 3rd of March, 253 BC."

"Just let me get my calculator out."

 

[Dark Hobbit]

"Truce expires at 9th of October, 239 BC."

"It is now 3rd of March, 253 BC."

"Just let me get my calculator out."

More like "break alliance in 239" - "think the truce will end in 244". I mean, you don't always look for a date and instead just estimate based on how much it takes. Or is that just me? If so, then indeed shouldn't be that much of a problem.

 

[Reaperdamo]

What is really annoying is if you are playing a Greek successor your date is based on the founding of Rome. It’s not enough to put me off, but you either go full immersive or use standard agreed 21st century date and time conventions.

 

[Dark Hobbit]

What is really annoying is if you are playing a Greek successor your date is based on the founding of Rome. It’s not enough to put me off, but you either go full immersive or use standard agreed 21st century date and time conventions.

I totally agree, having both options available is always better, and it seems you can turn on the BC date. I wonder though, it would probably be rather hard to implement several date systems based on the country you play? I'm quite a noob in programming.

 

[durbal]

How often do you even add "AD" to the year in your life or speak in terms of BC? Unless you're studying ancient history, probably not much. The only reason we use our current date system is that it is a universally understandable reference point that allows us to relate to the stuff that previously happened in history. And in it, we always calculate the date of a future event in the following way: if it's 2019 and Imperator:Rome comes out in 2 years, then it comes out in 2021, right? And what is easier for us to do, just add years as we always do or remember to subtract them every time? Of course, could be done and you get used to it after a while, but why change the way we are used to doing it, to begin with?

Ok, you have to be trolling.

The reason I add integers to the current date in my everyday life and don’t say ‘AD’ is because I live in 2019 AD, not because of some deep-rooted tendency to always have the absolute values of integers in dates increase. I don’t struggle at all to reference time spans between AD and BC dates because I’m used to the calendar system we use...which is the very point of this thread.

 

[Ezumiyr]

99.9999% of all games played with an active human being will be played by someone who has been raised to orient their sense of history relative to the birth of Christ

Kinda irrelevant to the topic, but I'm pretty sure we'll have at least 1% of players from countries that don't use the event called "birth of Jesus Christ" as a start for their calendar

Unless you're studying ancient history

Just so you know, "BC" and "AD" are still extremely popular in vulgarization and popular culture, but most scientists switched to "CE" and "BCE" by now. ("common era" and "before common era"). It's more neutral (which is important when you work with scientists who are not christian but care about religion, for example), and also less confusing when you're talking about topics such as the real date of the birth of Jesus Christ, for instance.

For a similar reason I don't really care whether the date is AUC or BCE, but I find it really, really weird to have it "before Christ" because you're literally playing with the circumstances that could make someone like Jesus Christ appear or not.

 

[DominusNovus]

By the same logic, you can argue that the same percentage of players have been raised to orient their sense of time with years ticking up and not down. Thus, for gameplay purposes presenting the year in BC as opposed to AUC would be one hell of confusion for them.

What you meant to say is that presenting the year in BC could be more useful from an immersion purposes, kind of, because they can compare it to our history. Although it seems to be much less close to history than HoI4 and even EU4 do, because many important countries are still relatively small, there are a lot of them and they don't like to blob but like to explode, based on the few AI timelapses we already have on youtube.

No, I meant to say what I meant to say. I also mean it when I say you’re wrong, and people are far more familiar with dealing with descending numbers than the AUC dating system.

Going down an elevator? Descending numbers.
Waiting for your microwave to finish popping your popcorn? Descending numbers.
Watching a rocket launch? Descending numbers.
Reading a ‘top 10’ listicle? Descending numbers.
Watching most sports other than soccer and baseball? Descending numbers.

As an added benefit, the game ends around the change of the era, so you’re counting down to pretty close to zero.

 

[IEKevin]

View attachment 473087 It looks like there is an option to display both AUC and BC. This Image is from a german Let's Play.

people who got the review copy should really show some more options in the setting menu in IR

 

[Paghalay]

For a similar reason I don't really care whether the date is AUC or BCE, but I find it really, really weird to have it "before Christ" because you're literally playing with the circumstances that could make someone like Jesus Christ appear or not. I know there's an increasing number of bigots and "traditionalists" in our societies who think that writing "BC" or "AD" is part of their identity, but it feels unimmersive to me.

Using BCE and CE would have the same issue to using BC and AD in this situation. BCE and CE dates directly correspond to the BC AD dates, it's literally just a naming difference.
I use BC AD because it's what I was brought up with, and there is no reason why I should change that, does not make me a bigot, especially considering I am atheist and don't even believe in Jesus.