Get Rid of Timescale Completely!

polymths · May 11, 2001, 15:14

For a long time, in many threads, I have stressed how the years/turn timescale is only meaningful for measuring technical progress and cannot be literally interpreted for unit movement. Of course this seems to still cause confusion or some people simply refuse to interpret the timescale this way.

Therefore I have a very modest proposal which hopefully does away with these "It takes 100 years to move my caravan!" or "Although your counterattack only took 2 turns, 100 years had passed" nonsense.

Let simply get rid of the timescale altogether so that now a turn is simply a turn (and not 100 years/turn or 1 year/turn or whatever).

The game will simply have turns. To measure technological progress, instead of indicating exact years, we will use "Ages" such as "Bronze Age", "Iron Age", etc.

The new calendar system will simply be "Turn 20 of Bronze Age" or Turn 100 of "Steel Age". The older "ages" will have less turns to model slower technological progress.

Hopefully by getting rid of the timescale altogether and using "turns/age" calendar, we can stop these arguments about timescale.

Ralf · May 11, 2001, 15:35

Well, I see what your aiming at. However, the timescale is needed for game-atmospheric reasons. It would feel rather awkward with historically evolving units and CI:s, but no backdrop year-based calender attached to them. So those who repeatedly get hanged up on this rather minor issue just have to learn to live with some timescale-discrepancys, I guess.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 11, 2001).]

Mathphysto · May 11, 2001, 15:35

Good idea. But then I'd lose some satisfaction in having nukes in 1000AD!! You're right in that the year/turn ratio is arbitrary and, as far as the game is concerned, completely unimportant. But one of the most appealing aspects of the game, at least for me, is the ability to rewrite history. I love the idea of exploring realistic alternate histories - which Civ in general has not succeeded at, but some scenarios do (sort of). So replacing years with turns is perfectly fine for Civ, but in the long run I would love to see a more realistic game come out, where the year really does mean something.

polymths · May 11, 2001, 15:48

quote:

Originally posted by Mathphysto on 05-11-2001 03:35 PM
Good idea. But then I'd lose some satisfaction in having nukes in 1000AD!! You're right in that the year/turn ratio is arbitrary and, as far as the game is concerned, completely unimportant. But one of the most appealing aspects of the game, at least for me, is the ability to rewrite history. I love the idea of exploring realistic alternate histories - which Civ in general has not succeeded at, but some scenarios do (sort of). So replacing years with turns is perfectly fine for Civ, but in the long run I would love to see a more realistic game come out, where the year really does mean something.

How about this then. Whenever a major event/discover occurs, the exact year is shown (calculated based on how many turns have passed). Make these events rare and far, far apart. That way the year is shown only occasionally for atmosphere purposes but is not posted every single turn so that any interpretation of "years/turn" is not supported.

Your.Master · May 11, 2001, 16:20

That last is an excellent idea. And it really wouldn't be that hard to have a checkbox to switch to year counter from turn counter: it's just maybe two lines of coding for an alternate display.

Grumbold · May 11, 2001, 17:43

If we took this route I'd rather drop the AD/BC pointer completely and rely on techs to supply dates. I.e. the first time a tech is discovered that has a later historical date than any previous one, that fixes the current date. So discover iron working and you are at 400 BC (Guess) and enter the Iron Age (big fanfare!). No more mention of date until someone discovers a tech newer than 400 BC....

... you then only get to complain that you went from inventing the WWI tank to the F15 before you actually got to fight a war with a few of the former!

Cyclotron · May 11, 2001, 18:01

Grumbold, I don't like that approach. Civ is about running history as you like it... years provide an abstract way to compare your progress with real world progress. I like knowing that I am building a spaceship in the 1840s, because I earned it. It addition, time scales that hold still while you research would destroy any possibility of civ verisimilitude.

Time waits for no man!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

Grumbold · May 11, 2001, 18:21

Time woldn't hold still, you just wouldn't see it tick over at any set rate (it would only be displayed as part of the discovery announcement.)

I take your point about racing the historical earth timeline but it is more of a feelgood factor than any true measure of successful performance. Not that feelgood factors aren't important. I want my configurable palace/executive skyscraper reward screen and will be crushed if it is missing

polymths · May 11, 2001, 21:36

quote:

Originally posted by Grumbold on 05-11-2001 06:21 PM
Time woldn't hold still, you just wouldn't see it tick over at any set rate (it would only be displayed as part of the discovery announcement.)

I take your point about racing the historical earth timeline but it is more of a feelgood factor than any true measure of successful performance. Not that feelgood factors aren't important. I want my configurable palace/executive skyscraper reward screen and will be crushed if it is missing

So what you mean is that regardless of how many turns it takes to get bronze working, the year of its first discovery would always flash, say 2000 BC. Then regardless of how many additional turns it takes for someone to acquire, say Iron Working, the year will always flash, say, 200BC.

I does have the very good feature of totally disconnecting the turn and the actual rate of time movement.

For example in one game where technology moves quickly, you could go from Bronze to Iron Age in, say, 20 turns, in anther game, 30 turns.

All good ideas!

The main thing though is to get rid of the turn by turn timeline increment so that the annoying and stupid debate about "caravans take 1000 years to move", etc. can finally end once and for all!

[This message has been edited by polymths (edited May 11, 2001).]