[Freeciv-Dev] Re: [FreeCiv-Cvs] esr: Treat Elephants as a horse unit (e.g., Pikemen ...

[Reinier Post <rp@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Feb 02, 2003 at 08:27:22PM -0500, Eric S. Raymond wrote:
> Jason Dorje Short <vze49r5w@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
> > >Treat Elephants as a horse unit (e.g., Pikemen get a defensive bonus
> > >against them).
> > 
> > Perhaps we should at least make an attempt to see if this is how civ2 
> > did it before making this change?
> 
> I have a copy. I'll look.
> 
> But this raises a more general question which I haven't seen a clear
> answer to.  There are at least three ruleset metrics we seem to be using:
> 
> * Play balance

The main criterion for the default ruleset.

> * Historicity

The main criterion for the history ruleset.

> * Fidelity to Civ2

The main criterion for the civ2 ruleset.  (There is one for civ1 as well.)

> It's clear that we don't treat any of the three as completely trumping the
> others.
> 
> I made the Elephant change because it's (a) historically correct, and
> (b) unlikely to have much effect on play balance -- Elephnts tend to pass
> out of use before Pikemen are a large factor in most of the games I've
> played, either Civ2 or Freeciv.

Then you should have made the change to the default ruleset.
 
> Personally, I'd put play balance first, historicity second, and close
> fidelity to Civ2 third.  So, I would tend to use Civ2 fidelity mostly
> as a tiebreaker in cases where the issue is in doubt both in
> playability and historicity.
>
> Does this agree with the group's philosophy, or should I be ranking
> Civ2 didelity so much higher that checking Civ2 conformance first was
> the right idea?

Historically all such changes have been checked on civ2 conformance
even if they were intended for the default ruleset.  The civ2 ruleset
should always be as civ2 compatible as possible - that's what it's for.

> -- 
>               <a href="http://www.catb.org/~esr/";>Eric S. Raymond</a>

-- 
Reinier