Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
SOI
#1
Why is SOI not displayed on PG-HQ list of PG games ?
Why can't we record AAR for SOI ?

Just began playing it : a nice scenario with fortifications on djebel. Very good looking and excellent new rules.
Reply
#2
(03-13-2014, 08:31 PM)leonard Wrote: Why is SOI not displayed on PG-HQ list of PG games ?
Why can't we record AAR for SOI ?

Because it's not in the PG series?
...came for the cardboard, stayed for the camaraderie...
Reply
#3
(03-14-2014, 02:13 AM)Shad Wrote: [quote='leonard' pid='8309' dateline='1394706689']
Because it's not in the PG series?

Are you kidding ?Huh
Reply
#4
While it is a related series (like Infantry Attacks) it has some major differences which make it nearly incompatible with PG. I'd love the opportunity to log plays as well but understand the reason to keep it separate.
No "minor" country left behind...
Reply
#5
(03-14-2014, 02:43 AM)Matt W Wrote: While it is a related series (like Infantry Attacks) it has some major differences which make it nearly incompatible with PG. I'd love the opportunity to log plays as well but understand the reason to keep it separate.

Is it open to discussion ? How do you feel it SO different ? Several of the rules of modern PG are very friendly to me : move AND fire, supply problems through Fog of War, infantry firing from halftracks, rationalized stacking, assault possibilities from two hexes away....
The same game with more chrome !
Reply
#6
Leonard,

For me, MW & IA, although both boasting the same 85-90%% of rules (estimated not scientifically calculated LOL) do still indeed represent different 'shelves' of the PG spawn.

I am keen to play a few IA games myself but will wait until it has its own section created (and would be willing to input the scenarios too to get it started). Got to get Wayne on board with this and encourage one or two plays out of him.

Of course they are the same family and understandably have a spot here as an off-shoot. But ultimately they are not the same departments and I am presuming that's why Shad is keeping them apart. From my learning of snippets that might be on the horizon, if Warsaw Pact and NATO are ever introduced in a 3WW type package from the 80's, then the weapon systems available will make MW a vastly different experience to play, no matter how the rules may be cut from the same hue (hew).

The other more basic but perhaps important matter is time available. Shad at present appears to prioritise what he tackles with the PG element at present Adding IA & MW might just be a bit too much work for now, though I believe a couple have offered to assist that have web skills ....................... My prediction ?............ In time, they will come. Save those AAR's in MS Word for now mon ami :-)
Reply
#7
Ironicly, over on CSW someone was asking for a SWWAS-HQ too.

Hey Shad, stop goofing off and get busy....Wink

Vince, any time with IA. I know we have a few PG's lined up but we can branch off at some point.
Reply
#8
(03-14-2014, 07:41 AM)leonard Wrote: Is it open to discussion ? How do you feel it SO different ?

Yes, everything is always open to discussion here. The main problem is that this system and IA both do not perfectly fit into the existing Library design, and would require their own "flavor" of the site with some customizations. But that is difficult for me because...

(03-14-2014, 08:55 AM)vince hughes Wrote: The other more basic but perhaps important matter is time available. Shad at present appears to prioritise what he tackles with the PG element at present Adding IA & MW might just be a bit too much work for now

Bullseye!

(03-14-2014, 10:02 AM)campsawyer Wrote: Ironicly, over on CSW someone was asking for a SWWAS-HQ too.

Hey Shad, stop goofing off and get busy....Wink

I would like a SWWAS-HQ too. Maybe I should also ask! Big GrinWink
...came for the cardboard, stayed for the camaraderie...
Reply
#9
That was me on the GWAS thing. I like the way folks share ideas and help new players. I could see GWAS and 2WWAS getting this sort of fan treatment from the apparent numbers of people who already enjoy then, and expanding the player base further, especially with those who are hoping for an updated set of rules for GWAS. It was just a bit frustrating to find the associated Yahoo group and then find that it was so dead that a moderator was no longer there to approve a new member request. I find myself on this group at least daily to read how others are handling situations in the game. I have no expectations of anyone to build a PGHQ sort of thing overnight, just hoped that somebody out there loved that system enough to have done this sort of site. Thanks.
Reply
#10
(03-14-2014, 08:55 AM)vince hughes Wrote: The other more basic but perhaps important matter is time available. Shad at present appears to prioritise what he tackles with the PG element at present Adding IA & MW might just be a bit too much work for now, though I believe a couple have offered to assist that have web skills
I fully understand that, of course !!!

If you have the time however, just have a look at SOI : rules are really good, maps very nice (and some are NOT exactly geomorphic) and scenarios interesting.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)