Poll: (Please read the post below before answering this poll!) Your preferred method of IA & MW treatment is:
They should be ignored completely. PG-HQ is for PG.
They should have separate data and visually distinct color schemes (PG-HQ & IA-HQ & MW-HQ)
They should be included within PG-HQ but the data and statistics should be separate (three Libraries)
We should expand "PG" to include all 3 series, and all data and stats are unified (so Top 20 scenarios might include scenarios from all 3 games)
[Show Results]
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Regarding inclusion of IA and MW
We've been doing the PG thing for 4 years now. I've held off on adding IA and MW because they aren't PG, for starters, and also because I was skeptical they would be more than single releases. With some new titles coming out, and the growing feedback here that people have plays they'd like to record on the HQ, I'm willing to include them but be warned - this shit takes work!

Here is a list of everything* we track in the PG-HQ Library:
  • Game
    • Box image
    • Name - short
    • Name - full
    • Designers & Developers
    • Publication year and month
    • In-print / OOP status
    • Physical format
    • Type (standalone / expansion)
    • Required games (if expansion, derived from scenarios)
    • Scenario count
    • Counter count
    • Maps included
    • Box back blurb
    • Game specific errata
  • Scenario
    • Scenario number
    • Parent game
    • Title
    • Date
    • Time
    • Turn count
    • Counter count
    • OOB (no unit counts)
    • Intro blurb
    • Conclusion blurb
    • Formations
    • Visibility
    • Net Morale
    • Net Initiative
    • Maps used
    • Map layout physical dimensions
    • Battle types
    • Conditions
    • Scenario specific errata
  • Map
    • Map scan
    • Map ID
    • Parent game
    • Physical dimensions
  • Unit
    • All extant image versions
    • Direct fire values
    • Indirect fire values
    • AT fire values
    • Armor rating
    • AFV type
    • Movement points
    • Movement class
    • Name - short
    • Name - full
    • Parent nation
    • Parent service branch
    • Unit specific errata
  • Nation
    • Service branches
    • Representative images
* - there's more stuff behind the scenes that we collect but don't use yet or that we use for calculations but you don't see

...plus your plays, scenario ratings, AARs, all associated stats, all derived data like unit scenario appearances or the OOBs, tour of duty medals, and so on.

THAT BEING SAID, I own neither IA nor MW. In order to include them first we must identify very clearly what data points are already covered, are not needed for IA/MW, and which must be added to adequately represent IA/MW.

So those of you who own and want these in the HQ, now's the time to step up and help map out the structure.

As for the poll, the result is non-binding! Big Grin
...came for the cardboard, stayed for the camaraderie...
Add them! Smile
WRT PG MW , at first glance, I do not think there are necessarily any new additions except:
-Anti Aircraft fire values
- perhaps the fast movers as units, since many scenarios are fast mover type specific (though they are still ordnance type variable)
Army duck has it right. I.A. is almost PG light, at least in unit differentation. MPG can be expected to be more complicated.
Some data should be integrated, such as maps. Other data, like scenarios & probably units, should branch off.
... actually you Americans are probably the most dangerous people in the world. This is because you treat war as a job, and your culture has an excellent work ethic.
-- paraphrased from John Keegan's Fields of Battle

I think the games are close enough to be consider one grand series of tactical combat for the 20th Century. I recommend counting all plays together for rank and points. As far as data libraries, it really does not matter but it might be easier to have separate sub-libraries for PG, IG and PGM. They key s to make the site set-up inclusive of all the games, and a way to separate one out as a red-headed step-child.
I prefer the maps be in a shared library because some of the IA maps are already used in PG (W&P).
I now prefer they are all a shared Library after rethinking it.
Before adding those games and their extensive info into the database, maybe an addition on the profile page's "Your Collection" that includes the current IA and Modern PG games?

This would provide a way of judging how many members actually own and are interested in them.

Of course the inclusion would need to be heavily highlighted so that everybody would know they could be added to their collection. Maybe a checkbox to indicate you don't have any IA or Modern PG titles also?
warstudent aka Jim
Good idea, especially now that To Hell With Spain has been published, and (sounds like a broken record here) Fall of Empires and Lawrence should be out by summer.

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)