Soviet formation philosophy.

[Shad]

In order to vote, how do I get to this formation feature so I can see what it does?

Forgive my newbieness

You can't. It's under development so only visible to the moderator squad. In fact, the formation page is only visible to me and Tony (coders) at this point.

I like the lineage idea. Perhaps the best way to represent it would be to put a 'flowchart' on the formation's page (assuming each formation gets its own page), although it would be a lot of work.

I've attached a rough example. A formation that was renamed or promoted would continue in the same line, with arrows to show how long it lasted. New formations on new lines, with dates to mark when they were established and/or disbanded.

This isn't a bad idea, but being a rough example it's based on idealized data. If you have an alternate name with a very short period of activity, say less than a month, your layout goes to hell.

Currently I'm just blandly listing them line by line. It's ugly but predictable and legible. I would like a nicer method, but this upgrade is so far behind schedule I just want to crap it out and get moving on something else...

   

[campsawyer]

Bigger question is how will this affect searching. IMO all of this is mute if we cannot do anything with this info. How will we be able to put in 1st Rifles and get a group of scenarios that track there progress through the war, without getting the 1st Rifles(2) scenarios?

[Shad]

Moot. Searching will work as expected. A knock-on question would be how do you distinguish 1st Rifles from 1st Rifles in your search input? I suppose you could frame it by a date range...

[plloyd1010]

A quick note on Drew's screen shot. Those (more) spots are flyouts, where the alternate names or owners are displayed. it is how we are accounting for name changes and such.

[waynebaumber]

Peter,
I would like to have gone for "a better idea" but I can't see one. You are going to have problems with all nationalities other than the US I think. The Soviets as you have pointed out renamed & renumbered units throughout the war. The Germans created new divisions up to the end of the war and other units "grew" into divisions from smaller units. They also created ad hoc units which often remained ad-hoc for a long time. Us Brits changed our divisional sub units and brigades more times than perhaps any other nation, and of course it was the "regiment" you were in that carried the kudos not what brigade or division you were temporally attached to.
I think that linage is the only way to go and the best of luck to you. It must be a fascinating study for you.

[campsawyer]

Moot. Searching will work as expected. A knock-on question would be how do you distinguish 1st Rifles from 1st Rifles in your search input? I suppose you could frame it by a date range...

Darn spell check on phones. I do see this as major issue. How to distingush between the two.

[Shad]

You're the searcher, you tell me! What would you expect to see from a UI perspective that would make sense?

[plloyd1010]

Well Alan, the lineage model is being used for everyone else. I may need Drew to increase the number of parent and alt name lines, but we can scrape by with what we have now. The Soviet creativity are the biggest problem, and reason for the discussion.

For you the consideration would be something like this:

1. Having a long list with obvious, systemic inconsistencies. This would happen with the lineage model.
   
2. Shorter lists, but few systemic issues (you wouldn't need to read my notes). That is what the incident model does.
   

Keep in mind that when when a formation has a name change, it is still one incident. So the German 33rd Infantry & 15th Panzer are the same incident. The 15th PanzerGrenadier is a new incident.

[campsawyer]

You're the searcher, you tell me! What would you expect to see from a UI perspective that would make sense?

One your screen shot, I would like to see a table at the bottom listing all the scenarios for that formation either allowing a custom sort or sort by date of the scenario. Most important piece for me will be able follow them through a campaign of all of their battles. Everything else is nice but is not as important.

I would also suggest the bio at the top and the table of lineage to the right of that. Maybe any patch or logo up by their name.

[Shad]

You're the searcher, you tell me! What would you expect to see from a UI perspective that would make sense?

One your screen shot, I would like to see a table at the bottom listing all the scenarios for that formation either allowing a custom sort or sort by date of the scenario. Most important piece for me will be able follow them through a campaign of all of their battles. Everything else is nice but is not as important.

I would also suggest the bio at the top and the table of lineage to the right of that. Maybe any patch or logo up by their name.

The scenario table is already in place, just not on the view provided in the attachment. All subordinate formation appearances are included, so viewing Heer will show scenario appearances for everything under Heer. We typically don't included dates in the scenario tables but if that's a critical factor for formations I can add it.

Who do you suggest will write 2,500+ bios? In the 2+ years of PG-HQ we have had exactly one nation history voluntary submission. Same with patches and logos. That sort of work is certainly never going to be on my to-do list. It's a nice thought but I don't envision anyone stepping up and making that happening. Peter estimates months of formation curation remaining just to get a baseline dataset for all nations.