I don't have any boat games, but from a site development perspective there really isn't any code worth carrying over from PG-HQ to another series. It only makes sense to reuse the actual code if you're going to expand the existing site.
The site layout and data structures have a bit of value, since we've iterated a fair ways from the original design 4 years ago... but the code isn't worth anything.
My suggestion would be to look at how PG-HQ organizes data and think critically about what would and wouldn't work for the naval games. Your organizational methodology is far and away the most important component, and also extremely difficult to modify or redesign after you've started coding.
Example: PG-HQ rates scenarios with an integer from 1 to 5. Does this suit naval scenarios? Maybe rating multiple discreet factors is more appropriate? (enjoyment, historicity, replay value, etc.) Maybe 1-to-5 is itself a false accuracy and you should just go with a simple thumbs up/down? Maybe throw out ratings all together and make AARs the focus of your site with all sorts of AAR enhancements like inline photos and text searching and hotlinking and what not?
See what I mean by thinking critically? There's a lot you guys accept at PG-HQ just because it already exists... maybe we didn't do it right to begin with!
Hope that helps... no matter how large you assume the scale of work required to set up a WAS-HQ, I assure you that your estimate is too small!
