You may want to include other variables in your decision process.
Two examples
(1) I prefer scenarios which do not include hidden unit when playing solo. Panzer Lehr uses hidden units in all scenarios and thus it is pretty low on my priority list.
(2) My game table is 34"x34". Iron Curtain includes 8 scenarios out of 20 which will not fit onto my table and thus it is a low priority for me.
Thinking during Chicago traffic has yielded what I think is the most practical solution:
I will add a module to each scenario and game page which will tell you the requirements and -- if you are registered and logged-in -- deliver a playability verdict.
As a simple example:
====================================== North Wind #6 - Night of the Liberators OK - Scenario Book - North Wind OK - Maps & Counters - Battle of the Bulge Fail - Counters - Iron Curtain
---------------------------------------- Unplayable
======================================
This would allow you to see at a glance IF the scenario was playable and, if not, what you were lacking.
Doing the same for an entire game is more complicated. Ideally you'd get a quote like "11/20 Playable" but suggesting additional purchases is getting messy again. We'll see how it goes.
...came for the cardboard, stayed for the camaraderie...
Shad, I took a shot at the "entire game" stat, using Excel. I've attached the sheet where I have the data for 3 supplements (AFDx, SeWp and PaLe, assume that they're not any errors as I had to enter the dependencies by hand).
If you expand the groups, you can see that the key cells are the ones in column S. I have the dependencies shown by inserting the number 1. Column S checks each column to see if 1) the dependency exists and if it does exist, 2) do you have the game. Note, this doesn't differentiate between maps or counters, but assumes you own the complete game. The code that's repeated for each column is
IF(B4=1,IF($B$2=1,1,0),1)
For each column, that will either return a 1 if you have the game or a 0 if its needed and you don't. It also returns a 1 if the game is not needed. By multiplying the values of all the columns together, you either get a 1 if the scenario is playable or a 0 if it is not (unlike you're example, it doesn't tell you why it isn't playable, but just that it isn't). Then simply summing up column S for each game tells you the number of playable scenarios. Dividing by the number of scenarios gives you the percentage.
The entire equation in cell s4, for example, is
=IF(B4=1,IF($B$2=1,1,0),1)*IF(C4=1,IF($C$2=1,1,0),1)*IF(D4=1,IF($D$2=1,1,0),1)
*IF(E4=1,IF($E$2=1,1,0),1)*IF(F4=1,IF($F$2=1,1,0),1)*IF(G4=1,IF($G$2=1,1,0),1)
*IF(H4=1,IF($H$2=1,1,0),1)*IF(I4=1,IF($I$2=1,1,0),1)*IF(J4=1,IF($J$2=1,1,0),1)
*IF(K4=1,IF($K$2=1,1,0),1)*IF(L4=1,IF($L$2=1,1,0),1)*IF(M4=1,IF($M$2=1,1,0),1)
*IF(N4=1,IF($N$2=1,1,0),1)*IF(O4=1,IF($O$2=1,1,0),1)*IF(P4=1,IF($P$2=1,1,0),1)
*IF(Q4=1,IF($Q$2=1,1,0),1)*IF(R4=1,IF($R$2=1,1,0),1)
I didn't say it wasn't messy... :-)
The nice thing about this is that to check the effect of adding a game to your collection can be instantly realized. For example, for the listed supplements, I can play 65%, 39% and 93% of the scenarios respectively. If I add Cassino to my collection, it only affects PaLe (adding 2 scenarios and taking it to 100%). If I add IrCu, however, the percentage jump for SeWp goes from 39 to 71% (adds 10 playable scenarios).
The big drawback to this is that the dependency data isn't readily available in tabular form and would have to be input. :-(
Note, though, this doesn't talk about where such a statistic would be best presented (in relation to the PG-HQ format). In theory, such data would be available on the individual's profile page. In an ideal world, on the "my collection" section the percentage playable would be next to the expansion. See the attached image. THat way when one clicks on a check box, the data is recalculated and displayed (one wonders how computationally intensive this would be, given all the supplements and scenarios)
I'm not sure that's actually the best place... maybe a second block, similar to the My Collection, that has the # of playable scenarios given "my collection".
It's not hard to figure out current playability based on your existing collection. What is troublesome is making meaningful recommendations.
Here's an example:
You own Afrika Korps.
You view the page for Secret Weapons.
You can play 0/31 scenarios.
Now what do we recommend in this case?
If you buy Beyond Normandy you can play 3/31 scenarios.
Road to Berlin or Guadalcanal would get you one more scenario.
Is this at all useful to know?
What if PG-HQ said "if you buy Road to Berlin AND Elsenborn Ridge AND Iron Curtain AND Battle of the Bulge AND Eastern Front AND Beyond Normandy you could play 21/31 scenarios!"
To me either outcome is basically meaningless.
Not only that, but generating that multi-game recommendation is programmatically very expensive. The human brain can look at the existing requirements matrix and put that dataset together very quickly. Computers don't "think" the same way. We would have to generate ALL 6 game sets (2,162,160 combinations) from the 14 we know are necessary and then sort by playable scenario count.
But I'm open to the possibility that I have a very different approach to buying games than others.
...came for the cardboard, stayed for the camaraderie...
I know. That often is enough, but for the times it's not, it's really not. And when I look at these I always start with the worst /most difficult case, because if you can design for that then everything else is guaranteed to work properly.
...came for the cardboard, stayed for the camaraderie...
