Am I missing something....

[Greyfox]

Hi All,

         I am one of those guys who can be termed a completionist.  I have most PG Games and supplements either in print or digital form.  I also have SoI, and every supplement for Infantry Attacks made.  Something has been bothering me for a while now and I have to wonder if I am missing something, as I don't own certain supplements but do have later editions of said supplements with all the same scenarios.  
         On the profile page, one has the opportunity to select which game or supplements they own. This is supposed to tell us which scenario's we can or cannot play with other players (dependent on which games they own).  The problem is that a player doesn't get constructive credit for the scenario's he can play in earlier editions of the same title, when he purchased a later edition.  Unless I am missing something:

1) Ownership of Kokoda Trail allows a player to play all scenarios in the Kokoda Campaign, minus the actual Battle or Campaign Games.  Scenario's 1-30 are in a slightly different order and have slightly different naming conventions to tie them to specific battle games but are essentially the same.  If a player owns Kokoda trail he should be able to PBeM, Skype, FaceTime, or if it comes out in Vassal, engage in a game with another player owning Kokoda Campaign.  The reverse should be true as well.

2)  Arctic Front has all ten Lions of Finland Scenarios; though Arctic Front deluxe has only 7 of the 10.

3)  Invasion of Germany has only ten additional scenarios (3,4, and 8-15) not covered in the four previously published supplements (Aachen 1944, Roer River Battles, Siegfried Line, and Westwall.  Every one of the four aforementioned supplements allows the a player to play 10 of the 50 scenario's in Invasion of Germany.  Ownership of all four allows the playing of 40 of the 50 Scenarios.  Conversely, a player owning Invasion of Germany should get credit for ownership of all four of the aforementioned supplements.

Might be missing something.  Without having purchased Lions of Finland, Invasion of Germany, or Kokoda Campaign I may be in error.... However, unless there was significant revision between in those scenarios between the released editions I would think that a player would get credit for being able to play some of the scenarios in earlier or later editions of the same supplement.

Anyone able to provide clarification on the above?

Mike 

[Matt W]

Mike,

With respect to Kokoda Campaign you should know that virtually every scenario has been reworked. While the OOB is relatively unchanged the victory conditions and SSRs have been substantially altered to improve balance and, where necessary, improve historicity.

Invasion of Germany also included the scenarios from North of Elsenborn, the ones you note above. Thus, all of the scenarios in Invasion of Germany had previously been released.

[plloyd1010]

On the profile page, one has the opportunity to select which game or supplements they own. This is supposed to tell us which scenario's we can or cannot play with other players (dependent on which games they own).  The problem is that a player doesn't get constructive credit for the scenario's he can play in earlier editions of the same title, when he purchased a later edition.  Unless I am missing something:...I would think that a player would get credit for being able to play some of the scenarios in earlier or later editions of the same supplement.

No, you didn't miss anything. That is pretty much how the accrediting works.

Now play credits have to do rank. So are you suggesting that bonus play credits be awarded based on APL's re-released games? That would be the effect, would it not?

Medals have to do with games completed. So if there is accreditation through the released version of the scenarios, does that not mean earning one medal contributes toward another one? It seems to violate the spirit medals.

All together it seems too complicated to sort out. Rank and medals are for bragging rights of those who earned them. Such things don't mean much to me. Others who have value in them already subscribed to rules, and earned there rank and medal based upon them.

BTW: The Kokoda Campaign Vassal module works fine for Kokoda Trail, except when it comes to scenarios 10 & 17. A little creativity should overcome the difficulties of the versions.

[Greyfox]

Mike,

With respect to Kokoda Campaign you should know that virtually every scenario has been reworked.  While the OOB is relatively unchanged the victory conditions and SSRs have been substantially altered to improve balance and, where necessary, improve historicity.

Invasion of Germany also included the scenarios from North of Elsenborn, the ones you note above.  Thus, all of the scenarios in Invasion of Germany had previously been released.

Matt,

        Thanks for the quick response... I am in the process of PCSing (returning) to the states after a 4.5 year tour in Germany.  Haven't had much time to do more than monitor of late.  
         Understand completely why "constructive credit," for lack of a better term, doesn't completely apply for the Kokoda Trail and Kokoda Campaign.  It would be nice to get it for those scenario's that have not been restructured.  
         I would like it if this site actually did that kind of crosswalk and tell me which games I could play with someone that owns another supplement or later version of a supplement.  As an example, I apparently own all five supplements that make up Invasion Germany.  I wasn't tracking that North of Elsenborn was also included in Invasion Germany, until you pointed it out.  Whenever I click on Invasion Germany it tells me that I have 0% playability because I don't own Invasion of Germany.  I have every other game with the appropriate pieces and maps and recommends Invasion of Germany as my next purchase.  In reality, I should be able to play every single scenario because I have purchased the five supplements that make up Invasion of Germany. 
          I know it sounds  a bit nit-picky, as this site is a wonderful resource; however, if I were new to panzer grenadier, and had just picked up one of the five supplements that make-up Invasion of Germany (along with a few other games that provide the some of the requisite parts and maps) it would be nice to know that I can play x number of scenarios in Invasion of Germany.  It would also allow players who either own any or all of the five supplements to expand their search for potential F2F partners to those who owned  Invasion of Germany and vice versa.

Mike 

[Greyfox]

On the profile page, one has the opportunity to select which game or supplements they own. This is supposed to tell us which scenario's we can or cannot play with other players (dependent on which games they own).  The problem is that a player doesn't get constructive credit for the scenario's he can play in earlier editions of the same title, when he purchased a later edition.  Unless I am missing something:...I would think that a player would get credit for being able to play some of the scenarios in earlier or later editions of the same supplement.

No, you didn't miss anything. That is pretty much how the accrediting works.

Now play credits have to do rank. So are you suggesting that bonus play credits be awarded based on APL's re-released games? That would be the effect, would it not?

Medals have to do with games completed. So if there is accreditation through the released version of the scenarios, does that not mean earning one medal contributes toward another one? It seems to violate the spirit medals.

All together it seems too complicated to sort out. Rank and medals are for bragging rights of those who earned them. Such things don't mean much to me. Others who have value in them already subscribed to rules, and earned there rank and medal based upon them.

BTW: The Kokoda Campaign Vassal module works fine for Kokoda Trail, except when it comes to scenarios 10 & 17. A little creativity should overcome the difficulties of the versions.

plloyd,

       Thanks for replying so quickly.  I haven't been able to respond as quickly because I have been rather busy moving.  That wasn't really the direction I was going.  Like you, don't really care about the medals or the ranks inside this forum.  
       Thanks for the info on the vassal module.  I am having trouble using it.  I can't quite figure them out.  I get to the map and can place units, but I can't figure out how to actually play a game (either solo or F2F).  I am not adept at navigating the site for either instructions or a tutorial on how it works.  Might you be able to point me in the direction.  I would love to learn how to use it.

Mike 

[Schoenwulf]

On the profile page, one has the opportunity to select which game or supplements they own. This is supposed to tell us which scenario's we can or cannot play with other players (dependent on which games they own).  The problem is that a player doesn't get constructive credit for the scenario's he can play in earlier editions of the same title, when he purchased a later edition.  Unless I am missing something:...I would think that a player would get credit for being able to play some of the scenarios in earlier or later editions of the same supplement.

No, you didn't miss anything. That is pretty much how the accrediting works.

Now play credits have to do rank. So are you suggesting that bonus play credits be awarded based on APL's re-released games? That would be the effect, would it not?

Medals have to do with games completed. So if there is accreditation through the released version of the scenarios, does that not mean earning one medal contributes toward another one? It seems to violate the spirit medals.

All together it seems too complicated to sort out. Rank and medals are for bragging rights of those who earned them. Such things don't mean much to me. Others who have value in them already subscribed to rules, and earned there rank and medal based upon them.

BTW: The Kokoda Campaign Vassal module works fine for Kokoda Trail, except when it comes to scenarios 10 & 17. A little creativity should overcome the difficulties of the versions.

plloyd,

       Thanks for replying so quickly.  I haven't been able to respond as quickly because I have been rather busy moving.  That wasn't really the direction I was going.  Like you, don't really care about the medals or the ranks inside this forum.  
       Thanks for the info on the vassal module.  I am having trouble using it.  I can't quite figure them out.  I get to the map and can place units, but I can't figure out how to actually play a game (either solo or F2F).  I am not adept at navigating the site for either instructions or a tutorial on how it works.  Might you be able to point me in the direction.  I would love to learn how to use it.

Mike 

Once you get settled and if you can Skype, I'd be glad to walk you through a Kokoda scenario. Just PM me at your convenience. Have played several and not had issues; plloyd is great about maintaining the Vassal mods and this one has been spruced up very nicely, even has elephants!

[Shad]

         I would like it if this site actually did that kind of crosswalk and tell me which games I could play with someone that owns another supplement or later version of a supplement.  As an example, I apparently own all five supplements that make up Invasion Germany.  I wasn't tracking that North of Elsenborn was also included in Invasion Germany, until you pointed it out.  Whenever I click on Invasion Germany it tells me that I have 0% playability because I don't own Invasion of Germany.  I have every other game with the appropriate pieces and maps and recommends Invasion of Germany as my next purchase.  In reality, I should be able to play every single scenario because I have purchased the five supplements that make up Invasion of Germany. 

PG-HQ admin and code monkey here - Invasion of Germany is really the only tricky bit and I've half-written a Library patch for it three times and three times I've been distracted / forced to back-burner it. It'll get done someday.