A question about the errata system

[larry marak]

I have been wondering why errata that is limited to PanzerGrenadier and Heroes of the Soviet Union (including Red Warriors) is listed for games using counters from games where the errors are long corrected. Almost (or every) scenario using Wehrmacht Sergents lists the incorrect values on one sergent in PanzerGrenadier, even though this game is not used in the scenario (Bulge and Elsenborn use their own sergents, for example). And the instruction not to use the modifiers on Kommisars is included everywhere Kommisars are used, even though Eastern Front Deluxe and Road to Berlin have put that error to rest. The Kommisar info is relevant only to games and modules released prior to Eastern Front Deluxe, that is , PanzerGrenadier, Lions of Finland, Heroes of the Soviet Union, first edition Airborne, Red Warriors and Tank Battles. Does the program not allow one to flag only the relevant products?

[Shad]

Good question, Larry.

Currently the errata system works like this:

• you can attach an errata item to a "thing" in the Library
  
• any other "thing" that includes that first thing will display the sub-errata
  

To use Kommisars as an example, the site only knows that there is a Kommisar. It does not know that there are EFDx Kommisars and RtBr Kommisars.

Any scenario that has a Kommisar in its OOB pulls the Kommisar, and its errata along with it.

This works beautifully for unique items like maps - one map errata will always show when that map is used. But, as you've noted, it can be needlessly repetitive for items that are not unique, primarily units which can have many individual counters only a portion of which are erroneous.

In this way I originally erred on the side of design simplicity and effectiveness-via-repetition.

The code could be enhanced to make errata items more conditional (this errata applies to ____ only from game ___), but to be honest that would not be high on my site development priority list because the current function, while perhaps annoying at times, is far from broken.

Currently I've got 42 open issues in my development tracker:

• 12 are outright bugs/broken things of varying severity that need to be fixed
  
• 17 are enhancements to existing features
  
• 4 are proposals for completely new features
  
• 9 are maintenance tasks that you'll never see the effects of but should be done for site stability reasons
  

The number is a little misleading because the time associated with each item can vary wildly. "Upgrading the Library" was one enhancement, but it took me almost half a year of on and off development. Other things can be done in 10 minutes if I decide to turn my attention to them.

And that's all I have to say about that!

[larry marak]

Another nagging question. How come Hopeless but not Serious has a dozen AFV rules listed as applicable to scenario one when the only vehicles used in scenario one are Austrian trucks?

[Shad]

Good question. I've made a note to follow-up behind the scenes and see why that AFV table is popping up.

[Shad]

Another nagging question. How come Hopeless but not Serious has a dozen AFV rules listed as applicable to scenario one when the only vehicles used in scenario one are Austrian trucks?

I've adjusted this. Now if there are only trucks present then only one AFV-related rule is displayed: that regarding vulnerability to AT fire which does apply because trucks have an AT value of -1.

See HbnS001 now...