Regarding inclusion of IA and MW - Printable Version +- PG-HQ Forums (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms) +-- Forum: Panzer Grenadier (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=3) +--- Forum: PG-HQ Q&A (https://www.pg-hq.com/comms/forumdisplay.php?fid=8) +--- Thread: Regarding inclusion of IA and MW (/showthread.php?tid=904) Pages:
1
2
|
Regarding inclusion of IA and MW - Shad - 08-03-2014 We've been doing the PG thing for 4 years now. I've held off on adding IA and MW because they aren't PG, for starters, and also because I was skeptical they would be more than single releases. With some new titles coming out, and the growing feedback here that people have plays they'd like to record on the HQ, I'm willing to include them but be warned - this shit takes work! Here is a list of everything* we track in the PG-HQ Library:
...plus your plays, scenario ratings, AARs, all associated stats, all derived data like unit scenario appearances or the OOBs, tour of duty medals, and so on. THAT BEING SAID, I own neither IA nor MW. In order to include them first we must identify very clearly what data points are already covered, are not needed for IA/MW, and which must be added to adequately represent IA/MW. So those of you who own and want these in the HQ, now's the time to step up and help map out the structure. As for the poll, the result is non-binding! RE: Regarding inclusion of IA and MW - JayTownsend - 08-04-2014 Add them! RE: Regarding inclusion of IA and MW - armyduck95 - 08-04-2014 WRT PG MW , at first glance, I do not think there are necessarily any new additions except: Unit: -Anti Aircraft fire values - perhaps the fast movers as units, since many scenarios are fast mover type specific (though they are still ordnance type variable) RE: Regarding inclusion of IA and MW - larry marak - 08-05-2014 Army duck has it right. I.A. is almost PG light, at least in unit differentation. MPG can be expected to be more complicated. RE: Regarding inclusion of IA and MW - plloyd1010 - 08-05-2014 Some data should be integrated, such as maps. Other data, like scenarios & probably units, should branch off. RE: Regarding inclusion of IA and MW - Blackcloud6 - 08-10-2014 I think the games are close enough to be consider one grand series of tactical combat for the 20th Century. I recommend counting all plays together for rank and points. As far as data libraries, it really does not matter but it might be easier to have separate sub-libraries for PG, IG and PGM. They key s to make the site set-up inclusive of all the games, and a way to separate one out as a red-headed step-child. RE: Regarding inclusion of IA and MW - Hugmenot - 08-27-2014 I prefer the maps be in a shared library because some of the IA maps are already used in PG (W&P). RE: Regarding inclusion of IA and MW - JayTownsend - 08-27-2014 I now prefer they are all a shared Library after rethinking it. RE: Regarding inclusion of IA and MW - warstudent - 01-01-2015 Before adding those games and their extensive info into the database, maybe an addition on the profile page's "Your Collection" that includes the current IA and Modern PG games? This would provide a way of judging how many members actually own and are interested in them. Of course the inclusion would need to be heavily highlighted so that everybody would know they could be added to their collection. Maybe a checkbox to indicate you don't have any IA or Modern PG titles also? RE: Regarding inclusion of IA and MW - larry marak - 01-07-2015 Good idea, especially now that To Hell With Spain has been published, and (sounds like a broken record here) Fall of Empires and Lawrence should be out by summer. |