Background - now that we have a cozy place to easily chat, I'm going to post a monthly blog explaining what is going on behind the scenes in Panzer Grenadier Headquarters. As those of you who have been around awhile know, PG-HQ is always changing. Sometimes quickly, oftentimes slowly 
, but never static. The goal of this monthly post is to give you some insight into what I've been up to and let you offer any feedback you see fit!
Current Major Project: Library Upgrade
The goals of the Library upgrade are:
- simplifying the layout
- adding more and better data
- adding new classifications (formations, etc.)
Right now I've finished all the category lists and am just about done with the Game page. The scenario page will take the longest, but I'm making steady progress.
One nice addition will be balance information, both at the game and scenario level.
Given the variance in play between ftf and solo it might make sense to have an indication as to whether the players felt that a scenario was particularly suited to ftf or solo play. Much like adding an AAR it wouldn't be required but could be logged when logging a play. I say that merely because a lot of the recent AARs have had mentions of whether the game would be better for one or the other types of play.
(06-02-2012, 10:34 PM)Matt W Wrote: [ -> ]Given the variance in play between ftf and solo it might make sense to have an indication as to whether the players felt that a scenario was particularly suited to ftf or solo play. Much like adding an AAR it wouldn't be required but could be logged when logging a play. I say that merely because a lot of the recent AARs have had mentions of whether the game would be better for one or the other types of play.
My observation has been that a lot of times the results are quite different for solo vs. face-to-face on the same scenario.
The balance ratings we're adding have 3 values: overall, solo only, and shared only. You'll be surprised how much those ratings can swing between Side 1 or Side 2 depending on the method of play...
Unless someone has played a scenario both FtF
and solo, they're just conjecturing after all...
best to let the facts speak I think.
Works for me. I had no idea that the results would vary so much (unless there were hidden units, etc.)
Shad, do you know whether Mike will allow the posting of new player-designed scenarios on your forum? He might see it as cutting into sales of Avalanche Product, but he might also see it as fanning the flames of the product line.
(06-04-2012, 01:45 PM)larry marak Wrote: [ -> ]Shad, do you know whether Mike will allow the posting of new player-designed scenarios on your forum? He might see it as cutting into sales of Avalanche Product, but he might also see it as fanning the flames of the product line.
He has no say in the matter. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted. So long as you don't use original AP artwork, you can make (and sell!) as many scenarios as you want.
Convincing people to try "amateur" designs when they already have XXX unplayed "professional designs on their shelves is your real problem!
(06-04-2012, 01:50 PM)Shad Wrote: [ -> ]Convincing people to try "amateur" designs when they already have XXX unplayed "professional designs on their shelves is your real problem!
Not so if you use these scenarios as a basis for the "scenario of the month"... See what I mean ???
(06-04-2012, 01:50 PM)Shad Wrote: [ -> ]He has no say in the matter. Game mechanics cannot be copyrighted. So long as you don't use original AP artwork, you can make (and sell!) as many scenarios as you want.
Actual relevant U.S. law is
FL-108 and reads as follows:
Copyright does not protect the idea for a game, its name or title, or the method or methods for playing it. Nor does copyright protect any idea, system, method, device, or trademark material involved in developing, merchandising, or playing a game.
It goes on in more detail, but that's the gist.
So long as you don't use PG artwork or quote passages from PG scenario books or rules, you can freely design scenarios and sell them as you please.