Warfare HQ: Let's hear what the members really think

[Dr Zaius]

Okay gentlemen, as General Editor I've decided it's about time we had another one of these threads. The ones we had had in the past have been interesting, but not terribly useful to the staff. I'll make this as blunt as I can: we want to know what you think.

Warfare HQ has gone through some transformations in the past two years. We have added sections that members demanded and deleted others that didn't seem to be used. We have hosted tournaments, upgraded our forum software to the best available, added a scenario archive, posted interviews with developers and publishers, etc, etc. To my mind the response is not what it can be (or should be...). The Warfare HQ staff is not interested in trying to recruit great numbers of members or be the biggest baddest wargame webpage around. We will never be able to compete with other sites that have corporate sponsors and professional webmasters, however, we do think we can build a solid community in response to the desires of the players.

There is some concern among the staff about the direction of the club right now. Warfare HQ is a "club," not a general wargame page and that means we are really one big team if you think about it. If our club is going to continue to survive and become a better place to play wargames, then there are a few things we will need to do as a team.

1. Recruit new members. As I said earlier, we're not interested in hosting a massive community of wargamers that play one game and disappear, but we are interested in recruiting new members who will be great opponents and provide support to the club. Wargamers do lose interest in certain titles after a while and move on to something different. To make up for that we need fresh blood that brings in competitive sprit or good ideas. We don't want to stagnate.

2. Communicate. For any club to be effective there must be good communication between its members. This forum is a good way to do that, but perhaps we can improve further in this area.

3. Provide a reason for members to want to come back here. Gentlemen, the Warfare HQ staff can manage the ladders, solicit interviews, maintain the forum, and provide a great place to post your scenarios and other material, but we can't create this stuff out of thin air. If we could do that Warfare HQ would become a developer and start creating our own wargames! I've said this on numerous occasions, "the club will only be as good as you help to make it."

What we want from you is quality feedback. We've done this before, but the difference is that we want it from every single member of this club!!! I mean it. We want to hear what you have to say. There is some confusion on the part of the staff as to what you guys really want. We have added some of the features that were requested, but it sometimes seems that the response is pretty halfhearted.

Here are a few general questions, but there are many more that could be asked:

a. Are we supporting the right wargames? Specifics please.
b. What do you like about Warfare HQ? What don't you like?
c. Do you like the forum setup? Is it good? Does it suck? Why?
d. How are our ladders? Are they great? Do they need to change? Let's hear what you think.
e. What's the single biggest reason you keep coming back here?
f. Why don't you visit more often? What can we do to make it better?
g. What do you think of the staff? Are we responsive and helpful?
h. Do you think other people know about Warfare HQ? How can we reach out to new members?
i. What do you think of the webpage layout? Is the site easy enough to navigate?
j. What would you like to see more of? Articles? AAR's? Mods and add-on's? What kind of material is important to you?


We want to hear what you have to say because we want to use this information to help the staff decide what to do next. In this one thread I'm opening it up to any type of feedback. If you have great things to say, we would like to hear it. If you have some very harsh things to say, by all means we want to hear that too. I don't normally do this, but this one time I am encouraging you to give us specific examples. Feel free to compare us to other webpages or even to other clubs if you feel it is useful. We don't feel we should compete with anyone else, but I do want everyone to know they have free license to say what they want in this thread. I assure you the information posted here will only be used to make the club a better place.

This is your chance, ladies and gentlemen, to stand up and make a difference in your club. The whole staff is listening. Let's hear it.

 

[Martin Schenkel]

In answer to the specific questions:

A. I only really play TOAW, and it is the game with the biggest support on this site.
B. I like the community atmosphere of the website. There aren't thousands of members and/or a handful of regulars, and when I log on it's almost like coming home (even though I'm mostly on the outside looking in). I don't like the current title page, as I can't read the updates text, but it's not a huge issue for me.
C. The forum is great.
D. I don't really have the time to commit to any of the ladders.
E. The Forum is the single biggest reason I visit the site.
F. The only thing that stops me from visiting the site, is my own lack of time.
G. The staff is great and very helpful.
H. Increasing members is difficult. Perhaps broadening the number of games supported, or increasing support of current 'lesser' games?

The biggest issue I had with TGN back in the day, was that the TOAW main page wasn't updated for months/years. I would really like to see something, just to show that the game section is still being taken care of. Even something trivial such as: "We're working on such and such a project, and here's an update", or "such and such scenarios were newly uploaded in the past week/month, and here's a very brief independant review/opinion". The biggest problem I see with a game such as TOAW, is that as time passes, a large percentage of people will simply lose interest and move on to something else. It's only the die-hards that are left at the end (like us!). This can be seen by the drop off in support for TOAW that occured at Talonsoft over that past few years, and the complete lack of support from Take 2. They ignore it because it's only a small niche market. You're now dealing with that same small niche market. As of now, I believe that Warfare HQ is the single largest supporter of TOAW. Although the Wargamer website has many resources, it's very large and far too faceless for my liking. To ensure this, perhaps an attempt could be made to 'amalgamate' some of the smaller user created websites out there? As for user contributions, I am currently in a PBEM game of Overlord 44 and we will be creating an AAR to submit to Warfare HQ. I would also eventually like to create a relatively all-inclusive TOAW TO&E reference, and hopefully Warfare HQ would be interested.

Basically though, you guys do a bang up job. No other website out there (that I know of) has the level of support for TOAW that Warfare HQ does, and that's the main reason I will continue to visit for a long time. Plus the forum always has some stimulating debates

 

[Twoblade]

Unfortunately, I have not had the time to commit to games and ladder tourneys. What keeps me coming back here is the forum and the interesting discussions about games and current affairs.

a. Are we supporting the right wargames? Specifics please.

I think you are. I feel that you have got a club here supporting the kind of games that could last for a long time to come. These games however are relatively old, and I think that the number of people discovering these games are decreasing with time. Better and better games are coming up all the time, if you want to increase membership numbers, the only way may be to explore having ladders for newer games.

b. What do you like about Warfare HQ? What don't you like?

I like the community closeness and the civilised way this place is run. No hacker talk and childishness.

Currently what I don't really like is the scenario database. I understand what had happened, but I would prefer it if someone could program a new database for upload and download of scenarios.

c. Do you like the forum setup? Is it good? Does it suck? Why?

I like the forum, although I think the color could be a little more... not so drab..

d. How are our ladders? Are they great? Do they need to change? Let's hear what you think.

I like your ladder system. With the current membership population, it's efficient.

If improvement is needed, I suppose you have to consider automation. A form and automatic update of ladders upon submission. That, however, does require someone who knows a good deal about scripting.

e. What's the single biggest reason you keep coming back here?

As above. I enjoy the discussions on this forum. And I find that I can learn a lot of things reading the game forums, as I am still an amateur when it comes to these wargames.

f. Why don't you visit more often? What can we do to make it better?

I visit everyday. I try to.

g. What do you think of the staff? Are we responsive and helpful?

The staff here are doing an excellent job!

h. Do you think other people know about Warfare HQ? How can we reach out to new members?

I don't know, but maybe not enough people know about WarfareHQ. I am quite surprised that CMBB section isn't increasing to hundreds of members -- considering this new game is highly rated and well known even outside the wargaming community.

If there is someway to get on the news of wargamer.com or any other big wargame sites, that might get some people's attention about this place.

Maybe everytime, the staff here organises a tourney, they could also contact wargame sites to have them up on their news pages or announce it on other wargame site forums to let people know what's happening here.

If comparisons are to be made, I can compare you to another site - Heavengames network of game sites. Just like them (size excluded), you guys put a lot of quality into the site that you built. It's not fancy and flashy like gamespy network, but it's a whole lot better when it comes to quality of information and community.

Summary:

What this site needs is someone with scripting skills to build a good database and an automated ladder system (based on the current one).

To increase membership, the obvious way is to get involve in the new games that are coming out. I think that as long as the community remains as friendly as we currently are, people will more likely to stay on... at least a little longer.

 

[Twoblade]

hm... this new forum scheme is much better! :cheeky:

 

[Fading Captain]

Originally posted by Maddog

Here are a few general questions, but there are many more that could be asked:

a. Are we supporting the right wargames? Specifics please.
b. What do you like about Warfare HQ? What don't you like?
c. Do you like the forum setup? Is it good? Does it suck? Why?
d. How are our ladders? Are they great? Do they need to change? Let's hear what you think.
e. What's the single biggest reason you keep coming back here?
f. Why don't you visit more often? What can we do to make it better?
g. What do you think of the staff? Are we responsive and helpful?
h. Do you think other people know about Warfare HQ? How can we reach out to new members?
i. What do you think of the webpage layout? Is the site easy enough to navigate?
j. What would you like to see more of? Articles? AAR's? Mods and add-on's? What kind of material is important to you?

a. I think so. I'm here for TOAW, and this site does the best job of supporting this game on the net. But I also like it when the site supports newer games, because I can then learn about new games.

b. The people. The forum. The lader. TOAW support. Exclusive place to find McBride's work.

c. Forums are fantastic. Best wargame forum out there in my opinion. Was I the only person that liked the blue and white forum? I thought that was cool.

d. The ladders are the area that needs the most improvement. Some type of database that has more detailed player info would be fantastic. What games people played. Who they played them against. What the victory level was. This makes it much easier to find opponents of equal skill level. The stats are also just fun to read.

e. I come back because of the forums, tournaments, and TOAW support.

f. I visit every day. I'm already reeled in.

g. Staff is great. HEAT was a nice addition to the TOAW staff!

h. Not sure here. Honestly, one of the things that I like about this site and its forum is that it is reasonably small. You don't get many trollers or out right dorks that post on these forums. It's a well-educated, mature group. I like that. So part of me says keep it the size it is. I look at the number of members from time to time as I pull up the page, and it looks like that membership continues to grow at a small, healthy yet steady size. Perfect.

i. I've never really had any trouble navigating through the site. I look at the site so frequently that I know where everything is.

j. More of everything would be nice. I like AAR's and articles--I'd do more myself if I had time. AAR's are really helpful to players--to learn about scenarios and to learn strategy.

Looking at the big picture, the ladders are the biggest area that I see for improvement, and here I just mean in the area of stats for players. This, in my opinion, is really the only thing that this site is missing compared to other wargame sites.

But, all in all, I think that this site is the best wargame site on the net. The forums are active, the games supported are the right games, the site is updated at a healthy rate, and the staff and members are all good people. Even better, the staff seeks ways to make the site even better.

I have very little to criticize (just the lack of ladder stats). The Warfare HQ staff is doing a great job!

 

[ER_Chaser]

Don, I think this site is near perfect. For all of your questions a) through g), my answer is most positive.

Talking about attracting more people or adding more games supported ---- I am wondering maybe a lot players nowadays favor the realtime stuff than our turn base e-board games. Introducing some RTS or FPS games will surely dramatically boost the memberships, but I doubt that will be the same category of people as the ones we already have here.

However, there are some good RTS/Turn base combined games which are quite interesting and probably more intense than the turn based engines. For example the Total War series (as I addicted to for quite a while) ---- yet I cannot recommend this specific game to our club due to two problems: it requires quite luxury bandwidth and the human vs. human mode is not very good for ladders yet (it functions very well, but the lack of variety prevents it from a ladder content at this time). Later we can expect we will have more broadbands to solve the first problem, and the developers to solve the second. But I believe soon there will be some good proper ones in the market.

FPS' are perfect for ladders. We just need broadband to make it functional.

These are all future things --- right now, I am more than satisfied.

 

[Deltapooh]

a. Yes for now. There is the naval simulation games like the upcoming Harpoon 4 should be considered. The first wargame I bought for my PC was Jane's Fleet Command. It was a great tactical wargame.

b. The community that has assembled around the site is great. You have alot of intelligent people in these forums. I really enjoy the informed debates.

c. I don't see any problems with the way the forums are set up.

d. I'm not too interested in MP games, so the ladder is not extremely important to me. However, you might want to automate it.

e. Forums. It's great to discuss politics and tactics with very informed people from around the world.

f. I visit daily. So for me, improvements in this department is not necessary.

g. Great staff.

h. The games the site cater to are likely to turn off many. As Fading Captain pointed out, you don't want a bunch of idiots with little minds poluting the boards with senseless and offensive statements meant to insult rather than inform. If you are a serious wargamer, you will find your way to WarfareHQ.

i. The layout is fine for me.

j. I think articles, add-ons, and mods attract people. However, it's more a community responsibility. The gaming industry provides the software and players provides the rest.

 

[Headshot]

I think that we need a SPWaW forum. The site is excellent otherwise.:cheeky:

 

[Palantir]

a. I play only TOAW; so as far as I'm concerned yes.

b. The absolute ease of navigation and the "kiss" format. The #1 reason I don't go to other sites is the chaotic feel of them. It's like they try and over burden the member with everything under the sun. This site is member friendly, all the others (and i just checked them out again last week) are "cold" and impersonal. Plus they have too much "junk" to deal with and wade through to find what's important- the games. And their forum set ups suck.

c. I love the forum set up. It's easy to find the game, the thread of intrest AND you can instantly read what everyone else has posted on the subject you are reading.

d. Not really into the ladder aspect, but on that topic... maybe add a members "games played history" section. What I really don't care for are pages and pages of numbers & statisics, just tell me the game played, sides played & which side won / loss.

e. The forum. The mature & orderly discussions ON the games by the members. If the site ever fell into a "rag on/bitch" forum I'd be gone. Even when a "newbie" asks a question answered 10 times before someone steps right up and answers it without a rude comment about "get with it etc." :thumup:

f. I visit everyday; adding the chatroom was a bonus.

g. Great staff, if I've ever had a question they respond quickly and with a helpful attitude. I like the attention the staff pays to the site and the "we're here" feeling. Last thing I want is to visit a site that is not current. :flag:

h. I don't know.

i. Best of the bunch! Don't change it.

j. I would like to see more AAR's. Getting to read about someone else's game is like getting to read a new "history" novel on my favorite topic. No matter the length of game or outcome. I really wouldn't be interested in basic "history articles," I have enough history books at home. But articles concerning a scenario and about how a designer made the scenario (why this & that are in it) would be interesting.

Other: Shorter 1 RD Tourneys. I could commit before hand to one round but to commit to 3 RDS that could last a year+ is too much for me (I do have a life & family!). Once I commit to something I'd hate to have to drop out and leave "my team" a player short.

I like the "community" feeling here, the numbers (at least for TOAW) are good. The members are great and I can always find an opponent when I ask.

I really like the fact that the designers come here and discuss their games, now that is top notch and says a ton about the respect of WHQ :clap:

Kerry :cheeky:

 

[Marko]

Originally posted by Maddog

j. What would you like to see more of? Articles? AAR's? Mods and add-on's? What kind of material is important to you?

Sorry only have time to answer this question. After watching the playback of Jamian OPFOR challenge to the OPFOR players I realised that most players have the tactical knowledge of what is required on the battlefield. However, the best players know the game mechanics inside out. What I am trying to say is that I wanted to do what Jamian did, but couldn't ! I beleive that more articles pertaining to actual tactics and the game mechanics would be very useful. AAR's are also invaluable, I am currently engaged in Bagtration with a freind and found Maddog's AAR most informative, not in order to replicate his game but to learn from it and modify it (if that is possible). Overall, keep up the excellent and hard work that goes in to producing an excellent forum/site.

 

[Chuck?]

a. Are we supporting the right wargames? Specifics please.

Yes and no. Mostly I play TOAW and judging by the forum traffic so do most of the other members of WarfareHQ. The other games here I don't play.

One day soon (hopefully) a game will be introduced to the market that will replace TOAW and then you guys should be the first to support it. Until that day I'm not sure there are any other wargames out there worth looking at.

The only other games I play are real time stradegy (RTS) games and I don't know if these fit your image as they are not 'serious' wargames.


b. What do you like about Warfare HQ? What don't you like?

Good
The site is smaller than many others and isn't as confusing as other sites sometimes. No pop up ads or messages begging for money. Nice graphics. Robust forum community.

Bad
Lack of original content (there has only been eight articles about wargaming and military history in over three years). Few scenarios available in archive.

c. Do you like the forum setup? Is it good? Does it suck? Why?

It is fine. I like the option to change colors. Also I think the default colors should be sharp, colorful and easy to read. This will encourage first time vistors to participate than colors that are too dark or hard to read.

Also I don't like those sticky post that stay up at the top forever.

Of course let's no forget about the smilies. Where would we be without them?


d. How are our ladders? Are they great? Do they need to
change? Let's hear what you think.

They aren't great but not bad either. An option to see the past performance records of players would be nice. The Rating Score Victory column (232:28 89.23) should be simplified (89.2%). More data on the scenarios (balance, fun, ect).


e. What's the single biggest reason you keep coming back here?

Post at the forums.


f. Why don't you visit more often? What can we do to make it better?

Add more content that would be interesting to read.


g. What do you think of the staff? Are we responsive and helpful?

The staff is doing a good job.


h. Do you think other people know about Warfare HQ? How can we reach out to new members?

No. I don't think you pop up in the search engines very often which might be keeping down the number of new users. I typed 'wargame reviews' at google and this site didn't come up until the sixth page.

The title page doesn't convey much useful information to the brand new visitor. It shows the 'Latest News' section. Maybe a introduction page of some sort would work better.


i. What do you think of the webpage layout? Is the site easy enough to navigate?

It took me a little while to get use to it when it was changed. I didn't understand the relationship between the links on the left, top, and middle top right away. The links at other sites are a bit easier to understand right from the start.

j. What would you like to see more of? Articles? AAR's? Mods and add-on's? What kind of material is important to you?

More articles and AAR. Mods don't really interest me.

 

[Martin Schenkel]

Sorry, I just realized that I left out two of your questions:

I: The webpage layout is quite easy to navigate, but perhaps the font for the section links could be a tad larger, and as Chuck mentioned maybe more content (who are we and what do we do) on the main page instead of just news.

J: I would love to see more strategy articles (and perhaps some rebuttles to existing ones, if people have interest in that). AARs are also very interesting. I'm sure it's difficult posting such things, as it largely depends on user contributions. As I mentioned in my original post, I'm working on an AAR myself, and also (eventually) some TO&E information.

 

[Gary Owen]

I've only recently joined, but I've made it a habit to visit frequently. I originally found this site from a banner at Military Gamer Online. After finding this site, I got a copy of TOAW. I still have a lot of time to invest in that game before I even approach anything close to proficiency. I have enjoyed the CM ladder, though. I really do prefer the type of games the site supports, and I think that the maturity of the forum is a reflection of the quality of the games supported.

As far as increasing membership, it would seem that checking out other games similar to those supported and posting at their fora would be a good way to promote membership. I've been a member of the Steel Beasts community for a while now and I've mentioned this site on their forum more than once. (shameless plug --- SB is not just a tank sim, it is also a great real time wargame with a versatile Boolean logic based editor, that at least one person I know of has tried to use to create an off-map HMMWV based abacus, but, --- ahh, sorry for digression) Anyway, arranging for some type of banner exchange at the SB website might attract a couple serious wargamers. Also, the Tank Net forum has a thread dedicated to gaming, that might be a good place to drop by and mention TOAW and see if you get any nibbles. Consimworld is another site that might be a good place for a link.

Overall, I think that the staff is doing an excellent job. Quality games are supported and the forum is active and thoughtful.

 

[Dr Zaius]

Very good input gentlemen. PLEASE keep it coming! This thread is not meant to only address my example questions. You should feel free to talk about anything you like, however, here are a few more for your consideration.


i. Some members have mentioned that they would like to see the ladder system improved. Let me say first that implementing a fully automated ladder is a fairly sophisticated undertaking and may or may not be something that Pete can do (if the staff decide to make any changes that is). Please give us more specifics about what you like and don't like about the ladders. What should be added? What should be deleted?

j. Talk to us about chat. So far I've not heard a general consensus on what the majority of members would find useful for chat. Is there a solid demand for a more advanced chat system? How many of you would actually use it? Specifics please.

k. Why do more people not contribute articles, AAR's and tutorials? Is there something we can do to make this more of a priority for the members? how much of a demand is there for more strategy and tactics material?

l. Is there a demand for more reviews and previews? How interesting and useful do you find these to be? Is there any interest in creating a Warfare HQ team of reviewers?

m. What do you think of the news page? Is it useful? Do you read it every time you visit? Is it covering the right material? How can it be improved?

n. Are we giving new members enough information to help them understand the club and find their way around? Is there anything we should add, delete or make improvements to?

o. How important are quality scenarios to you? Is this one of the major reasons you visit Warfare HQ? How can we improve the presentation and availability of quality material?

p. Do you find the current color scheme on the forum easy to read? Attractive? Do you prefer other websites forum designs? Specifics please.

q. Wht do you think of the tournaments? Are there enough of them? Too many? Are they setup and organized properly? How can they be changed to make them more fun?

 

[Heinz57]

Greetings MadDog & All,

Overall, Warfare HQ is doing excellent. No real need to get into it by line item. You support ACOW and Campaign Series which are my primary addictions. Also, ratio of games finished vs. started is very high. The Dancing Bananas keep me coming back for some strange reason, too -- and the forums are informative and frequently funny...and usually filled with Dancing Bananas.

items B, H, & J:

How to get more members? Preceding this is whether you really want new/more members. Better, imo, to have 20 active members than 2,000 inactive members.

But...if you do--

1. Coordinate with online stores to set up links pointing to warfarehq on pages of games they sell which we support.
2. Contests and prizes - not only for tournaments, but for best AAR's, best scenarios, best articles, etc.
2a. Work with retailers and/or developers to secure prize copies -- insure reviews for them; provide appropriate links only on the specific pages they are sponsoring;
2b. Establish a club fund to support costs of operation, expansions, and activities.
3. Club Newsletter -- electronic -- serious considerations apply, beginning with the volume of content to sustain it...but, concurrent with #2, so that some content is automatic. Production must be like clock-work...and announced or distributed to appropriate sites.
4. Perhaps coordination with a college military science program, academy, or otherwise, to run an exercise using an appropriate game system. Failing this...coordination of Challenges between Wargaming Clubs. Find a neutral party to serve as referee, make it a fee based entry program. Develop club Esp'rit de Corps...aru-ha!

Enough for starters, but...preliminary even to the question of size of organization; are objectives of the organization. It's partially a question of what keeps members happy, but I think it is even more an issue as to what the staff wants to see. Being a member is free, so there's not a whole lotta' complainin' we can legitimately do -- and besides, most of us are very happy overall with the total effort (forums, ladders, responsiveness, etc.).

Efforts as these are labors of love, and it is clear that each staff member loves playing games -- the administrative support, logistical issues in general can tear that down, so in all cases always weigh cost to gain, effort to sustain, etc. Something which might start out innocuous enough can spiral into an evil monster thing.

Anyway, I'd be happy to help or contribute...still working on getting an AAR that would be worth looking at -- but hopefully a few things for consideration. Rock on!

Mark/Heinz57

 

[Siberian HEAT]

Originally posted by Heinz57
Greetings MadDog & All,

Failing this...coordination of Challenges between Wargaming Clubs. Find a neutral party to serve as referee, make it a fee based entry program. Develop club Esp'rit de Corps...aru-ha!

We already have something similar to this. It hasn't gotten much press time due to some time problems the coordinator has had this year, but it is called the Battle of the Ladders 2002. You can find information on this at our tournaments page. I just recently put up a link there and built a little web page for it.

Next year I plan on having HQ host this tournament and perhaps we can make it more high profile, perhaps offering prizes or something like that to get recognition to the players.

And now, what we all came here to see...


:clap: :banana: :banana: :banana: :clap:

 

[Major Banned]

I'm still waiting for the free beer, I was promised to join.

 

[ER_Chaser]

Originally posted by Heinz57
Greetings MadDog & All,


How to get more members? Preceding this is whether you really want new/more members. Better, imo, to have 20 active members than 2,000 inactive members.

But...if you do--

1. Coordinate with online stores to set up links pointing to warfarehq on pages of games they sell which we support.
2. Contests and prizes - not only for tournaments, but for best AAR's, best scenarios, best articles, etc.
2a. Work with retailers and/or developers to secure prize copies -- insure reviews for them; provide appropriate links only on the specific pages they are sponsoring;
2b. Establish a club fund to support costs of operation, expansions, and activities.
Mark/Heinz57

Agree with the comments on size issue and feel that link with online stores is a very fancy and smart idea ... maybe we can give it a try?
And point #2,2a.. are probably essential if hq is to evolve into a much bigger site.

 

[Deltapooh]

I like the articles ideal. I wrote articles for the SWAT 3 community, based on real military and LE tactics. I wanted to write for BCT, but didn't think anyone was interested. (I stereotype the people here as a bunch of highly skilled military warriors.)

I strongly advise a system be established that allow forum members to discuss draft articles. This would ensure each article is top quality with alot of perspectives.

Tactical games like BCT, DA, and COW, TOAW, etc do intimidate new players. A large database of articles covering games and real world tactics could provide newbies with a single site where they can get a crash course in military tactics.

Another suggestion I have is to expand WarfareHQ to cover Naval Simulations like Harpoon 4. I've been following the development of this game, and it looks very promising as military strategy game.

 

[tigersqn]

a. As long as you support TOAW
b. The new forum format is excellent. More AAR's would be nice. Will post some myself after I get some games in.
c. See above.
d. Everytime I try to access the TOAW Ladder, it tells me I've made a bad request. Is it actually up & running now?
e. I love to play TOAW. So far I haven't tried PBEM play yet but I'm in the process of going about it.
f. I visit about 5-6 times a day.
g. The staff is first rate.
h. All they have to do is run a search on a search engine. That's what I did.
I. I love the new page except that it it runs on 1078 X 680. I know I can adjust my display options but then I'd have to squint to see anything.
I run at 800 X 680.
j. Defenitely more AAR's. these are invaluable tools to be used by the uninnitiated such as I.