Overall, WarfareHQ is in the right direction. There is no secret formula for having a successful website other than having a dedicated and responsive staff, and this is what WarfareHQ has.
Here's my feedback on the various points:
a. Are we supporting the right wargames? Specifics please.
I believe you are. Personally, I am also playing Panzer Campaigns from HPS so perhaps I could appreciate a section on this serie. However, the Blitz is already supporting this game and HPS personnel are already answering questions of the players at the Blitz, so it's not an absolute necessity to have a Panzer Campaign section here at WarfareHQ.
b. What do you like about Warfare HQ? What don't you like?
I like the fact that this site is being taken seriously by its staff. I can only praise the dedication of the General Editor and the rest of the section leaders in making sure the site is regularly updated and improved. The dust never has time to settle here, and it entices me to come back pretty much every day.
I also like the tournaments. I hope there will always be a tournament going on. I especially like "thematic" tournaments (i.e. a WWII tournament, a WWI tournament, a Vietnam War tournament, etc).
c. Do you like the forum setup? Is it good? Does it suck? Why?
The forum setup is about as good as it gets. It's clear and tidy. But those stickies always staying at the top bothers me. There should be a limit of time for a sticky or thread to be always at the top.
d. How are our ladders? Are they great? Do they need to change? Let's hear what you think.
Well, I don't really understand how the scores are computed. I am not saying the scores aren't right, but I haven't seen any link on the ladder page that would explain to me how the scores are computed and ratings given.
e. What's the single biggest reason you keep coming back here?
Well, three big reasons, in order of importance:
First, there are knowledgeable and intelligent people in the forums on all aspects of wargaming. I really appreciate that.
Second, this site is well-done in terms of graphics and layout, which isn't always the case of all wargaming websites.
Third, the publicity on this site is limited and sober. There is no damn window popping-up every now and then to propose me to save bucks on things I don't need. I understand that some sites need all this money, but I appreciate that at Warfare HQ, the advertising is under control and is not an annoyance.
f. Why don't you visit more often? What can we do to make it better?
I visit daily
g. What do you think of the staff? Are we responsive and helpful?
Yes. I have dealt with Siberian Heat, the TOAW Section Leader, and he has been very responsive.
h. Do you think other people know about Warfare HQ? How can we reach out to new members?
From what I have seen on other wargaming web sites, I would suspect that most die-hard grognards probably already know about WarfareHQ. I see links to WarfareHQ on a lot of websites, whether it be clubs or companies web site. Now, not all of them visit the forums so that's why we may have the impression the audience is more limited than we think.
I believe the forums should be advertised more on the homepage and invite people to come in. At this moment, the forums is only a tiny link under the "Commo" heading. It should be emphasized more than that. As I said, the forums are one of the main reasons I come here.
i. What do you think of the webpage layout? Is the site easy enough to navigate?
No grievances on this. I appreciate the recent re-design of the site.
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?
Definitely I would appreciate more articles. It need not be only on wargaming, but it can also be on military affairs and strategy in general. Also, there are not enough AARs.
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.
Personally, I am not a "web chatter". So I'll let the other people interested in this functionality to comment.
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?
Obviously, it asks for a quite a lot of dedication and knowledge to write articles and AARs. Because of this, there will always be only a minority of people doing so.
I know personally I would like to contribute AARs and I will certainly make an effort in my next couple of games to do so. Perhaps people submitting AARs and articles could get some bonus points on ladders as an encouragement and reconnaissance of what they are bringing to the community?
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?
Oh yes. Speaking for TOAW, there are so many scenarios out there that it is not always easy to determine the good from the bad. Some kinf of review board should be established to attract the attention to the most interesting scenarios. I would personally be interested in being a part of such a board or group 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?
You are doing a good job of covering, in the largest sense possible, strategy games and wargames in the news. I do read it and appreciate it. Keep it up this way.
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?
Of course, quality scenarios are important for me.
The new scenario archive is quite empty. There should be an effort to make sure scenarios get posted there.
