Matrix Games Forums

Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design Page: <<   < prev  53 54 [55] 56 57   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 5:49:40 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caine

Why forts are unlimited under the column available for US screenshot? They should not.

In GE screenshot there are no fort to be built !

Santi

The Germans have more unit types available to build than will fit on the screen. The scroll bar will get you to the forts.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to caine)
Post #: 1621
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 5:51:47 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: caine

Why forts are unlimited under the column available for US screenshot? They should not.

In GE screenshot there are no fort to be built !

Santi

For generic unit types, MWIF does not have any limits imposed by available counters: convoys, pilots, factories, forts, ...

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to caine)
Post #: 1622
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 5:53:18 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: gridley

Again, very nice form.

From your german screen, lets say I were to click build for a random mech unit. Then I were to change my mind and click unbuild. Then...change my mind again and decide I actually want a Mech Unit. The second time I click Build is it random again or do I get the same unit that was built initially?

'cause, you know, I don't trust anyone...especially my Buddies

The actual unit is not selected until you click on OK - Done. You can mess around with build and Undo as much as you like.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to gridley)
Post #: 1623
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 6:25:49 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: gridley

Again, very nice form.

From your german screen, lets say I were to click build for a random mech unit. Then I were to change my mind and click unbuild. Then...change my mind again and decide I actually want a Mech Unit. The second time I click Build is it random again or do I get the same unit that was built initially?

'cause, you know, I don't trust anyone...especially my Buddies

When you build units, you don't see the details about this unit, and the remaining units become blank, so you can't know what you built, until you have finished building.

(in reply to gridley)
Post #: 1624
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 6:28:17 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: caine
Why forts are unlimited under the column available for US screenshot? They should not.

For generic unit types, MWIF does not have any limits imposed by available counters: convoys, pilots, factories, forts, ...

The Forts were limited in WiF because of the countermix limitations. Would you have bought a countersheets with infinite forts ? There is no reason for a computer game to keep the limitation, why would you limit the ability of any country to build forts ? They are not free after all, so if Germany wants to build forts all year long, so much so good.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1625
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 6:31:17 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: gridley

Again, very nice form.

From your german screen, lets say I were to click build for a random mech unit. Then I were to change my mind and click unbuild. Then...change my mind again and decide I actually want a Mech Unit. The second time I click Build is it random again or do I get the same unit that was built initially?

'cause, you know, I don't trust anyone...especially my Buddies

The actual unit is not selected until you click on OK - Done. You can mess around with build and Undo as much as you like.

Hey, I just got an idea.

Would it be possible to have 2 "OK - Done" buttons.
One that validate all the choices and actually select units, AND exit the form. It could be labelled : "OK, DONE".
One that validate all the choices and actually select units, AND DOES NOT exit the form. It could be labelled : "OK, I'm done, show me what I built".

Because it is a pain to be forced to go into the various pools after you have selected OK in the production form to actually see what you built (also, you can't go into the production form directly from the menu when you have exited it).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1626
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 7:34:33 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: gridley

Again, very nice form.

From your german screen, lets say I were to click build for a random mech unit. Then I were to change my mind and click unbuild. Then...change my mind again and decide I actually want a Mech Unit. The second time I click Build is it random again or do I get the same unit that was built initially?

'cause, you know, I don't trust anyone...especially my Buddies

The actual unit is not selected until you click on OK - Done. You can mess around with build and Undo as much as you like.

Hey, I just got an idea.

Would it be possible to have 2 "OK - Done" buttons.
One that validate all the choices and actually select units, AND exit the form. It could be labelled : "OK, DONE".
One that validate all the choices and actually select units, AND DOES NOT exit the form. It could be labelled : "OK, I'm done, show me what I built".

Because it is a pain to be forced to go into the various pools after you have selected OK in the production form to actually see what you built (also, you can't go into the production form directly from the menu when you have exited it).

Rather than 2 buttons, I think just following up the close of this form with a depiction of what was actually built would be a good idea (all the time).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1627
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 12:58:23 AM   
willycube

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/24/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what the aftermath of an air-to-air cmobat looks like.

At teh bottom are all the units that particiapted in the combat and received a result. Only one unit was destroyed, and 3 of the 4 bombers (their range numbers are in gray) that were cleared through did so because all the US fighters had been destroyed or aborted. There is a list of the odds, die rolls, and results in the little table. That's so players can bemoan their bad luck, supported by statistics.

The second screen shot shows the result of those 4 bombers trying to ground strike the Australian motorized infantry. Now I bet you are wondering why so much air power was expended, by both sides, on such an insignificant task/goal. Well, I had asked the beta testers to hammer away at ground strikes, in particular testing how well the code worked for carrier air units performing those missions.





In the above illustration in round 3 it said the pilot was killed I would imagine the plane was lost to, but there are no destroyed axis planes just abort and cleared, now maybe the above is round two and round three is not shown, need some help on that one.

Willy

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1628
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 1:13:32 AM   
Missouri Rebel

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline
Might I ask why so much of the text is in light grey/pale blue? I have excellent eyesight and it is difficult even for me to read. In the pic above, the field in the middle left where it says Fighter Flying as fighter is an example of what I am talking about. That same color choice appears all over this form and others and I cringe at the thought of the many instances where I will have to deal with it.

mo reb


_____________________________

We must act... against the Sioux, even to the extermination of men, WOMEN and CHILDREN.The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year. They all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers.- w.t. SHErMAN

(in reply to willycube)
Post #: 1629
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 1:26:34 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: willycube


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what the aftermath of an air-to-air cmobat looks like.

At teh bottom are all the units that particiapted in the combat and received a result. Only one unit was destroyed, and 3 of the 4 bombers (their range numbers are in gray) that were cleared through did so because all the US fighters had been destroyed or aborted. There is a list of the odds, die rolls, and results in the little table. That's so players can bemoan their bad luck, supported by statistics.

The second screen shot shows the result of those 4 bombers trying to ground strike the Australian motorized infantry. Now I bet you are wondering why so much air power was expended, by both sides, on such an insignificant task/goal. Well, I had asked the beta testers to hammer away at ground strikes, in particular testing how well the code worked for carrier air units performing those missions.





In the above illustration in round 3 it said the pilot was killed I would imagine the plane was lost to, but there are no destroyed axis planes just abort and cleared, now maybe the above is round two and round three is not shown, need some help on that one.

Willy

When the Axis rolls the die, it is Allied units that 'suffer' the consequences. And vice-a-versa.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to willycube)
Post #: 1630
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 1:28:45 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

Might I ask why so much of the text is in light grey/pale blue? I have excellent eyesight and it is difficult even for me to read. In the pic above, the field in the middle left where it says Fighter Flying as fighter is an example of what I am talking about. That same color choice appears all over this form and others and I cringe at the thought of the many instances where I will have to deal with it.

mo reb


When you say "all over this form", am I to interpret that as referring to just the two Unit Data Panels? Or did you mean elsewhere too?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Missouri Rebel)
Post #: 1631
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 1:32:04 AM   
Missouri Rebel

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline
I am speaking of the Unit Data Panels. Any form that shows these have this hard to read text. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

mo reb


_____________________________

We must act... against the Sioux, even to the extermination of men, WOMEN and CHILDREN.The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year. They all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers.- w.t. SHErMAN

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1632
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 3:06:24 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

I am speaking of the Unit Data Panels. Any form that shows these have this hard to read text. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

mo reb


I'll look at the color choices in the Unit Data panels. Those are all from CWIF - I don't think I have changed them very much, if at all.

Bold is always easier to read but it takes more room (which it has been pared down to the individual pixel in those forms). The other problem is that there are 6 different layouts for those forms, by branch of service and for showing summary statistics. I have reworked the layouts multiple times, so I won't be doing that again.

But I might be able to do something with the colors, ...

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Missouri Rebel)
Post #: 1633
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 8:55:45 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8192
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For instance, during a land combat resolution phase, the attacking player (phasing side) advances after combat and overruns some naval units. The "player to decide" changes to the player who controls the naval units and he excutes an overrun digression to rebase his naval units. While moving his naval units they enter a sea area where the phasing side can intercept them. The interception succeeds and a naval combat ensues. A naval air combat is chosen and one of the subphases of that is an air-to-air combat. The question is: which side is the attacking side in the air-to-air combat? The program figures this out, but when I was writing the code to build the table, I foulnd it much simlper to just always put the Axis die rolls in the odd rows and the Allies in the even rows.

By the way, I simplified my example enormously and left out a half dozen other places in that little sequence of play where the person who decides can change (e.g., naval air support, surprise points, choosing sea box sections included, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1634
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 9:03:38 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8192
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Page 1 of 2.

I spent some time this afternoon spiffing up the Production form.

Here is the US at the start of the war. They have 10 build points available and their gearing limit is 1 per type - because they are still neutral.


If it's the first turn of the scenario, there are no gearing limits for anybody. After that, the gearing is as per the previous turn plus 1, unless DoW'd.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1635
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 9:06:27 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8192
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Page 1 of 2.

I spent some time this afternoon spiffing up the Production form.

Here is the US at the start of the war. They have 10 build points available and their gearing limit is 1 per type - because they are still neutral.




Why would you want to view the Scrap Pool unless you were thinking of scrapping units. Should that button have a different label?

Maybe "Scrap Units?"

< Message edited by paulderynck -- 4/28/2009 9:14:50 PM >


_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1636
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 9:12:51 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8192
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 1637
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 9:17:05 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8192
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline
Also the gearing types should be clustered together - or can you click the headings to sort by that column?

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 1638
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 10:14:11 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For instance, during a land combat resolution phase, the attacking player (phasing side) advances after combat and overruns some naval units. The "player to decide" changes to the player who controls the naval units and he excutes an overrun digression to rebase his naval units. While moving his naval units they enter a sea area where the phasing side can intercept them. The interception succeeds and a naval combat ensues. A naval air combat is chosen and one of the subphases of that is an air-to-air combat. The question is: which side is the attacking side in the air-to-air combat? The program figures this out, but when I was writing the code to build the table, I foulnd it much simlper to just always put the Axis die rolls in the odd rows and the Allies in the even rows.

By the way, I simplified my example enormously and left out a half dozen other places in that little sequence of play where the person who decides can change (e.g., naval air support, surprise points, choosing sea box sections included, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

For MWIF I have redefined the 'attacker' in naval interception combat to be the side that provokes the combat; that is, the side that moved ships into the sea area.

This seems more logical to me given that naval interception combat can occur in some pretty strange places during the end-of-turn phases (e.g., naval units forced to rebase because of conquest).

I was also unhappy with the phasing side always being the 'attacker' when naval units from both sides might abort from a naval combat and have moving ships that 'provoke' a naval interception combat. For example, according to WIF FE, Ax and Al both abort from a naval combat and both are intercepted on their way back to port (in different sea areas), but the 'attacker' is always the phasing side, regardless of which side is moving and which side is intercepting. This is particularly difficult for me to swallow during a land movement phase where the naval interception sequence of events was initiated by an overrun.

I have documented this fully in Section 7 of the Players Manual.
---
This is all fairly minor stuff and extremely unlikely to occur.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 1639
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 10:19:48 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8192
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For instance, during a land combat resolution phase, the attacking player (phasing side) advances after combat and overruns some naval units. The "player to decide" changes to the player who controls the naval units and he excutes an overrun digression to rebase his naval units. While moving his naval units they enter a sea area where the phasing side can intercept them. The interception succeeds and a naval combat ensues. A naval air combat is chosen and one of the subphases of that is an air-to-air combat. The question is: which side is the attacking side in the air-to-air combat? The program figures this out, but when I was writing the code to build the table, I foulnd it much simlper to just always put the Axis die rolls in the odd rows and the Allies in the even rows.

By the way, I simplified my example enormously and left out a half dozen other places in that little sequence of play where the person who decides can change (e.g., naval air support, surprise points, choosing sea box sections included, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

For MWIF I have redefined the 'attacker' in naval interception combat to be the side that provokes the combat; that is, the side that moved ships into the sea area.

This seems more logical to me given that naval interception combat can occur in some pretty strange places during the end-of-turn phases (e.g., naval units forced to rebase because of conquest).

I was also unhappy with the phasing side always being the 'attacker' when naval units from both sides might abort from a naval combat and have moving ships that 'provoke' a naval interception combat. For example, according to WIF FE, Ax and Al both abort from a naval combat and both are intercepted on their way back to port (in different sea areas), but the 'attacker' is always the phasing side, regardless of which side is moving and which side is intercepting. This is particularly difficult for me to swallow during a land movement phase where the naval interception sequence of events was initiated by an overrun.

I have documented this fully in Section 7 of the Players Manual.
---
This is all fairly minor stuff and extremely unlikely to occur.

Not major then, but the order of the appearance of the die rolls issue that Patrice mentioned needs documentation too (if not already). So that grognards aren't confused.

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1640
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 10:21:10 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).

Repair Pool and Construction Pool and be viewed by clicking on those items in the left-most column.

I agree about seeing what is in production and the air reserve. I think I will just add a button for viewing the Pools form which shows all of this stuff.
==
Yeah, I think the intent of the Scrap button is to scrap units, not do some sort of regretful survey of past decisions. I'll check it out.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 1641
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 10:23:53 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Also the gearing types should be clustered together - or can you click the headings to sort by that column?

I doubt it.

I have little interest in providing a sort capability here. The form works well enough for showing you what is available. Certainly it is much better than what we had to work with when playing over the board.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 1642
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 10:38:42 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22020
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For instance, during a land combat resolution phase, the attacking player (phasing side) advances after combat and overruns some naval units. The "player to decide" changes to the player who controls the naval units and he excutes an overrun digression to rebase his naval units. While moving his naval units they enter a sea area where the phasing side can intercept them. The interception succeeds and a naval combat ensues. A naval air combat is chosen and one of the subphases of that is an air-to-air combat. The question is: which side is the attacking side in the air-to-air combat? The program figures this out, but when I was writing the code to build the table, I foulnd it much simlper to just always put the Axis die rolls in the odd rows and the Allies in the even rows.

By the way, I simplified my example enormously and left out a half dozen other places in that little sequence of play where the person who decides can change (e.g., naval air support, surprise points, choosing sea box sections included, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

For MWIF I have redefined the 'attacker' in naval interception combat to be the side that provokes the combat; that is, the side that moved ships into the sea area.

This seems more logical to me given that naval interception combat can occur in some pretty strange places during the end-of-turn phases (e.g., naval units forced to rebase because of conquest).

I was also unhappy with the phasing side always being the 'attacker' when naval units from both sides might abort from a naval combat and have moving ships that 'provoke' a naval interception combat. For example, according to WIF FE, Ax and Al both abort from a naval combat and both are intercepted on their way back to port (in different sea areas), but the 'attacker' is always the phasing side, regardless of which side is moving and which side is intercepting. This is particularly difficult for me to swallow during a land movement phase where the naval interception sequence of events was initiated by an overrun.

I have documented this fully in Section 7 of the Players Manual.
---
This is all fairly minor stuff and extremely unlikely to occur.


I find it weird that a side aborting is considered attacker when they are intercepted just because they are the ones moving the ships into the sea area. Even more so when they are forced to rebase after being overrun. I would find it more easy to understand if the side initiating the search is considered the attacker rather than the one moving into the sea area.

This can become confusing in multiple sea combats. For example:
Phasing side moves to sea and is intercepted and is then the attacker.
Non phasing side aborts and is intercepted and phasing side is then defender.
Phasing side continues to move and is intercepted again and is again attacker.
Phasing side moves on. Ends move and searches in a sea and is attacker.
Non Phasing side aborts and is intercepted. Phasing side is then defender.


I am used to phasing side is attacker so I am comfortable with that even when it is combat in unusual places. But I suppose I can adapt to the change.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1643
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 10:52:21 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8192
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Also the gearing types should be clustered together - or can you click the headings to sort by that column?

I doubt it.

I have little interest in providing a sort capability here. The form works well enough for showing you what is available. Certainly it is much better than what we had to work with when playing over the board.

I wasn't requesting a sort by column click, I just wondered. However, I do think having all the infantry together, all the cavalry together, etc. - would be helpful when thinking about the gearing total of that type. So you are less likely to scroll up or down and have one of the same type off the screen. This would be an improvement to playing over the board - like after the fact when you realize: "damn, should have built the Ski Div, not the Mot Div".

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1644
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/28/2009 10:54:17 PM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8192
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).

Repair Pool and Construction Pool and be viewed by clicking on those items in the left-most column.


Errh, sorry, which left column? Oh, you mean if you click on ships and subs?



_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1645
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/29/2009 2:30:43 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).

Repair Pool and Construction Pool and be viewed by clicking on those items in the left-most column.


Errh, sorry, which left column? Oh, you mean if you click on ships and subs?



If you look at the US example, you'll see the rows Naval Repair and Naval Construction.
===
You might also want to sort by cost or turns or a combination of things.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)
Post #: 1646
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/29/2009 2:34:34 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For instance, during a land combat resolution phase, the attacking player (phasing side) advances after combat and overruns some naval units. The "player to decide" changes to the player who controls the naval units and he excutes an overrun digression to rebase his naval units. While moving his naval units they enter a sea area where the phasing side can intercept them. The interception succeeds and a naval combat ensues. A naval air combat is chosen and one of the subphases of that is an air-to-air combat. The question is: which side is the attacking side in the air-to-air combat? The program figures this out, but when I was writing the code to build the table, I foulnd it much simlper to just always put the Axis die rolls in the odd rows and the Allies in the even rows.

By the way, I simplified my example enormously and left out a half dozen other places in that little sequence of play where the person who decides can change (e.g., naval air support, surprise points, choosing sea box sections included, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

For MWIF I have redefined the 'attacker' in naval interception combat to be the side that provokes the combat; that is, the side that moved ships into the sea area.

This seems more logical to me given that naval interception combat can occur in some pretty strange places during the end-of-turn phases (e.g., naval units forced to rebase because of conquest).

I was also unhappy with the phasing side always being the 'attacker' when naval units from both sides might abort from a naval combat and have moving ships that 'provoke' a naval interception combat. For example, according to WIF FE, Ax and Al both abort from a naval combat and both are intercepted on their way back to port (in different sea areas), but the 'attacker' is always the phasing side, regardless of which side is moving and which side is intercepting. This is particularly difficult for me to swallow during a land movement phase where the naval interception sequence of events was initiated by an overrun.

I have documented this fully in Section 7 of the Players Manual.
---
This is all fairly minor stuff and extremely unlikely to occur.


I find it weird that a side aborting is considered attacker when they are intercepted just because they are the ones moving the ships into the sea area. Even more so when they are forced to rebase after being overrun. I would find it more easy to understand if the side initiating the search is considered the attacker rather than the one moving into the sea area.

This can become confusing in multiple sea combats. For example:
Phasing side moves to sea and is intercepted and is then the attacker.
Non phasing side aborts and is intercepted and phasing side is then defender.
Phasing side continues to move and is intercepted again and is again attacker.
Phasing side moves on. Ends move and searches in a sea and is attacker.
Non Phasing side aborts and is intercepted. Phasing side is then defender.


I am used to phasing side is attacker so I am comfortable with that even when it is combat in unusual places. But I suppose I can adapt to the change.

I used the side moving into the sea area being the attacker, because that makes it the pahsing side during naval movement, when most naval interception occur. This makes it match WIF FE, rather than directly contradict it.

During the end-of-turn, there is no "phasing side", so WIF FE uses "the side which had the initative in the previous turn" as the 'attacker'.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Orm)
Post #: 1647
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/29/2009 3:41:52 AM   
Missouri Rebel

 

Posts: 121
Joined: 6/20/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

I am speaking of the Unit Data Panels. Any form that shows these have this hard to read text. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

mo reb



I'll look at the color choices in the Unit Data panels. Those are all from CWIF - I don't think I have changed them very much, if at all.

Bold is always easier to read but it takes more room (which it has been pared down to the individual pixel in those forms). The other problem is that there are 6 different layouts for those forms, by branch of service and for showing summary statistics. I have reworked the layouts multiple times, so I won't be doing that again.

But I might be able to do something with the colors, ...



The form looks very good as does MWiF in general. I just wasnt sure if the text was so pale in the UDP because of some in-game circumstances and that is why I asked why you did it that way. I don't think that it needs to be in bold and I do like how it is of a lighter shade than the classifications but, to me they are indeed too light.

Seems really trivial with all the work you have before you but thought it worth mentioning.


mo reb

< Message edited by Missouri Rebel -- 4/29/2009 3:42:30 AM >


_____________________________

We must act... against the Sioux, even to the extermination of men, WOMEN and CHILDREN.The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year. They all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers.- w.t. SHErMAN

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1648
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/29/2009 4:24:05 AM   
paulderynck


Posts: 8192
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).

Repair Pool and Construction Pool and be viewed by clicking on those items in the left-most column.


Errh, sorry, which left column? Oh, you mean if you click on ships and subs?



If you look at the US example, you'll see the rows Naval Repair and Naval Construction.
===
You might also want to sort by cost or turns or a combination of things.

I disagree, although maybe it's a personal preference, but the most sensible "view" for me when I think about building is I think of it type by type, what do I need and what can I spend. The cost and turns I have memorized, what is there to build, I don't (usually) have memorized.

If there is only one way to sort it, by type would be best IMO. What is the existing sort key or is there one?

_____________________________

Paul

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1649
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/29/2009 4:28:05 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22090
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

I am speaking of the Unit Data Panels. Any form that shows these have this hard to read text. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

mo reb



I'll look at the color choices in the Unit Data panels. Those are all from CWIF - I don't think I have changed them very much, if at all.

Bold is always easier to read but it takes more room (which it has been pared down to the individual pixel in those forms). The other problem is that there are 6 different layouts for those forms, by branch of service and for showing summary statistics. I have reworked the layouts multiple times, so I won't be doing that again.

But I might be able to do something with the colors, ...



The form looks very good as does MWiF in general. I just wasnt sure if the text was so pale in the UDP because of some in-game circumstances and that is why I asked why you did it that way. I don't think that it needs to be in bold and I do like how it is of a lighter shade than the classifications but, to me they are indeed too light.

Seems really trivial with all the work you have before you but thought it worth mentioning.


mo reb

These colors are easy to change.

I tweak a lot of stuff and have done so for years. Each little bit (pun intended) doesn't seem like much but the effect over time is substantial (in my opinion).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Missouri Rebel)
Post #: 1650
Page:   <<   < prev  53 54 [55] 56 57   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design Page: <<   < prev  53 54 [55] 56 57   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.285