MWIF Game Interface Design

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman
That's what I figured you would say! What I really object to, in particular, is having to spend an hour or two on sifting through Treaty cruisers every time I do a global war setup.

Well, for that I believe I have a solution. The beta testers have expressed a strong desire to be able to save setup positions. Because of the random draw of air and land units, I am unhappy about doing that completely. However, I have agreed to enable partially saved setups, for the units that are always the same (not drawn randmoly). That includes all the named naval units, and the naval units that have zero variation (e.g., convoys). Oh, and HQs too.

This is on my todo list (very long list) and once I have other more important items taken care of, I'll get to it because it will make all testing much faster (for me as well as for the beta testers).

So, you only have to do the decision making process for which naval units go where once and then save it. Of course the game will ship with some saved setups (those that the beta testers think are good), so the WIF beginner isn't cast into deep water and told to learn how to swim.

[paulderynck]

It's a new idea, less than 2 minutes old, but I think it has potential.

Here's another one. There should be a summary statement for all the naval units currently selected for the task force, which gives the number of ships, their total surface value and total AA value, as well as the maximum range and movement allowance for the combined group (based on the lowest ones of its members, of course).

That would be for those of us who must ensure they optimize the best selection of the best combinations to align with the breakpoints on the Naval CRT. (Guilty, your Honor.[8|])

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

It's a new idea, less than 2 minutes old, but I think it has potential.

Here's another one. There should be a summary statement for all the naval units currently selected for the task force, which gives the number of ships, their total surface value and total AA value, as well as the maximum range and movement allowance for the combined group (based on the lowest ones of its members, of course).

That would be for those of us who must ensure they optimize the best selection of the best combinations to align with the breakpoints on the Naval CRT. (Guilty, your Honor.[8|])

Here is Patrice's list:
-------------
Well, the usual summary of statistics would be :
Total Number of ships.
Total Surface factors.
Total Shore Bombardment sactors (adjusted by the sea box).
Total AA.
Max speed (being the speed of the slowest ship)
Max range (being the range of the lower ranged ship)
Total ASW factors (counting planes).
Max possible Air to Air Strengh.
Max Possible Air to Sea Strength.
-------------

Is that all I need to show? I will work on some pencil on paper mockups for the Task Force display tonight and maybe a CorelDraw rendering tomorrow.

[ptey]

I would like to see the "target profile table" next to each of the different numbers for the task force. So fx. if there were 6 ships selected for a task force, it would display 5-7 next to the number of ships, and likewise for the other numbers defining the task force. Simply to make it easy for you to target profile optimize your task forces, so to speak.
If you already have something similar in mind, you can just ignore my comment.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: ptey

I would like to see the "target profile table" next to each of the different numbers for the task force. So fx. if there were 6 ships selected for a task force, it would display 5-7 next to the number of ships, and likewise for the other numbers defining the task force. Simply to make it easy for you to target profile optimize your task forces, so to speak.
If you already have something similar in mind, you can just ignore my comment.

Maybe the game could show this information for all factors, like this :
Total Number of ships : 11 (8-11)
Total Surface factors : 52 (51-64).
Total Shore Bombardment sactors (adjusted by the sea box) : 23.
Total AA : 35 (29-38).
Max speed (being the speed of the slowest ship) : 6
Max range (being the range of the lower ranged ship) : 4
Total ASW factors (counting planes) : 11 (11-14)
Max possible Air to Air Strengh : 5.4
Max Possible Air to Sea Strength : 3 (3)

This means that you have 11 ships and are in the 8-11 row, you have 52 factors and are in the 51-64 factors row, etc... This let you know if you're far or not from the other row / column.

[ptey]

Yes, this was also pretty much what i meant.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: ptey
I would like to see the "target profile table" next to each of the different numbers for the task force. So fx. if there were 6 ships selected for a task force, it would display 5-7 next to the number of ships, and likewise for the other numbers defining the task force. Simply to make it easy for you to target profile optimize your task forces, so to speak.
If you already have something similar in mind, you can just ignore my comment.

Maybe the game could show this information for all factors, like this :
Total Number of ships : 11 (8-11)
Total Surface factors : 52 (51-64).
Total Shore Bombardment sactors (adjusted by the sea box) : 23.
Total AA : 35 (29-38).
Max speed (being the speed of the slowest ship) : 6
Max range (being the range of the lower ranged ship) : 4
Total ASW factors (counting planes) : 11 (11-14)
Max possible Air to Air Strengh : 5.4
Max Possible Air to Sea Strength : 3 (3)

This means that you have 11 ships and are in the 8-11 row, you have 52 factors and are in the 51-64 factors row, etc... This let you know if you're far or not from the other row / column.

Space is at a premium, as always, so I will not be as verbose. Here is what I worked up last night.

Summary
# of ships: # [#-#]
Max Move: #
Max Range: #
Nav Air: sum (#) [#-#]
Air-to-air: best (#)
Anti-Air: sum [#-#]
Surface: sum [#-#]
Bombard: sum (#)
ASW: sum [#-#]

Sum is the sum of all the factors.
(#) is the # of units.
[#-#] is the column range in the CRT.

I am working on a mock up.

[Froonp]

Air-to-air: best (#)

I would not display the best Air to Air strength, I would display the Max Air to Air strength that can be achieve with this TF.
For example.
Let's imagine that the TF has 4 CVP counters, as follow :
(4-0-0-0), (2-3-0-0) (1-3-0-0) (0-3-0-0) (do you recognize the planes and the navy ??? [:D])

I would like the information displayed to be :
Best A2A : 4.3 (3 CVP)
Best A2S : 9 (3 CVP)

So that the player knows he can have as much as 4.3 A2A strength if he puts all his CVP as Fighters, or 9 A2S strength it he puts 3 CVP as bombers.
Knowing his best CVP A2A strength from simple glance at the counters, he know he can have from 4 to 4.3 A2A strength.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Air-to-air: best (#)

I would not display the best Air to Air strength, I would display the Max Air to Air strength that can be achieve with this TF.
For example.
Let's imagine that the TF has 4 CVP counters, as follow :
(4-0-0-0), (2-3-0-0) (1-3-0-0) (0-3-0-0) (do you recognize the planes and the navy ??? [:D])

I would like the information displayed to be :
Best A2A : 4.3 (3 CVP)
Best A2S : 9 (3 CVP)

So that the player knows he can have as much as 4.3 A2A strength if he puts all his CVP as Fighters, or 9 A2S strength it he puts 3 CVP as bombers.
Knowing his best CVP A2A strength from simple glance at the counters, he know he can have from 4 to 4.3 A2A strength.

Ok, but I will use Max instead of Best then.

[composer99]

 (do you recognize the planes and the navy ??? [:D])

 
I don't recognize the planes themselves, but if I was betting, I'd say CW.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here are a couple of rough mockups for Task Forces.

The form size is fixed at 500 by 375, or so. That will permit 4 of these to be displayed at the same time on screens 1024 by 768. During setup, one of those screens would be the setup screen. During other times, it is likely that one of those screens would be the non-task force units in the port/sea area section box.

The zoom level here is 5 which makes the names of the units mostly legible but limits the number of visible units per column to 5. I'll show an alternative in the next post.

The top of the form (e.g., #1 Map Window) would give the task force name and location. The blank area to the left would show summary statisitcs. The separate scroll bars for each column do not need to run all the way to the top of each column, so I expect to have enough room to display the number of naval units in each column. For example, the NT/Amph column heading would be: NT/Amph-3; and the BB would be: BB-4.

When a naval unit is carrying another unit, then the transported unit is directly below it. That lets you know which carrier has which carrier air unit.

Rather than drag and drop, I am thinking of a simpler system (to code) where you click on a unit and then click on a destination task force heading bar. That would initiate code to transfer the unit from its current task force screen to the other. At the start of setup, you would create empty task forces for the ports & sea area section boxes you desire, and then transfer units from the setup screen (which will look like a task force screen during this process) to the task force screens. It seems like a pretty obvious mechanism to me, with instant feedback on each deployment, and easy to undo mistakes - by tranferring the unit back.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Second and last in series.

Here is an alternative, using zoom level 4, and medium resolution. This permits 6 units to be visible per column. You lose the names of the units here, but the column headings should make it clear which are BB versus CA/CL. You will lose the distinction between CA and CL.

[lomyrin]

Looking at these screens I lean towards liking the CWIF Units strip at screen bottom presentation better, both for naval units and sea box contents.
 
Lars
 
 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
Looking at these screens I lean towards liking the CWIF Units strip at screen bottom presentation better, both for naval units and sea box contents.

Lars

Do you mean horizontal versus vertical?

By the way, CWIF used both. The units review panel was vertical.

I chose vertical here because of the summary text that has to be shown.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I was thinking, perhaps I could remove the sub column, since they would rarely be part of a task force. I could then create a varation of a task force, called a Wolfpack that would be composed exclusively of submarines. A wolfpack could be a named gourp of submarines that travel together as a group. Or is that completely unnecessary?

[lomyrin]

I meant the horizontal 2 counter high display running a bit more than the left half of the bottom screen followed by a variety of information in a separate box at the right of the bottom screen.
 
The pull down option for unit review is an entirely separate issue and your version is very good for that i think.
 
Perhaps the task force issue should be a separate form as you have, but I think the bottom of screen unit information panel as in CWiF was very functional. It could still be called in or out.
 
Lars
 
 
 
 

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I was thinking, perhaps I could remove the sub column, since they would rarely be part of a task force. I could then create a varation of a task force, called a Wolfpack that would be composed exclusively of submarines. A wolfpack could be a named gourp of submarines that travel together as a group. Or is that completely unnecessary?

Considering that a task force is nothing more to the game than a convenient UI handle by which to move naval forces as a group, my preference would be to have only one type of Task Force that the player can call anything he wants, e.g.: "TG1.0", "Wolfpack 1", "Big nasty collection of ships", "Wallowing bait", or whatever... Having different types of handle for different types of naval vessel seems unnecessary.

On the other hand, if a task force had some tangible game effect, I would almost say that submarines shouldn't be in one at all. A wolfpack was not really an official formation, but a more-or-less ad-hoc group of subs that congregated in an area to prey on some big, hapless convoy. A "task force" is effectively a group of ships in some sort of formation, and submarines don't always hold formation so well...

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I was thinking, perhaps I could remove the sub column, since they would rarely be part of a task force. I could then create a varation of a task force, called a Wolfpack that would be composed exclusively of submarines. A wolfpack could be a named gourp of submarines that travel together as a group. Or is that completely unnecessary?

Submarines should not be part of TF, at least they should not have their own column. If submarines are in a task force, then let them be displayed in another column, but do not loos room for a column that will be empty most of the time.

Same for TRS and AMPH (do not abreviate TRS as NT), they are not very often part of TF.

Maybe have the last column named "OTHERS" and have the TRS / AMPH / SUB / WHATEVER listed in it ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I was thinking, perhaps I could remove the sub column, since they would rarely be part of a task force. I could then create a varation of a task force, called a Wolfpack that would be composed exclusively of submarines. A wolfpack could be a named gourp of submarines that travel together as a group. Or is that completely unnecessary?

Submarines should not be part of TF, at least they should not have their own column. If submarines are in a task force, then let them be displayed in another column, but do not loos room for a column that will be empty most of the time.

Same for TRS and AMPH (do not abreviate TRS as NT), they are not very often part of TF.

Maybe have the last column named "OTHERS" and have the TRS / AMPH / SUB / WHATEVER listed in it ?

'Other' is a fine column heading - a good idea - thanks.

OTHERS is not so good, since it carries connotations of aliens from outer space.[:D]

[iamspamus]

Wow, can't wait.
Jason

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are a couple of rough mockups for Task Forces.

The form size is fixed at 500 by 375, or so. That will permit 4 of these to be displayed at the same time on screens 1024 by 768. During setup, one of those screens would be the setup screen. During other times, it is likely that one of those screens would be the non-task force units in the port/sea area section box.

The zoom level here is 5 which makes the names of the units mostly legible but limits the number of visible units per column to 5. I'll show an alternative in the next post.

The top of the form (e.g., #1 Map Window) would give the task force name and location. The blank area to the left would show summary statisitcs. The separate scroll bars for each column do not need to run all the way to the top of each column, so I expect to have enough room to display the number of naval units in each column. For example, the NT/Amph column heading would be: NT/Amph-3; and the BB would be: BB-4.

When a naval unit is carrying another unit, then the transported unit is directly below it. That lets you know which carrier has which carrier air unit.

Rather than drag and drop, I am thinking of a simpler system (to code) where you click on a unit and then click on a destination task force heading bar. That would initiate code to transfer the unit from its current task force screen to the other. At the start of setup, you would create empty task forces for the ports & sea area section boxes you desire, and then transfer units from the setup screen (which will look like a task force screen during this process) to the task force screens. It seems like a pretty obvious mechanism to me, with instant feedback on each deployment, and easy to undo mistakes - by tranferring the unit back.