Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have been making progress towards this - sort of. I haveplaced the status boxes at the top of the units outside the 96 by 96 pixel frame for the counter and I have removed the black outline around the counters. This has given me a little bit more room to work with. One consequence has been to reduce the number of units in a stack whose status boxes are continuously visible (it use to be 4, now it's 3).

quote:

What still gives me pause here are the status boxes at the top. The other units in the screen shots from other games do not have this feature.

I want to review what each of the 6 status boxes indicates. I expect to reduce their number back down to 5 (as CWIF had originally) and to make them of varying sizes, so the more important ones (e.g., disrupted unit) are slightly larger. Doing away with the status boxes seems to me to be a very bad idea. Besides indicating which units are disrupted, they show supply status, whether a unit is transporting/being transported, and whether a unit has been committed to a land attack. These are crucial aspects of a unit the player needs to know when playing the game. Putting more numbers or other indicators inside a unit's frame would be insane.

quote:

I'll get to this design problem eventually, but I think the edging for the counters (shadows, rounding) has to be resolved simultaneously with defining the status boxes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I have been making progress towards this - sort of. I haveplaced the status boxes at the top of the units outside the 96 by 96 pixel frame for the counter and I have removed the black outline around the counters. This has given me a little bit more room to work with. One consequence has been to reduce the number of units in a stack whose status boxes are continuously visible (it use to be 4, now it's 3).

Is it imperative even to show status boxes for multiple units in a stack? Would it be acceptable simply to show the status box of the top unit? (I ask this due to a possible alternative presentation of the status "bar".)

quote:

What still gives me pause here are the status boxes at the top. The other units in the screen shots from other games do not have this feature.

I want to review what each of the 6 status boxes indicates. I expect to reduce their number back down to 5 (as CWIF had originally) and to make them of varying sizes, so the more important ones (e.g., disrupted unit) are slightly larger. Doing away with the status boxes seems to me to be a very bad idea. Besides indicating which units are disrupted, they show supply status, whether a unit is transporting/being transported, and whether a unit has been committed to a land attack. These are crucial aspects of a unit the player needs to know when playing the game. Putting more numbers or other indicators inside a unit's frame would be insane.

I'm not aware of where the current presentation of unit status originated, but there are alternative graphic devices that might suffice and make the entire presentation a bit more slick. Of course, that's just in my opinion...

For example, it doesn't seem to matter to me if the status bar is flush with the edges of the counter or not. If the counter is rounded and shaded, you can still place the bar on top (itself perhaps rounded and shaded, like a bar of "lights"). Whether you can also show additional status bars over a stack is, to me, immaterial as long as you can tell by looking (at the 3D portrayal of the stack) that there is, indeed, more than one unit in a hex. Knowing this, you could then easily cycle through the units as needed to see their own status bars.

Similarly, you don't even need a bar, necessarily. Just have a row of "lights" over each counter/stack. They could be round, square, anything. They wouldn't need to be a solid bar as they are now, just individual "lights". When neutral, they would be "unlit" (gray?); when activated, they would "light up" with the appropriate color according to their status.

quote:

I'll get to this design problem eventually, but I think the edging for the counters (shadows, rounding) has to be resolved simultaneously with defining the status boxes.

Thanks for seriously considering the issue. I think it's pretty important and there is likely more than one way to devise a way to satisfy both graphic and informational concerns.

quote:

ORIGINAL: stretch

ok this may be stupid but here goes.

in the spirit of recreating the board game has any consideration been given to actually showing units flipped when they are flipped (with the status bar still there) with perhaps a key toggle to revert them all to the face up way we have them now for scanning the board ?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are some more USA naval air units and a bunch of their bombers. I've been fairly successful at getting the airplane image to not be occluded by the text and numbers.

Though there are still a dozen or so that need some more tweaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PanzerMax
The Dauntless is is about 5 degrees shallower than the others.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are some more USA naval air units and a bunch of their bombers. I've been fairly successful at getting the airplane image to not be occluded by the text and numbers.

Though there are still a dozen or so that need some more tweaking.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

At some point you have to trust your allies. I would not enjoy playing with an ally who wanted me to say "Mother, may I" every time I wanted to move one of the units he had loaned to me. Nor would I want to impose such a restriction on an ally to whom I had loaned units.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan

I agree go with the red number inside the blue circle. Just like some of the nightfighters have for their combat value.

Rob

P.S. Those poor BEL and NE troops, up against the Gustav rail gun and Jagd Tigers in 1940...sheesh <g>

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild
I noticed that the CR.42bis aircraft bitmap doesn't look too good against the dark background - the dark areas of the camouflage tend to get lost in the background. At first glance, I saw an engine and wheel, a wing, and a fuselage, all seemingly separate, until I looked much closer, and even then... Perhaps these sorts of bitmaps need a single pixel white/light outline to separate them properly from dark backgrounds.

Let me see, you're complaining that the camouflage works too well?

Yeah, I need to figure something out for the 3 or 4 air units for which this is a problem.

quote:

3 - As you noted, alternative shapes for the status indicators (note change in terminology) provide more flexibility for the associated counter shape.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

quote:

3 - As you noted, alternative shapes for the status indicators (note change in terminology) provide more flexibility for the associated counter shape.

How about almost rectangular elipses? If you wanted to round the corners of the counters slightly, the elipse corner geometry could be tailored so that the leftmost and rightmost staus indicators were flush with the counter corners. The appearance of separation that the eliptical shape should provide may help clarity too.

If possible, IMHO, slightly rounding the counters and adding a 3D effect will improve the look of the game.

Thanks for posting the cameos of the new air units on map. They really give a feel for what MWiF will look like. I didn't have Planes in Flames so this is a real treat.

Cheers, Neilster

quote:

1 - That would make them miniture versions of the counter itself, aesthetically pleasing.

2 - I want as large a number of pixels colored in for the status indicator as possible. Otherwise it might be hard to determine the color at all levels of zoom (e.g., circles have a smaller footprint).

quote:

I am also giving some consideration to having 3 indicators running across the top, shoved to the left. They would be the same for all unit types (availability, disruption, supply). Then I would have 3 more running down the lefthand side, shoved to the top. They would contain information that is different for each branch of service: land, air, and naval. The unit type specific indicators would be for combat effects, transporting/transported, and other odds and ends. I really like the idea of separating the universal indicators from those that change depending on branch of service. It should make them a lot easier to learn and remember.

quote:

...35 years come July

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am leaning towards squares with rounded corners for each status indicator for a couple of reasons:

1 - That would make them miniture versions of the counter itself, aesthetically pleasing.

2 - I want as large a number of pixels colored in for the status indicator as possible. Otherwise it might be hard to determine the color at all levels of zoom (e.g., circles have a smaller footprint).

I am also giving some consideration to having 3 indicators running across the top, shoved to the left. They would be the same for all unit types (availability, disruption, supply). Then I would have 3 more running down the lefthand side, shoved to the top. They would contain information that is different for each branch of service: land, air, and naval. The unit type specific indicators would be for combat effects, transporting/transported, and other odds and ends. I really like the idea of separating the universal indicators from those that change depending on branch of service. It should make them a lot easier to learn and remember.

quote:

The main argument against this is that I do not see a way to display the indicators for units beneath the top unit. I'll worry about that today. Maybe I'll even take my wife's advice and mock up some to see what they look like. [She is always the pragmatist. Comments like that one have an accompanying look that says "... dummy!" 35 years come July.].

quote:

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am leaning towards squares with rounded corners for each status indicator for a couple of reasons:

1 - That would make them miniture versions of the counter itself, aesthetically pleasing.

2 - I want as large a number of pixels colored in for the status indicator as possible. Otherwise it might be hard to determine the color at all levels of zoom (e.g., circles have a smaller footprint).

I am also giving some consideration to having 3 indicators running across the top, shoved to the left. They would be the same for all unit types (availability, disruption, supply). Then I would have 3 more running down the lefthand side, shoved to the top. They would contain information that is different for each branch of service: land, air, and naval. The unit type specific indicators would be for combat effects, transporting/transported, and other odds and ends. I really like the idea of separating the universal indicators from those that change depending on branch of service. It should make them a lot easier to learn and remember.

This sounds good. Only seeing a sample can determine if it works aesthetically. Oh, and I agree with Froonp, any "rounding" of the counter edges should be very slight; too round and things begin to look worse. Just take the point off the corner, IMO.

quote:

The main argument against this is that I do not see a way to display the indicators for units beneath the top unit. I'll worry about that today. Maybe I'll even take my wife's advice and mock up some to see what they look like. [She is always the pragmatist. Comments like that one have an accompanying look that says "... dummy!" 35 years come July.].

Well, as I implied in a previous post, I think showing indicators for units underneath the top unit makes things look confusing. You can only see a portion of the indicator, and you can't see the unit below anyway because it's covered. If you have a unit/stack display area on the screen somewhere (part of the interface; not on the map), it would be more appropriate to show the info for all units in a hex there (might be a good idea to have this; you could then even dispense with the second set of 3 indicators on the side and merely show them on the unit display area). This convention is used for most PC games that have a lot of info on the units but need additional space for more details. See, e.g., SSG's Decisive Battles games, TOAW, etc.

quote:

2 of 3. Those MBR-2's are a problem to fit on the counter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Last in the series.

I have to abbreviate Shturmovik.

I should have the German planes from counter sheet 8 ready tomorrow.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2 of 3. Those MBR-2's are a problem to fit on the counter.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster
I couldn't find any info on a Pe-21 but the image looks a lot like a Pe-2 and there was a Pe-2I and...

"Some sources hint that Myasishchev also proposed a high-altitude fighter variant of the Pe-2I, the "Pe-2VI (Vysotnyi Istrebitel)", with a pressurized cabin and four ShVAK 20 millimeter cannon in the nose, but this may be a confusion with a Pe-2VI program conducted by his predecessor, Alexander Putilov, that came to nothing."

(from http://www.vectorsite.net/avpe2.html)

Is there a mix up or was there a Pe-21?

Cheers, Neilster

quote:

A keen eye. Here is your reward for finding the mistake. [You weren't expecting cash were you?]