RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

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 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 7/5/2007 10:17:22 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jimm

An in game way for all the members of a side to share plans & strategy is always good, especially if, as you suggest, you would have a message history to go back and review.

Yes. Although I think all I will provide on that is the ability to direct a text message to multiple people at once. The choices for addressees would be: everyone, everyone on my side, specific player(s). If people want to exchange JPGs, they would have to do that outside the game.

Quite so, or cc by tick boxes perhaps.

Yes. CC is a better idea.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Jimm)

Post #: 721

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 7/6/2007 7:48:34 PM

dale1066

Posts: 108
Joined: 6/23/2007
Status: offline

Re Vichy code bugs

Not sure if this is now relevent but I was messing with Cwif just now and found an intersting feature that occurred when germany Vichy'ed france.

Belguim was a Frence minor ally and had not been conquored up till the same turn, slack i know.

When choosing new home country for Bel used the Belgian congo.
The intersting part was in the rebasing of the units since a hex of belguim became vichy controlled french units had to be rebased there as the nearest hex. Also belguims surviving units had to be rebased inside vichy. Oh and finally all the german units in belguim were isolated.

I suspect that it would be fixed during your rework of the vichy code you mentioned but thought I'd mentioned it as it seems an interesting edge effect that may require special testing?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 722

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 7/6/2007 8:05:20 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Thanks.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to dale1066)

Post #: 723

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 7/6/2007 8:41:59 PM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

About CWiF bugs, I just noticed that if the Russians do not claim the Baltic States until after the US is in the war, but there is still a pact between Russia and Germany, the game just hangs up when the claim is made.

Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 724

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 7/7/2007 2:33:52 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

About CWiF bugs, I just noticed that if the Russians do not claim the Baltic States until after the US is in the war, but there is still a pact between Russia and Germany, the game just hangs up when the claim is made.

Lars

Ok. I have rewriteen a lot of the code associated with that but will give it a look over to see if there is anything suspicious.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 725

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 7/12/2007 10:13:59 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

I have upgraded the Opening screen by adding a button for joining a new NetPlay game, as shown below.

The person who starts a new game I am calling the Starter (duh, but sadly it took me some time to come up with that name). The Starter clicks on Start a new game and then chooses the scenario and optional rules. In the Start New Game form (not shown here) he fills in the names of the other players. That will have to have been determined in advance, off line, using email (or by phone, I guess). The other players will then fire up MWIF and click on the Join a New Game button. They will have to know the IP address of the Starter in order to establish the linkage to his computer.

I thought about writing code to create a special form to handle all the names, email addresses, and IP addresses but that seems like pointless extra work. The file is really simple and can be created/edited using NotePad or any other simple text editor. Within the same directory as the MWIF program, there needs to be NetPLay.txt.

The format for NetPlay.txt is:
Game Name, Real Name, Matrix Forum Name, email address, IP address.

This file will be used for both PBEM and Internet games. In PBEM games the IP address is not necessary.

An mocked up example of the file is:

wry, Steven Hokanson, Shannon V. OKeets, SHokanson@HawaiianTel.net, 4.3.2.1
cartographer, Patrice Forno, Froonp, xxx, 9.8.7.6

In the Start New Game form, the field for player names would contain wry and cartographer. The program would then use those names to find the IP address (e.g., 4.3.2.1) for the player's computer over the Internet.

So, when you click Join a New Game, you would merely type in the Starter's name (e.g., wry). The program would then do the rest, finding the Starter's IP address from the NetPlay.txt file, connecting to the Starter's computer and bringing over the Game Record Log entries he created when he chose the scenario and optional rules. Your computer would run through the same start of game sequence that the Starter's computer goes through. That is, the amount of information send over the Internet will be kept to a minimum - mainly just the decisions the players make as they play the game.

I have been using the name wry because I can type it with my left hand wwhile keeping my right hand on the mouse.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 726

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 7/12/2007 10:15:37 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

I forgot to add. If you are restarting an internet game you simply click on restore a saved game. The stored game has the information about the mode of play (i.e., internet) and who the players are.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 727

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 7/12/2007 11:49:47 PM

Zorachus99

Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I forgot to add. If you are restarting an internet game you simply click on restore a saved game. The stored game has the information about the mode of play (i.e., internet) and who the players are.

In multiplayer games, I've often seen a person miss a session, or have a position 'filled in' by a guest player.

Will the players be changeable after game start?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 728

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 7/13/2007 12:36:52 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I forgot to add. If you are restarting an internet game you simply click on restore a saved game. The stored game has the information about the mode of play (i.e., internet) and who the players are.

In multiplayer games, I've often seen a person miss a session, or have a position 'filled in' by a guest player.

Will the players be changeable after game start?

See the recent posts in the thread WhoDecides for comments on this subject.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 729

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/1/2007 10:47:02 PM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

Returning to CWiF Vichy implementation problems again:

I just found another problem with CWiF VIchy - If Germany takes Paris but does not occupy it or is not in supply in Paris at the end of the turn, the game correctly does not allow Vichy to be declared. If in a later turn the conditions to declare Vichy are fulfilled the Vichy declaration takes place as expected but the areas that by die roll should be Free French turn out to be conquered by Germany and any French ships in such an area are changed to CW ships and there is no Free French and no further French in the game.

Not sure if this affects the MWiF Vichy by Code inheritance.

Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 730

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/1/2007 11:04:48 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Returning to CWiF Vichy implementation problems again:

I just found another problem with CWiF VIchy -� If Germany takes Paris but does not occupy it or is not in supply in Paris at the end of the turn, the game correctly does not allow Vichy to be declared.� If in a later turn the conditions to declare Vichy are fulfilled�the Vichy declaration takes place as expected but the areas that by die roll should be Free French turn out to be conquered by Germany and any French�ships in such an area are changed to CW ships and there is no Free French and no further French in the game.�

Not sure if this affects the MWiF Vichy by Code inheritance.

Lars

It definitely does. Thanks for discovering and reporting it.

I have been delaying writing the new module for Phase Vichy because I expect it to be difficult and I want to get some more experience writing new modules for phases that are simpler to do. However, its absence is gettting in my way, because I can't fully test the scenarios that start after Vichy has been declared (if the Metropolitan France portion of the map is in use). That's because the set up routine has to run through the Vichy process prior to placing Vichy units on the map. There's never enough time.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 731

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/2/2007 6:11:34 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

I am now deep into the code for air missions and I came across a problem - for which I have a possible solution. What I am proposing is a different solution from the one used in CWIF, so I want to see what your opinion is.

The situation is that a player wants to perform an air mission for which activity limits are in effect. Now as long as a player controls all of his own units, there is no problem. But consider the case where a unit has been 'loaned' to another player. By loaned I am using the same meaning that CWIF has, which is that the unit's actual move is being made by a player other than the official owner. There are many examples of this: a German unit in north Africa, an Italian unit Russia, a US unit in the United Kingdom. What players are permitted to do, is to 'loan' units to each other.

Let's take the case of an Italian air unit in Russia. Italy has a limited number of air missions available for the impulse but the German player has 3 Italian bombers that he is moving in Russia. Now these are still Italian units and the Italian air mission limits still apply to them. Before the German player moves one of these units he has to make sure that there is still 1 Italian air mission remaining. Once he moves it, the number of available Italian air mission is decremented.

So, the problem is the timing. Potentially, both the Italian and German players could pick up an Italian air unit simultaneously and try to move it when there is only 1 air mission remaining. Who gets to move the unit they have in hand? How does the program prevent both air missions from being flown?

CWIF sends a message over the Internet and checks with all the other players' computers to bring the local computer up-to-date on the number of air missions remaining, only then does it permit the mission to be flown. I have problems with this solution for several reasons, one of which is that two messages may pass each other over the Internet and the same problem as before arises.

My solution is to require a player with a loaned unit to request limited actions from the owning player. That is, Germany would have to request X air missions from Italy. Italy either grants them to Germany or not. I would keep track of available air missions not only by major power, but also by player. What I like about this is that the German player can not fly air missions unless he has prearranged it with Italy. The solution is nice and clean, for once Italy has given away X air missions, both players' computers know exactly what missions they can and can not perform.

The same solution applies to land and naval moves, land combats, etc.

So long as no units have been loaned to other players, this problem never arises. Even then, if the owning player has unlimited air missions (land moves) available, the problem doesn't come up.

Since most of the time this is a non-problem, I want a solution that does not require sending messages over the Internet. That is another reason I was unhappy with how CWIF handled this situation.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 732

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/2/2007 8:45:14 AM

jesperpehrson

Posts: 1052
Joined: 7/29/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

That is, Germany would have to request X air missions from Italy. Italy either grants them to Germany or not. I would keep track of available air missions not only by major power, but also by player. What I like about this is that the German player can not fly air missions unless he has prearranged it with Italy. The solution is nice and clean, for once Italy has given away X air missions, both players' computers know exactly what missions they can and can not perform.

The same solution applies to land and naval moves, land combats, etc.

As long as you change this during the turn, impulse, phase or moment it is fine. If you ask me before a turn if you can borrow activitylimits I might send you too **** but when I feel that I have done more or less what I want then I might be able to reconsider. Or if I borrow activitylimits my needs may change depending on the result of the dice or the reactions from the opponent.

So in all I like the solution as long as it is flexible.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 733

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/2/2007 10:26:10 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: capitan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

That is, Germany would have to request X air missions from Italy. Italy either grants them to Germany or not. I would keep track of available air missions not only by major power, but also by player. What I like about this is that the German player can not fly air missions unless he has prearranged it with Italy. The solution is nice and clean, for once Italy has given away X air missions, both players' computers know exactly what missions they can and can not perform.

The same solution applies to land and naval moves, land combats, etc.

As long as you change this during the turn, impulse, phase or moment it is fine. If you ask me before a turn if you can borrow activitylimits I might send you too **** but when I feel that I have done more or less what I want then I might be able to reconsider. Or if I borrow activitylimits my needs may change depending on the result of the dice or the reactions from the opponent.

So in all I like the solution as long as it is flexible.

Any time the players want to after the Choose Action phase. It requires the players to be proactive, since it is not part of the sequence of play. Loaning units between players works the same way, though that has a # of turns element that is set when the unit is loaned.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to jesperpehrson)

Post #: 734

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/2/2007 10:59:22 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
My solution is to require a player with a loaned unit to request limited actions from the owning player. That is, Germany would have to request X air missions from Italy. Italy either grants them to Germany or not. I would keep track of available air missions not only by major power, but also by player. What I like about this is that the German player can not fly air missions unless he has prearranged it with Italy. The solution is nice and clean, for once Italy has given away X air missions, both players' computers know exactly what missions they can and can not perform.

The same solution applies to land and naval moves, land combats, etc.

So long as no units have been loaned to other players, this problem never arises. Even then, if the owning player has unlimited air missions (land moves) available, the problem doesn't come up.

Since most of the time this is a non-problem, I want a solution that does not require sending messages over the Internet. That is another reason I was unhappy with how CWIF handled this situation.

This is a good solution for me.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 735

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/2/2007 1:56:41 PM

c92nichj

Posts: 440
Joined: 1/14/2005
Status: offline

I like the solution as well.
As long as you can change your mind during an impulse, I think it is good.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 736

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/2/2007 6:29:23 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

It seems like a good solution to me as well.

Edit: Especially since it mirrors how things often work on the table-top game.

< Message edited by composer99 -- 8/2/2007 6:30:15 PM >

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 737

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/2/2007 6:50:10 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

It seems like a good solution to me as well.

Edit: Especially since it mirrors how things often work on the table-top game.

Yes, that's right. We do it this way too.

German player talking : "Humm, dear Marcello, I would need at least 1 air mission and 2 land move from you this impulse in Russia, would you give me that ?"

Italian player answering : "Humm, let me think a second Hermann.... I would like to initiate naval searches in the Atlantic, so taking a combined action suits both our needs. On the other hand, I would have liked to unload a reinforcing unit in Egypt because this ****ing bastard of Alexander grows threatening, so I'd need a land move, and I only have 2 of them in a Combined. What do you think ? Do you prefer to have both your Italian land moves, and no naval combat searches (if I take a Land) or naval combat searches and only 1 land move (if I take a combined) ?"

German player : "Oh well, I can get along with only 1 land move, but I'd need 1, maybe 2 air missions, if the first is successfull, so please take a combined."

Italian : "OK, we have a deal".

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 738

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/2/2007 9:21:51 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

I like the solution as well.
As long as you can change your mind during an impulse, I think it is good.

Yes. The program doesn't mind players modifying this to their hearts' content. I will make sure it doesn't offer a loophole for circumventing the rules though.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to c92nichj)

Post #: 739

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/3/2007 5:02:40 PM

amwild

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am now deep into the code for air missions and I came across a problem - for which I have a possible solution. What I am proposing is a different solution from the one used in CWIF, so I want to see what your opinion is.

The situation is that a player wants to perform an air mission for which activity limits are in effect. Now as long as a player controls all of his own units, there is no problem. But consider the case where a unit has been 'loaned' to another player. By loaned I am using the same meaning that CWIF has, which is that the unit's actual move is being made by a player other than the official owner. There are many examples of this: a German unit in north Africa, an Italian unit Russia, a US unit in the United Kingdom. What players are permitted to do, is to 'loan' units to each other.

[snip]...

CWIF sends a message over the Internet and checks with all the other players' computers to bring the local computer up-to-date on the number of air missions remaining, only then does it permit the mission to be flown. I have problems with this solution for several reasons, one of which is that two messages may pass each other over the Internet and the same problem as before arises.

My solution is to require a player with a loaned unit to request limited actions from the owning player. That is, Germany would have to request X air missions from Italy. Italy either grants them to Germany or not. I would keep track of available air missions not only by major power, but also by player. What I like about this is that the German player can not fly air missions unless he has prearranged it with Italy. The solution is nice and clean, for once Italy has given away X air missions, both players' computers know exactly what missions they can and can not perform.

The same solution applies to land and naval moves, land combats, etc.

So long as no units have been loaned to other players, this problem never arises. Even then, if the owning player has unlimited air missions (land moves) available, the problem doesn't come up.

Since most of the time this is a non-problem, I want a solution that does not require sending messages over the Internet. That is another reason I was unhappy with how CWIF handled this situation.

As long as one player can say "I don't really need all these moves, have some more/back," this would be good - as long as before ending the impulse both players can be sure that they have either used all available moves, or know that they have unused moves that they don't want to use (not that I can ever reasonably expect that to happen often...)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 740

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 8/3/2007 10:37:42 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am now deep into the code for air missions and I came across a problem - for which I have a possible solution. What I am proposing is a different solution from the one used in CWIF, so I want to see what your opinion is.

The situation is that a player wants to perform an air mission for which activity limits are in effect. Now as long as a player controls all of his own units, there is no problem. But consider the case where a unit has been 'loaned' to another player. By loaned I am using the same meaning that CWIF has, which is that the unit's actual move is being made by a player other than the official owner. There are many examples of this: a German unit in north Africa, an Italian unit Russia, a US unit in the United Kingdom. What players are permitted to do, is to 'loan' units to each other.

[snip]...

CWIF sends a message over the Internet and checks with all the other players' computers to bring the local computer up-to-date on the number of air missions remaining, only then does it permit the mission to be flown. I have problems with this solution for several reasons, one of which is that two messages may pass each other over the Internet and the same problem as before arises.

My solution is to require a player with a loaned unit to request limited actions from the owning player. That is, Germany would have to request X air missions from Italy. Italy either grants them to Germany or not. I would keep track of available air missions not only by major power, but also by player. What I like about this is that the German player can not fly air missions unless he has prearranged it with Italy. The solution is nice and clean, for once Italy has given away X air missions, both players' computers know exactly what missions they can and can not perform.

The same solution applies to land and naval moves, land combats, etc.

So long as no units have been loaned to other players, this problem never arises. Even then, if the owning player has unlimited air missions (land moves) available, the problem doesn't come up.

Since most of the time this is a non-problem, I want a solution that does not require sending messages over the Internet. That is another reason I was unhappy with how CWIF handled this situation.

As long as one player can say "I don't really need all these moves, have some more/back," this would be good - as long as before ending the impulse both players can be sure that they have either used all available moves, or know that they have unused moves that they don't want to use (not that I can ever reasonably expect that to happen often...)

I already have the variables defined for holding this information and it is easy to place the checks for sufficient activities remaining into where the current check is. What I need to do next is figure out how to display the current status of who has how many of each to the players. Once I have that worked out, I can design the form for the players to use to request and grant exchanges of limited activities.

This is low priority for me at the present though.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to amwild)

Post #: 741

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/11/2007 11:52:14 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

I only have two more pieces of code to write for scenario setup. One is to let players set up partisans after all other units have been setup. That is fairly minor and should be easy to do. Here is the more difficult piece.

This is my first pass on the screen for requesting and granting lend lease of air units. This form will appear once for each side before anyone sets up any units. That will enable players to acquire lend lease air units for their force pools prior to drawing units for setup. The form will also be available during the production phase.

What I am showing here is what the Chinese player sees when he wants to request a lend lease air unit. By pressing the button Request Unit, a message will be sent to the US player (in this case it is the US who is the source country for the B-24J). The US player will see the same form but with different content. In particular, he will see which unit(s) he will lose from his force pool if he grants the request. He gives his decision by pressing Grant or Deny.

Either player can press the button Lend Lease Group to see all the air units in the selected unit's lend lease group. In this case it would be all the B-24Js. In the future the US player could demand his unit back by pressing the Demand Unit button.

Still early days for this form, I'll have to see how it works out in practice. But not bad for a few hours work.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 742

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/11/2007 4:24:28 PM

Froonp

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

I like it.
I hope that the only lend lease planes that will be present in this form are planes of the current or previous year only.
Looks like they are all available here, independently of the year.

Also, maybe you should write "Demand Unit Back" on the button, instead of "Demand Unit", it may be clearer.

Also, for the US (or other lender), how does it look ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 743

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/11/2007 6:58:47 PM

Zorachus99

Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have upgraded the Opening screen by adding a button for joining a new NetPlay game, as shown below.

The person who starts a new game I am calling the Starter (duh, but sadly it took me some time to come up with that name).

The industry standard isn't Starter, but Host. The person who starts the game hosts it. Everyone but the host is a Client.

People will yell at you, (because they've never used the program notepad) and demand a "Host a game button", and a "Join a game button".

Don't worry Grognards will only throw ageing SPI counters.

< Message edited by Zorachus99 -- 10/11/2007 7:04:38 PM >

_____________________________

Most men can survive adversity, the true test of a man's character is power. -Abraham Lincoln

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 744

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/11/2007 8:39:56 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I like it.
I hope that the only lend lease planes that will be present in this form are planes of the current or previous year only.
Looks like they are all available here, independently of the year.

Also, maybe you should write "Demand Unit Back" on the button, instead of "Demand Unit", it may be clearer.

Also, for the US (or other lender), how does it look ?

This form is already year sensitive. I chose Darkness before the Dawn as the scenario (I think) because I wanted to display planes from all the Allied countries.

If there is room I'll make the change, or at least make it "Demand Return".

I don't know how the lender side looks, I haven't coded it yet.

I do these things in stages. On Monday I designed the form (a couple of hours). On Wednesday I populated the form with units (another couple of hours). Today (Thursday) I'll spend a couple of hours and hope to get the form to appear correctly as part of the sequence of play for both sides, switching between players who make requests. Then I'll push on to coding the Lender's side, where a second unit will be displayed to the right of the unit data panel (under Unit Lost).

I find that by setting things like this aside for a day or so after accomplishing a 'milestone', I have a much clearer vision of how to proceed the next time I look at it.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 745

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/11/2007 8:45:43 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have upgraded the Opening screen by adding a button for joining a new NetPlay game, as shown below.

The person who starts a new game I am calling the Starter (duh, but sadly it took me some time to come up with that name).

The industry standard isn't Starter, but Host. The person who starts the game hosts it. Everyone but the host is a Client.

People will yell at you, (because they've never used the program notepad) and demand a "Host a game button", and a "Join a game button".

Don't worry Grognards will only throw ageing SPI counters.

Host isn't quite right for the MWIF design. There will be the person who starts up the game and after sides are determined there will be 2 team leaders (Axis and Allied leaders). Communications over the internet will go through the team leader to the other side's team leader. This design permits all players on one side to review decisions as they are formulated and gives the responsibility of the formal commitment to the side's decisions (e.g., Action choices) to the team leader. I think this coordination is necessary, though I could be wrong, and other solutions possible.

Which means that the role of host as a central clearing house for commnications/decision making and keeping the game state current is divided between the two team leaders.

I do use the phase "Join a game" though.

EDIT: P.S., Starter is the correct term when playing golf, so I'm just using a sports metaphor

.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 10/11/2007 8:49:52 PM >

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Zorachus99)

Post #: 746

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/12/2007 4:54:17 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

New code: here is what the form looks like from the lender's side - though the requesting major power can see this view too if he wants to.

The French player is requesting a P-40E Hawk 87C which is comparable to the US P-40E Kittyhawk. France is the Requesting major power and the US is the Source country. [I have the Chinese background displayed here. The same player controls all the Allied major powers so there is really no point in changnig it for the French Request Unit or the US Grant Request.]

The Chinese or the British could request the same unit. Only one of these 4 air units can be in the force pools/on map at any point in time.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 747

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/12/2007 4:57:29 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Here the US has 5 Skytrains, which the other Allied major powers call Dakotas. The US could lend lease all 5 air units to its allies if it wanted to. If it grants less than 5 requests, then which one it loses from its force pool is randomly drawn. I have to figure out a way to communicate that when a Source air unit has already been lend leased.