Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: haromar
Also consider following points (ignore them if already discussed):
- While in port, a ship or Task Force could be OOS or stacked with another Major Power ships thus decreasing its movement. Indicate this so the player is not confused as to why you are substracting him 1 or 2 mp. For OOS he can remedy the problem within the impulse, the - 1 MP for other Major Power ships is there for the whole impulse.
- Ships are sometimes dropped off in sea zones from a task force. Allow for that.
- An "average" defense factor is imo pretty useless, better indicate the best defense factor of a single ship, usually a 2, 1 or 0.
- Air to Air has to be max air to air considering dual role of CVP, e.g. use all CVPs as fighter.
- Same for naval air, also max. e.g. use all CVPs as naval bombers (assumes they have a respective value).
- With shore bombardment display max value at -0. (assumes 4 box in fair). Display a second column value assuming all have -1. Maybe even a third value all with -2. Or use a button (-0, -1 or -2). Its up to the player to figure out in which modified shore bombardment box he will be when conducting his operation. You can't know that since the SB mod is affected by wheather, with one sea area possible bordering more than 1 wheather zone.
- Definetely differentiate between amph and trs.
- Definetely throw out subs, by the rules you cannot have them in the same task force anyways. Indicate the presence of a separate sub task force.
- Not sure about loaded cargo, the way I play it is that you "load" cargo in the port at will when leaving the port. So imo only "possible" cargo makes sense.
- Include mod search box due to CVP with 4 or 7 range.
First let me thank you for these ideas. As you know already, there are a lot of rules involved with moving groups of naval units and I want the task force implementation to not mess things up. I am trusting that the readers of this forum, such as yourself, will keep critiquing my design until it is solid.
Opening caveat - my references to Task Forces (TF) will be the MWIF implementation, not to be confused with the more general term, or some other definition (explicit or implied).
1 - Task forces will be restricted to units controlled by a single major power. The only exception will be transported units. Note that this still enables the British to include Dutch units, since they are aligned. The reason for this restriction is that one and only one decision maker needs to be in charge of moving a task force (computer implementation is stricter than over the board play). If you want to create a super task force containing a mixture of US and CW naval units, you will have to create two task forces and "pick them up" at the same time for movement. This design issue is not set in stone, but I think it is a good one. Feel free to make a case for changing this. Oh, and since players are able to 'loan' units to each other freely, the US player could 'loan' several naval units to the British which would enable the British player to add them to a CW task force.
2 - The definition of a task force does not change just because it is stacked with other units, either at sea or in port. The player is free to change the definition of a task force at any time, since it is merely an administrative designation and has no effect on game play.
3 - A task force is represented by a single 'counter/unit' but it can travel with other units and/or task forces. During its travels it can mutate by dropping off units in sea areas it travels through. And obviously it can embark, pick up while at sea, and debark transported units - those actions would change the composition of the task force.
4 - How about a defense rating as an average followed by the rating for the best ship in parentheses? E.g., 4.7 (1).
5 - Air to air and and naval air will be maximums. Obviously setting one of them to the maximum is likely to change the other number significantly - but for the summary page this doesn't matter a whole lot.
6 - For shore bombardment I will show a single number taking into consideration the sea box section. If there is different weather in the coastal hexes that will change this number, I will show a range: 8-13. I hadn't thought about this until you mentioned it.
7 - Why do you feel it is so important to know that a task force has 1 TRS and 1 AMPH versus 2 TRS, instead of a simple '2'? If you want more details on a task force, you can always click on it to bring up the detailed screen showing the actual units in the task force. This is just a summary page. If you were talking about a game to another player over the phone would you need to make this distinction? Or would saying a TF has carrying capacity for 2 corps sized units sufficient?
8 - I am thinking about a simplified variation on a task force called a wolfpack for submarines. But I keep thinking that is excessive. Opinions? My time is limited, so take that into consideration.
9 - I am coming around to the opinion that this form will not be called the task force form when you are looking at enemy naval units. It will be the same form, but will show all the enemy units in a port or sea box section. Perhaps even merging all the sea box sections in one sea area into an aggregate. The idea is that you could use this summary page to see all the locations of enemy naval units: at sea or in port. Then you could scan through the list. This idea is less than 1 minute old, but I think it has promise. Perhaps some filtering ability so you can see all the ports that can reach a sea area? I do not want to get too elaborate here but some way to gain an overview of enemy fleets seems very valuable to me. Then clicking on a column would bring up the detailed screen of what is on the port/sea area. Opinions?
This design is evolving, and it is important to keep an open mind to new ideas (especially true for myself). Building on someone else's idea(s) is an excellent way to come up with something great, instead of merely adequate.
_____________________________
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
|
Printable Version
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 
I'll think about thinner - though they are pretty thin already as I recall.
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