Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

one problem with these lists will occur later in the game when there may be more than a dozen planes available and often another dozen from a cooperating power as well.

Lars

Yeah I was thinking that too. 1945 is a very different kettle of fish then 1940. Is there any way to limit the display to planes in range of where the mouse is pointing? (Holy Processing Time, Batman!)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ptey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The motivation behind this is so you always know which major powers are making decisions by which flags are bright (not faded). You also are reminded which major powers you control (full size), just in case you forget.

Maybe that's just me, but I feel that either the faded is not faded enough, or the bright flag is not visible enough.
Good idea for the reduced flags !!!

Its not just you, I agree with that. The other flags should also imo be faded some more.

Maybe this question is answered in a previous post (I havent read all of this thread). But why not show the flags in the setup order?

quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild

If fading the flags are problematic, why not highlight the active ones by putting a selection box around them instead/also? If the active box and/or flag pulsed (brightened & dimmed several times a second), that would be immediately noticeable, though perhaps a bit distracting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ptey

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The motivation behind this is so you always know which major powers are making decisions by which flags are bright (not faded). You also are reminded which major powers you control (full size), just in case you forget.

Maybe that's just me, but I feel that either the faded is not faded enough, or the bright flag is not visible enough.
Good idea for the reduced flags !!!

Its not just you, I agree with that. The other flags should also imo be faded some more.

Maybe this question is answered in a previous post (I havent read all of this thread). But why not show the flags in the setup order?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The beta testers have stopped complaining, so I think I have this done correctly now.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For the second round, there were no more surprise points to be spent, but the Axis continued to receive +1 from its earlier decision.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For the second round, there were no more surprise points to be spent, but the Axis continued to receive +1 from its earlier decision.

This Form looks good but the quote above contains a possible problem. Once surprise is spent for air-to-air, it cannot be modified during the rounds of the air-to-air combat. Below is the quote from RAC concerning this for naval air combat (just above section 11.5.7) and I'm quite sure this applies to all air-to-air combats involving the use of surprise points.

"You can only spend points to modify air-to-air combat values at the start of the naval air combat (not during each air-to-air combat round)."

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For the second round, there were no more surprise points to be spent, but the Axis continued to receive +1 from its earlier decision.

This Form looks good but the quote above contains a possible problem. Once surprise is spent for air-to-air, it cannot be modified during the rounds of the air-to-air combat. Below is the quote from RAC concerning this for naval air combat (just above section 11.5.7) and I'm quite sure this applies to all air-to-air combats involving the use of surprise points.

"You can only spend points to modify air-to-air combat values at the start of the naval air combat (not during each air-to-air combat round)."

I read this as permission by omission. Since only naval air combat is mentioned in the rule, the implication is that for port attacks you can modify the air-to-air combat numbers by spending any remaining/unused surprise points.

Either way I need to modify the code so further modification is not permitted during naval air combat. That's easy enough to do.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
For the second round, there were no more surprise points to be spent, but the Axis continued to receive +1 from its earlier decision.

This Form looks good but the quote above contains a possible problem. Once surprise is spent for air-to-air, it cannot be modified during the rounds of the air-to-air combat. Below is the quote from RAC concerning this for naval air combat (just above section 11.5.7) and I'm quite sure this applies to all air-to-air combats involving the use of surprise points.

"You can only spend points to modify air-to-air combat values at the start of the naval air combat (not during each air-to-air combat round)."

I read this as permission by omission. Since only naval air combat is mentioned in the rule, the implication is that for port attacks you can modify the air-to-air combat numbers by spending any remaining/unused surprise points.

Either way I need to modify the code so further modification is not permitted during naval air combat. That's easy enough to do.

This might be of relevance.

11.2 Port attack
The side with the greater number of surprise points can spend the difference in the same ways as in normal naval combats (see 11.5.6) except that you cannot change the combat type (from naval air combat).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For the second round, there were no more surprise points to be spent, but the Axis continued to receive +1 from its earlier decision.

This Form looks good but the quote above contains a possible problem. Once surprise is spent for air-to-air, it cannot be modified during the rounds of the air-to-air combat. Below is the quote from RAC concerning this for naval air combat (just above section 11.5.7) and I'm quite sure this applies to all air-to-air combats involving the use of surprise points.

"You can only spend points to modify air-to-air combat values at the start of the naval air combat (not during each air-to-air combat round)."

I read this as permission by omission. Since only naval air combat is mentioned in the rule, the implication is that for port attacks you can modify the air-to-air combat numbers by spending any remaining/unused surprise points.

Either way I need to modify the code so further modification is not permitted during naval air combat. That's easy enough to do.

This might be of relevance.

11.2 Port attack
The side with the greater number of surprise points can spend the difference in the same ways as in normal naval combats (see 11.5.6) except that you cannot change the combat type (from naval air combat).


-Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is another example of air-to-air combat when surprise points are available.

As before, the Allies are port attacking Kiel. This time they get 5 surprise points and decide to save 3 of them for selecting a target - assuming some of the bombers are cleared through.

This is the end of the first round of air-to-air combat and the Allies are deciding whether to stay or not. Since the first round aborted one of the German fighters, the Allies will stay. It is not so clear whether the Germans will or not.

What I wanted to show here is that the program works out the hypothetical combat odds for the second round, assuming both sides stay. The Allies still have the opportunity of spending 2 of the 3 surprise points they have remaining to increase their air-to-air factors (or decrease the Axis air-to-air factors). Right now it is 10 versus 8 (+2 and -2).

Note that the center line of the form shows the decision sequence and the circle with the dot indicates the sub-subphase is Att. Aborts/Stays. The message/prompt under that informs the player what decision he has to make.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Can you align the attacking planes in the figure to the right? It would appear more naturally that they are facing each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is another example of air-to-air combat when surprise points are available.

As before, the Allies are port attacking Kiel. This time they get 5 surprise points and decide to save 3 of them for selecting a target - assuming some of the bombers are cleared through.

This is the end of the first round of air-to-air combat and the Allies are deciding whether to stay or not. Since the first round aborted one of the German fighters, the Allies will stay. It is not so clear whether the Germans will or not.

What I wanted to show here is that the program works out the hypothetical combat odds for the second round, assuming both sides stay. The Allies still have the opportunity of spending 2 of the 3 surprise points they have remaining to increase their air-to-air factors (or decrease the Axis air-to-air factors). Right now it is 10 versus 8 (+2 and -2).

Note that the center line of the form shows the decision sequence and the circle with the dot indicates the sub-subphase is Att. Aborts/Stays. The message/prompt under that informs the player what decision he has to make.

quote:

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

I must say that I really like the overall look, but I do have one concern. I think that the buttons "disappears" in the middle. The very first time I looked on the form I really had two look twice in order to find them.

Is there any simple way of highlighting them in order to let the "action buttons" stand out? If one made the 3-D effect on the buttons a little stronger it could help, or even changing colors on them?

Best regards,
Oscar

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

Can you align the attacking planes in the figure to the right? It would appear more naturally that they are facing each other.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is another example of air-to-air combat when surprise points are available.

As before, the Allies are port attacking Kiel. This time they get 5 surprise points and decide to save 3 of them for selecting a target - assuming some of the bombers are cleared through.

This is the end of the first round of air-to-air combat and the Allies are deciding whether to stay or not. Since the first round aborted one of the German fighters, the Allies will stay. It is not so clear whether the Germans will or not.

What I wanted to show here is that the program works out the hypothetical combat odds for the second round, assuming both sides stay. The Allies still have the opportunity of spending 2 of the 3 surprise points they have remaining to increase their air-to-air factors (or decrease the Axis air-to-air factors). Right now it is 10 versus 8 (+2 and -2).

Note that the center line of the form shows the decision sequence and the circle with the dot indicates the sub-subphase is Att. Aborts/Stays. The message/prompt under that informs the player what decision he has to make.

The trade offs are functionality versus beautification versus programming time.

I am 'ok' with the way things are shown. Rotating the pictures is actually unappealing to me, whether it is 90 degrees counter clockwise for one and clockwise for the other, or 180 degrees for one and then placing them in a column instead of a row. The text and numbers on the units are easier to read when the units are not rotated.

The programming uses a standard component for displaying a list of units, hence they are all left-justified in the lists, when it would be better if the ones on the left were right justified. The standard component doesn't have the features to do that and writing code just for this form seems wastefull of time and effort.

Two of my improvements over CWIF was to include the large picture of the front fighters and bombers and to show the effective air-to-air factors for the each side. All the stuff about the decision sequence is new and so is showing the on-going results of the combat as text and with the unit depictions at the bottom of the form.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

Looks functional and attractive. One concern, in the rules issued this summer, back up FTR's are now worth 1/10 of their air to air value. In the example above, would the allied strength not be 8.7? This rounds to +1/-1, so no difference in results here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The air-to-air factors under/over the large images of the front units are shown as tenths to accommodate such fine detail. The +1, -1, in the Odds column of the table in the lower right, are rounded as they would be for using the table.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

I must say that I really like the overall look, but I do have one concern. I think that the buttons "disappears" in the middle. The very first time I looked on the form I really had two look twice in order to find them.

Is there any simple way of highlighting them in order to let the "action buttons" stand out? If one made the 3-D effect on the buttons a little stronger it could help, or even changing colors on them?

Best regards,
Oscar

I'm not too worried about this.

The form is very busy with many parts, each of which is of interest at different times in the "Decision Sequence". Simplifying the form by splitting it into 2 or 3 forms, was one consideration but I decided that having everything present throughout the air-to-air combat would let the players keep track of what is happening: past, present, and future.

The complexity of the form is the reason the buttons become 'lost'. In practice, the players will quickly learn that the center of this form contains the decision buttons. As the decision sequence progresses, I am changing the labels of the buttons, sometimes showing only one, sometimes two. There are 3 positions available/used for the buttons. When the buttons are not selectable/clickable, I have simply removed them from sight completely. That change came from feedback from the beta testers who found disabled buttons confusing.

What you have made me think about though, is the possibility of adding icons to the buttons. For example, the Help button has the little book. I don't know what symbols could be used. And artwork is not my forte. But a little icon for each button might made them more noticeable.

Changing colors is both difficult (I am using Theme Engine for all the buttons in the game) and not necessarily good, since there are 8 different background colors - 1 per major power.

Button labels are:

Combat Chosen = location/combat selected
Axis Ready = Axis units arranged
Allies Ready = Allied units arranged
Abort
Stay
Ok - Done

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
At the top is the sequence of the subphases within the phase land combat resolution. RAC (rules as coded) follows RAW (rules as written), for this subphase sequence. Regrettably, RAW is somewhat vague about who decides to use snow units first/second and where the decision about using the engineer occurs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Regrettably, RAW is somewhat vague about who decides to use snow units first/second and where the decision about using the engineer occurs.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Note that the Odds are updated as these decisions are made, though those decisions that require a die roll are only estimates until the die roll actually occurs. When there is a difference between Assault and Blitz odds, both are shown with Assault odds shown first (e.g., hex [49, 45]).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
At the top is the sequence of the subphases within the phase land combat resolution. RAC (rules as coded) follows RAW (rules as written), for this subphase sequence. Regrettably, RAW is somewhat vague about who decides to use snow units first/second and where the decision about using the engineer occurs.

About this, I have this feeling that the way the sequence of the subphases is show looks like the user could choose one of them, when in reality it is only showing (I believe) what subphase you're in.
So why not using some other kind of graphical way of showing the progression, like this example for example (a progression of a color on a colored line where the subphases are written).