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  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/21/2009 5:59:53 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

The "Only use Primary Monitor" option there I noticed. Does this mean support for dual-monitors? (I use 2x22" LCD's).

Multi-monitors, not just dual. If you have 4, you can use them all (assuming that they are configured as one logical screen under Windows).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to OzHawkeye2)
Post #: 1591
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/21/2009 6:04:06 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: micheljq

So you have CV - carrier, CVL - escort carrier, and ASW carrier right?

Thanks a lot.

Check out the tutorial thread on naval units. It covers this in more detail.

All the tutorials are accessible from a thread at the top of the forum. They contain the entire development process, so you might want to just skip to the posts with the interesting screen shots. Though the screenshots are slightly out of date (since I keep tweaking them from time to time), nonetheless, the threads contain at least one example of each of the 110+ pages in the tutorials.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 1592
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/22/2009 1:37:54 AM   
OzHawkeye2

 

Posts: 56
Joined: 1/13/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye

The "Only use Primary Monitor" option there I noticed. Does this mean support for dual-monitors? (I use 2x22" LCD's).

Multi-monitors, not just dual. If you have 4, you can use them all (assuming that they are configured as one logical screen under Windows).


That's excellent news. I have a third and fourth monitor I can connect and that'd be quite fun playing it like that.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1593
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 1:15:50 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Here is what the aftermath of an air-to-air cmobat looks like.

At teh bottom are all the units that particiapted in the combat and received a result. Only one unit was destroyed, and 3 of the 4 bombers (their range numbers are in gray) that were cleared through did so because all the US fighters had been destroyed or aborted. There is a list of the odds, die rolls, and results in the little table. That's so players can bemoan their bad luck, supported by statistics.

The second screen shot shows the result of those 4 bombers trying to ground strike the Australian motorized infantry. Now I bet you are wondering why so much air power was expended, by both sides, on such an insignificant task/goal. Well, I had asked the beta testers to hammer away at ground strikes, in particular testing how well the code worked for carrier air units performing those missions.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to OzHawkeye2)
Post #: 1594
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 9:20:07 AM   
bredsjomagnus

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline 		It´s always nice with screenshots but...

...why is there only three bombers under "Axis bombers (attacking)"? Isn´t there a BN51 with range 4 missing? Or was it cleared through and put aside?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1595
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 9:57:16 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline 		Also, what is the "AX PX" result that the little table show for a die result of 18 ?
Is "PX" meaning "pilot destroyed" ?

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 1596
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 6:05:23 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

It´s always nice with screenshots but...

...why is there only three bombers under "Axis bombers (attacking)"? Isn´t there a BN51 with range 4 missing? Or was it cleared through and put aside?

The Axis units shown above where still available for combat when the last Allied/US air unit was aborted. The list at the bottom shows all the units that had a die roll result (chronologically from left to right; the first two units were aborted in the first round of the combat) + the bombers that were cleared through because the last enemy fighter was removed (in this case it was aborted).

The 3 bombers you see above as 'attacking' are also shown below (perhaps I should only show them at the bottom, but some information would be lost if I did). The 'missing' bomber had been cleared thruogh earlier - in the third round of combat, die roll of 11, DC result.
---
Patrice, the PX does mean that the pilot was killed.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 1597
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 6:47:29 PM   
gridley

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 10/2/2006
From: Caledon
Status: offline 		If you click the [OK - Done] button while you still have fighters and bombers, does that abort the mission?

In Netplay would the CW, USA, and Japanese all have this screen on thier monitor?

By the way, excellent screen.




(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1598
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 6:52:26 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The list at the bottom shows all the units that had a die roll result (chronologically from left to right; the first two units were aborted in the first round of the combat)

Just a remark here.
The order shown in the form above is not really chonologic.

First the Axis rolls a 9 which achieve a DA result on the Allies. The allies then choose to abort their F4F-4.
Next the Allied rolls a 5 which achieve an AA result on the Axis. The allies then choose to abort the Axis A6M6.
etc...

In the list of counters, if it was really chronological, you'd see the US CVP before the Japanese CVP, they are reversed.

I know that the rolls are considered simultaneous, so in reality, both the F4F-4 and the A6M6 were aborted simultaneously, but since you display them sequencially in the small table above, maybe it would be good to show them sequencially inthe bottom display in the same order as in the table.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1599
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 6:55:35 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The list at the bottom shows all the units that had a die roll result (chronologically from left to right; the first two units were aborted in the first round of the combat)

Just a remark here.
The order shown in the form above is not really chonologic.

First the Axis rolls a 9 which achieve a DA result on the Allies. The allies then choose to abort their F4F-4.
Next the Allied rolls a 5 which achieve an AA result on the Axis. The allies then choose to abort the Axis A6M6.
etc...

In the list of counters, if it was really chronological, you'd see the US CVP before the Japanese CVP, they are reversed.

I know that the rolls are considered simultaneous, so in reality, both the F4F-4 and the A6M6 were aborted simultaneously, but since you display them sequencially in the small table above, maybe it would be good to show them sequencially inthe bottom display in the same order as in the table.

I think that there is a problem with the bottom list.
You say that it is displayed chronologically, but this would mean that when the Axis rolled a 18 and got an AX + PX, that they chose the crappy F3F ? This is not true, as the F3F is shown as Aborted. The only unit that is destroyed is the SBD-3, so it must be the unit that the Japanese have chosen. It is far from its chronological position then. It is displayed at the 6th place, when it was destroyed during the second round on the Axis roll. So it should be at the 3rd place, shouldn't it ?

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1600
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 7:02:54 PM   
gridley

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 10/2/2006
From: Caledon
Status: offline 		Don't forget round 1 is not on the screen. The screen starts at round 2 you would have to scroll up to see round 1.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1601
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 7:08:46 PM   
willycube

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/24/2005
Status: offline 		The map above shows a plane over Brisbane on the left of the map and on the right of the map it looks like a flame on the same plane over Brisbane, has it been destroyed, what does that yellow mark mean?

Willy

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1602
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 7:12:52 PM   
Orm


Posts: 22154
Joined: 5/3/2008
From: Sweden
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: willycube

The map above shows a plane over Brisbane on the left of the map and on the right of the map it looks like a flame on the same plane over Brisbane, has it been destroyed, what does that yellow mark mean?

Willy


The yellow mark mean that they are bombing in that hex.

(in reply to willycube)
Post #: 1603
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 7:42:25 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: gridley

Don't forget round 1 is not on the screen. The screen starts at round 2 you would have to scroll up to see round 1.

OK, I did not notice that.
So the SBD-3 is in the right position.
There are just the Axis / Allies planes that are in reversed positions in the bottom display compared to the table above.

(in reply to gridley)
Post #: 1604
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 7:43:32 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The list at the bottom shows all the units that had a die roll result (chronologically from left to right; the first two units were aborted in the first round of the combat)

Just a remark here.
The order shown in the form above is not really chonologic.

First the Axis rolls a 9 which achieve a DA result on the Allies. The allies then choose to abort their F4F-4.
Next the Allied rolls a 5 which achieve an AA result on the Axis. The allies then choose to abort the Axis A6M6.
etc...

In the list of counters, if it was really chronological, you'd see the US CVP before the Japanese CVP, they are reversed.

I know that the rolls are considered simultaneous, so in reality, both the F4F-4 and the A6M6 were aborted simultaneously, but since you display them sequencially in the small table above, maybe it would be good to show them sequencially inthe bottom display in the same order as in the table.

I think that there is a problem with the bottom list.
You say that it is displayed chronologically, but this would mean that when the Axis rolled a 18 and got an AX + PX, that they chose the crappy F3F ? This is not true, as the F3F is shown as Aborted. The only unit that is destroyed is the SBD-3, so it must be the unit that the Japanese have chosen. It is far from its chronological position then. It is displayed at the 6th place, when it was destroyed during the second round on the Axis roll. So it should be at the 3rd place, shouldn't it ?


This is a ground strike so all the US air units are flying as fighters (their range is in yellow). Results are always applied to the front unit, so the Japanese player does not get to choose which US air unit to abort/destroy.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1605
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 7:45:26 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: gridley

Don't forget round 1 is not on the screen. The screen starts at round 2 you would have to scroll up to see round 1.

OK, I did not notice that.
So the SBD-3 is in the right position.
There are just the Axis / Allies planes that are in reversed positions in the bottom display compared to the table above.

No.. The order is correct. The US is defending so it rolls its dice first. This means the Japanese units appear in the affected units table first.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1606
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 7:47:12 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: willycube

The map above shows a plane over Brisbane on the left of the map and on the right of the map it looks like a flame on the same plane over Brisbane, has it been destroyed, what does that yellow mark mean?

Willy

Those are flames. If you put your hand up to the computer screen, you can feel the heat.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to willycube)
Post #: 1607
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 7:47:38 PM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline 		Yes, but what I meant is that in the table above you show the Axis as rolling the dice first, and then the allied.
So the results, if shown in the same order, should be : the result on the allied plane (from the axis roll) and then the result on the axis plane (from the allied roll).

They are simultaneous, but as the table above shows the axis first, it would be logical to show the allied plane first in the bottom display.


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1608
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 7:48:50 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: gridley

Don't forget round 1 is not on the screen. The screen starts at round 2 you would have to scroll up to see round 1.

OK, I did not notice that.
So the SBD-3 is in the right position.
There are just the Axis / Allies planes that are in reversed positions in the bottom display compared to the table above.

No.. The order is correct. The US is defending so it rolls its dice first. This means the Japanese units appear in the affected units table first.

Yes, the US is defending, so he rolls first.
So the table should show them rolling first. It looks like it show them as rolling second.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1609
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 7:56:41 PM   
willycube

 

Posts: 95
Joined: 1/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: willycube

The map above shows a plane over Brisbane on the left of the map and on the right of the map it looks like a flame on the same plane over Brisbane, has it been destroyed, what does that yellow mark mean?

Willy

Those are flames. If you put your hand up to the computer screen, you can feel the heat.


What a great sense of humor for an ex south Phila. guy, I liked you better when you were dry and morbid.

Willy

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1610
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/26/2009 9:08:21 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

ORIGINAL: Froonp


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: gridley

Don't forget round 1 is not on the screen. The screen starts at round 2 you would have to scroll up to see round 1.

OK, I did not notice that.
So the SBD-3 is in the right position.
There are just the Axis / Allies planes that are in reversed positions in the bottom display compared to the table above.

No.. The order is correct. The US is defending so it rolls its dice first. This means the Japanese units appear in the affected units table first.

Yes, the US is defending, so he rolls first.
So the table should show them rolling first. It looks like it show them as rolling second.

I had trouble with the table and decided that I would always show the Axis and then the Allied die rolls.

Who is doing what is extremely confusing when you are down in the depths of the code.

For instance, during a land combat resolution phase, the attacking player (phasing side) advances after combat and overruns some naval units. The "player to decide" changes to the player who controls the naval units and he excutes an overrun digression to rebase his naval units. While moving his naval units they enter a sea area where the phasing side can intercept them. The interception succeeds and a naval combat ensues. A naval air combat is chosen and one of the subphases of that is an air-to-air combat. The question is: which side is the attacking side in the air-to-air combat? The program figures this out, but when I was writing the code to build the table, I foulnd it much simlper to just always put the Axis die rolls in the odd rows and the Allies in the even rows.

By the way, I simplified my example enormously and left out a half dozen other places in that little sequence of play where the person who decides can change (e.g., naval air support, surprise points, choosing sea box sections included, ...).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1611
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 6:27:38 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Page 1 of 2.

I spent some time this afternoon spiffing up the Production form.

Here is the US at the start of the war. They have 10 build points available and their gearing limit is 1 per type - because they are still neutral.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1612
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 6:29:45 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline 		Page 2 of 2.

Germany just entered the war this turn, so they can build as many as they want - no gearing limits.

However they only have 16 build points, and look at all those lovely units they could build!




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1613
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 9:09:42 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here is the US at the start of the war. They have 10 build points available and their gearing limit is 1 per type - because they are still neutral.

During the first prod step of a scenario, the gearing limits are infinite IIRC.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1614
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 9:16:05 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here is the US at the start of the war. They have 10 build points available and their gearing limit is 1 per type - because they are still neutral.

During the first prod step of a scenario, the gearing limits are infinite IIRC.


From 13.6.6 :
******************************
Exceptions
On the first turn of any scenario or campaign there are no gearing limits.
Major powers are not subject to gearing limits on the turn that a major power declares war on it.
******************************

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1615
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 3:46:26 PM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline 		Also, should the US not have 11 build points on the first turn of a Global War game? They usually produce 10 and get an extra one from their trade with Japan. Unless they are saving a lot of oil, I suppose.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1616
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 4:14:12 PM   
micheljq


Posts: 791
Joined: 3/31/2008
From: Quebec
Status: offline 		NVM.

< Message edited by micheljq -- 4/27/2009 4:15:02 PM >

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 1617
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 4:55:00 PM   
caine

 

Posts: 94
Joined: 6/13/2002
From: Barcelona (Spain)
Status: offline 		Why forts are unlimited under the column available for US screenshot? They should not.

In GE screenshot there are no fort to be built !

Santi

(in reply to micheljq)
Post #: 1618
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 4:56:32 PM   
gridley

 

Posts: 126
Joined: 10/2/2006
From: Caledon
Status: offline 		Again, very nice form.

From your german screen, lets say I were to click build for a random mech unit. Then I were to change my mind and click unbuild. Then...change my mind again and decide I actually want a Mech Unit. The second time I click Build is it random again or do I get the same unit that was built initially?

'cause, you know, I don't trust anyone...especially my Buddies

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1619
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 4/27/2009 5:05:06 PM   
SamuraiProgrmmr

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline 		To be completely fair, would it not be best if the actual unit does not get chosen until the end of the selections?  (That is to say, when they can no longer be undone.)

This would prevent someone building a Mech, getting a crappy one, and saying 'I think I will build the armor after all'.

Just thinking out loud.....



_____________________________

Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?

(in reply to gridley)
Post #: 1620
Page:   <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design Page: <<   < prev  52 53 [54] 55 56   next >   >>
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

3.891