Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: caine

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: caine

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gridley

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: gridley

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: caine
Why forts are unlimited under the column available for US screenshot? They should not.

For generic unit types, MWIF does not have any limits imposed by available counters: convoys, pilots, factories, forts, ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: gridley

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

The actual unit is not selected until you click on OK - Done. You can mess around with build and Undo as much as you like.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: gridley

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

The actual unit is not selected until you click on OK - Done. You can mess around with build and Undo as much as you like.

Hey, I just got an idea.

Would it be possible to have 2 "OK - Done" buttons.
One that validate all the choices and actually select units, AND exit the form. It could be labelled : "OK, DONE".
One that validate all the choices and actually select units, AND DOES NOT exit the form. It could be labelled : "OK, I'm done, show me what I built".

Because it is a pain to be forced to go into the various pools after you have selected OK in the production form to actually see what you built (also, you can't go into the production form directly from the menu when you have exited it).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willycube

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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.

In the above illustration in round 3 it said the pilot was killed I would imagine the plane was lost to, but there are no destroyed axis planes just abort and cleared, now maybe the above is round two and round three is not shown, need some help on that one.

Willy

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

Might I ask why so much of the text is in light grey/pale blue? I have excellent eyesight and it is difficult even for me to read. In the pic above, the field in the middle left where it says Fighter Flying as fighter is an example of what I am talking about. That same color choice appears all over this form and others and I cringe at the thought of the many instances where I will have to deal with it.

mo reb

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

I am speaking of the Unit Data Panels. Any form that shows these have this hard to read text. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

mo reb

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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, ...).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

For MWIF I have redefined the 'attacker' in naval interception combat to be the side that provokes the combat; that is, the side that moved ships into the sea area.

This seems more logical to me given that naval interception combat can occur in some pretty strange places during the end-of-turn phases (e.g., naval units forced to rebase because of conquest).

I was also unhappy with the phasing side always being the 'attacker' when naval units from both sides might abort from a naval combat and have moving ships that 'provoke' a naval interception combat. For example, according to WIF FE, Ax and Al both abort from a naval combat and both are intercepted on their way back to port (in different sea areas), but the 'attacker' is always the phasing side, regardless of which side is moving and which side is intercepting. This is particularly difficult for me to swallow during a land movement phase where the naval interception sequence of events was initiated by an overrun.

I have documented this fully in Section 7 of the Players Manual.
---
This is all fairly minor stuff and extremely unlikely to occur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Also the gearing types should be clustered together - or can you click the headings to sort by that column?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

For MWIF I have redefined the 'attacker' in naval interception combat to be the side that provokes the combat; that is, the side that moved ships into the sea area.

This seems more logical to me given that naval interception combat can occur in some pretty strange places during the end-of-turn phases (e.g., naval units forced to rebase because of conquest).

I was also unhappy with the phasing side always being the 'attacker' when naval units from both sides might abort from a naval combat and have moving ships that 'provoke' a naval interception combat. For example, according to WIF FE, Ax and Al both abort from a naval combat and both are intercepted on their way back to port (in different sea areas), but the 'attacker' is always the phasing side, regardless of which side is moving and which side is intercepting. This is particularly difficult for me to swallow during a land movement phase where the naval interception sequence of events was initiated by an overrun.

I have documented this fully in Section 7 of the Players Manual.
---
This is all fairly minor stuff and extremely unlikely to occur.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Also the gearing types should be clustered together - or can you click the headings to sort by that column?

I doubt it.

I have little interest in providing a sort capability here. The form works well enough for showing you what is available. Certainly it is much better than what we had to work with when playing over the board.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).

Repair Pool and Construction Pool and be viewed by clicking on those items in the left-most column.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).

Repair Pool and Construction Pool and be viewed by clicking on those items in the left-most column.

Errh, sorry, which left column? Oh, you mean if you click on ships and subs?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

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, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

For MWIF I have redefined the 'attacker' in naval interception combat to be the side that provokes the combat; that is, the side that moved ships into the sea area.

This seems more logical to me given that naval interception combat can occur in some pretty strange places during the end-of-turn phases (e.g., naval units forced to rebase because of conquest).

I was also unhappy with the phasing side always being the 'attacker' when naval units from both sides might abort from a naval combat and have moving ships that 'provoke' a naval interception combat. For example, according to WIF FE, Ax and Al both abort from a naval combat and both are intercepted on their way back to port (in different sea areas), but the 'attacker' is always the phasing side, regardless of which side is moving and which side is intercepting. This is particularly difficult for me to swallow during a land movement phase where the naval interception sequence of events was initiated by an overrun.

I have documented this fully in Section 7 of the Players Manual.
---
This is all fairly minor stuff and extremely unlikely to occur.

I find it weird that a side aborting is considered attacker when they are intercepted just because they are the ones moving the ships into the sea area. Even more so when they are forced to rebase after being overrun. I would find it more easy to understand if the side initiating the search is considered the attacker rather than the one moving into the sea area.

This can become confusing in multiple sea combats. For example:
Phasing side moves to sea and is intercepted and is then the attacker.
Non phasing side aborts and is intercepted and phasing side is then defender.
Phasing side continues to move and is intercepted again and is again attacker.
Phasing side moves on. Ends move and searches in a sea and is attacker.
Non Phasing side aborts and is intercepted. Phasing side is then defender.


I am used to phasing side is attacker so I am comfortable with that even when it is combat in unusual places. But I suppose I can adapt to the change.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

I am speaking of the Unit Data Panels. Any form that shows these have this hard to read text. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

mo reb

I'll look at the color choices in the Unit Data panels. Those are all from CWIF - I don't think I have changed them very much, if at all.

Bold is always easier to read but it takes more room (which it has been pared down to the individual pixel in those forms). The other problem is that there are 6 different layouts for those forms, by branch of service and for showing summary statistics. I have reworked the layouts multiple times, so I won't be doing that again.

But I might be able to do something with the colors, ...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).

Repair Pool and Construction Pool and be viewed by clicking on those items in the left-most column.

Errh, sorry, which left column? Oh, you mean if you click on ships and subs?

If you look at the US example, you'll see the rows Naval Repair and Naval Construction.
===
You might also want to sort by cost or turns or a combination of things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

I am speaking of the Unit Data Panels. Any form that shows these have this hard to read text. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

mo reb

I'll look at the color choices in the Unit Data panels. Those are all from CWIF - I don't think I have changed them very much, if at all.

Bold is always easier to read but it takes more room (which it has been pared down to the individual pixel in those forms). The other problem is that there are 6 different layouts for those forms, by branch of service and for showing summary statistics. I have reworked the layouts multiple times, so I won't be doing that again.

But I might be able to do something with the colors, ...

The form looks very good as does MWiF in general. I just wasnt sure if the text was so pale in the UDP because of some in-game circumstances and that is why I asked why you did it that way. I don't think that it needs to be in bold and I do like how it is of a lighter shade than the classifications but, to me they are indeed too light.

Seems really trivial with all the work you have before you but thought it worth mentioning.


mo reb