Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames



Message

Shannon V. OKeets -> Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 12:39:40 PM)

Here are the first 4 pages of the 5th tutorial.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/322869F80E424B958149C1A1256A56B8.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 12:41:58 PM)

I have switched around which colors will appear as backgrounds for each tutorial, but the color doesn't change within the tutorial - it is the same for all the pages.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/20739F0A71534711A17D0A1D1B185D3E.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 12:44:49 PM)

The unit data panels still have some problems. I am reluctant to make them larger (wider) but I might have to resort to that to have a display that is clean, orderly, and complete.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/80820C10B2BD46E5A9789B22DD6AF2ED.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 12:47:23 PM)

4th and last in the series.

Page 5 is more submarines; 6 is naval units transporting other unit types, 7 and 8 are convoy pipelines, 9, 10, 11, and 12 are task forces (groups of naval units).

[image]local://upfiles/16701/0BC2E6835BC44698A5B39FB271EEB73A.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 12:48:51 PM)

About Page 1 :
It can be bizarre to speak of a "weak defense" for a BB and the reverse for a CA.
It would be better to say that the BB has a low defense number, which means a very good resistance to damage, and on the contrary, a CA has a high defense factor, which means a low resistance to damage.



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 12:54:07 PM)

About Page 4, I feel that it would be better to first talk about normal submarines and in the next page about specialized submarines. It gives the feeling that specialized submarines are preponderant, and they are not. In a regulare WiF game, you only see a couple of Milchcow, Snorkel, Supply, and nearly never Walter or Missile subs.



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 12:57:33 PM)

Wouldn't it be good also to reminde the learning player of the scale of the units ?
That is, :

· 1 SCS or CV = 1 capital ship plus 4 to 6 DD.
· 1 SUB = 30 first line submarines.
· 1 TRS, 1 AMPH or 6 CP = 1 million tons of merchant shipping (100 to 300 ships of 3,000 to 10,000 tons).
. 1 ASW = around 5 to 20 DD/DE/corvette type units.
. 1 ASW-CV units = around 6 CVEs.



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 1:11:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here are the first 4 pages of the 5th tutorial.
[image]local://upfiles/16701/322869F80E424B958149C1A1256A56B8.jpg[/image]

About the ships' graphic as displayed on this screenshot :
I also remark with delight that the range & movement are both centered now, that's great [:)].
But, would it be possible to lower the ship's graphic a few pixels, so that it is more centered within the space left between the name, and the movement factor ? Even in the case of thename taking 2 lines, we can see here that there is room left below the graphic.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 1:18:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here are the first 4 pages of the 5th tutorial.
[image]local://upfiles/16701/322869F80E424B958149C1A1256A56B8.jpg[/image]

About the ships' graphic as displayed on this screenshot :
I also remark with delight that the range & movement are both centered now, that's great [:)].
But, would it be possible to lower the ship's graphic a few pixels, so that it is more centered within the space left between the name, and the movement factor ? Even in the case of thename taking 2 lines, we can see here that there is room left below the graphic.


As I mentioned when I said I was going to center the movement points, somewhere between 700 and 800 naval units now need to have their bitmap images tweaked. I have written a program to do that. It takes as input 3 #s: the unit #, pixels left/right, and pixels up/down, where left and up are entered as negative #s.

I'll be looking for volunteers someday to do that. Not today. I first want to redo the placement of the names that take two lines because they are too close together (on top of each other).



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 1:20:23 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

About Page 4, I feel that it would be better to first talk about normal submarines and in the next page about specialized submarines. It gives the feeling that specialized submarines are preponderant, and they are not. In a regulare WiF game, you only see a couple of Milchcow, Snorkel, Supply, and nearly never Walter or Missile subs.

Wait until you see the second page on submarines.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 1:21:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

About Page 1 :
It can be bizarre to speak of a "weak defense" for a BB and the reverse for a CA.
It would be better to say that the BB has a low defense number, which means a very good resistance to damage, and on the contrary, a CA has a high defense factor, which means a low resistance to damage.

Hmmm, I need to read the rules again.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 1:22:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Wouldn't it be good also to reminde the learning player of the scale of the units ?
That is, :

· 1 SCS or CV = 1 capital ship plus 4 to 6 DD.
· 1 SUB = 30 first line submarines.
· 1 TRS, 1 AMPH or 6 CP = 1 million tons of merchant shipping (100 to 300 ships of 3,000 to 10,000 tons).
. 1 ASW = around 5 to 20 DD/DE/corvette type units.
. 1 ASW-CV units = around 6 CVEs.


Maybe. But that seems like a lot of detail that isn't needed to play the game.



Greyshaft -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 2:25:45 PM)

I'm thinking it would be useful to somehow indicate the range of numbers to be expected for each factor within each class so that when someone sees an "5" attack strength they know it's weak for a battleship but fantastic for a cruiser. Yes, its more work for the design team and I don't know how or where the information would be presented but I think it would help new players get a better handle on the thousands of units they are playing with.



Greyshaft -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 2:29:26 PM)

In the last two submarines the data for range seems to be overwriting the following "ASW" text  [&:]



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 3:44:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

I'm thinking it would be useful to somehow indicate the range of numbers to be expected for each factor within each class so that when someone sees an "5" attack strength they know it's weak for a battleship but fantastic for a cruiser. Yes, its more work for the design team and I don't know how or where the information would be presented but I think it would help new players get a better handle on the thousands of units they are playing with.

Good idea.
I made it using MS Excel, as I have the database of all WiF FE counters, I filtered down to only those used in MWiF.
I transformed it in a JPG for seeing in this Forum.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/86677FEE6F3B4BCB84DA5E54E622C6D7.jpg[/image]



CBoehm -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 4:04:47 PM)

nice [:)] little table ...



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 7:39:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
I'm thinking it would be useful to somehow indicate the range of numbers to be expected for each factor within each class so that when someone sees an "5" attack strength they know it's weak for a battleship but fantastic for a cruiser. Yes, its more work for the design team and I don't know how or where the information would be presented but I think it would help new players get a better handle on the thousands of units they are playing with.


I will do a bit of this in the last 4 pages of this tutorial when I present task forces for 5 different nationalities.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 7:40:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

In the last two submarines the data for range seems to be overwriting the following "ASW" text  [&:]

I've commented on this several times - the UnitData panel has several problems.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 7:43:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft
I'm thinking it would be useful to somehow indicate the range of numbers to be expected for each factor within each class so that when someone sees an "5" attack strength they know it's weak for a battleship but fantastic for a cruiser. Yes, its more work for the design team and I don't know how or where the information would be presented but I think it would help new players get a better handle on the thousands of units they are playing with.

Good idea.
I made it using MS Excel, as I have the database of all WiF FE counters, I filtered down to only those used in MWiF.
I transformed it in a JPG for seeing in this Forum.

[image]local://upfiles/10447/86677FEE6F3B4BCB84DA5E54E622C6D7.jpg[/image]


Interesting, but way too much detail for the tutorials. And just think about what hasn't been mentioned in the tutorials so far.



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 8:04:13 PM)

quote:

Interesting, but way too much detail for the tutorials. And just think about what hasn't been mentioned in the tutorials so far.

I know, but you can pick only a few data of a few types of ships :
- A BB Surface factor is most of the time 5-9, and it's defense factor is most of the time 1-4.
- A CA Surface factor is most of the time 2-4, and it's defense factor is most of the time 5-7.

I did the same calculations for Land units and Air units.



Ballista -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 9:21:44 PM)

I think that's a good idea- especially for those who haven't played the game before (but also for those of us returning after a long hiatus)....



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 9:56:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Interesting, but way too much detail for the tutorials. And just think about what hasn't been mentioned in the tutorials so far.

I know, but you can pick only a few data of a few types of ships :
- A BB Surface factor is most of the time 5-9, and it's defense factor is most of the time 1-4.
- A CA Surface factor is most of the time 2-4, and it's defense factor is most of the time 5-7.

This can give quick judgements to new players :
A BB with a 10 Surface factor and with a 0 Defense factor is an ultra powerful BB, and there is nearly nothing better as a BB. A BB with a defense of 5 is not very protected, etc...
A CA with a 5 Surface Factor and 5 Defense factor is an ultra powerful CA, and there is nearly nothing better as a CA.

Not all data nor all ships are interesting to be put into those sorts of comments, only some are.



Greyshaft -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/23/2006 11:12:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
quote:

Interesting, but way too much detail for the tutorials. And just think about what hasn't been mentioned in the tutorials so far.

I know, but you can pick only a few data of a few types of ships :
- A BB Surface factor is most of the time 5-9, and it's defense factor is most of the time 1-4.
- A CA Surface factor is most of the time 2-4, and it's defense factor is most of the time 5-7.

I did the same calculations for Land units and Air units.

Yes, I was thinking that something about this level of simplicity would be good. It wouldn't have to be for all unit classes or all factors on those units. After all if I know that a BB surface factor ranges from 5-9 then I can probably guess that a CA surface factor slots in just under the lower end of that scale.



Zorachus99 -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/24/2006 6:43:40 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have switched around which colors will appear as backgrounds for each tutorial, but the color doesn't change within the tutorial - it is the same for all the pages.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/20739F0A71534711A17D0A1D1B185D3E.jpg[/image]


The images of the carrier planes are excellent. Carrier planes are able to land on smaller carriers throughout the war based on the year they were built. A carrier plane of size 2 in 1938 will land on a size 1 carrier in 1940 for example. Some carrier planes have three size changes.

My question is: Are you going to leave the original value (say 4) on the unit and let it land on a smaller carrier, or are you going to change the value of the plane size on the counter when appropriate?



stretch -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/24/2006 6:46:46 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

My question is: Are you going to leave the original value (say 4) on the unit and let it land on a smaller carrier, or are you going to change the value of the plane size on the counter when appropriate?



or make it an option. wait.. too many options already. My preference would be to change the counters but altering the counters during game play might not be something people like the idea of doing.



Zorachus99 -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/24/2006 6:48:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here are the first 4 pages of the 5th tutorial.
[image]local://upfiles/16701/322869F80E424B958149C1A1256A56B8.jpg[/image]

About the ships' graphic as displayed on this screenshot :
I also remark with delight that the range & movement are both centered now, that's great [:)].
But, would it be possible to lower the ship's graphic a few pixels, so that it is more centered within the space left between the name, and the movement factor ? Even in the case of thename taking 2 lines, we can see here that there is room left below the graphic.


It's not entirely clear the the second build cycle of a ship is Cst1+Cst2. It would make more sense - To me, to have the first and second cycle explicitly shown instead of making the player calculate the cost of the second cycle.



CBoehm -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/24/2006 6:58:12 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
It's not entirely clear the the second build cycle of a ship is Cst1+Cst2. It would make more sense - To me, to have the first and second cycle explicitly shown instead of making the player calculate the cost of the second cycle.


Its not ...and it is ...or else Im very sadly mistaken !
(if its the japanese CL thats confusing you ...yes it cost "0" for the 2. cycle ...! hmm thats pretty cheep for a 6-mover ...



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/24/2006 7:10:16 PM)

quote:

My question is: Are you going to leave the original value (say 4) on the unit and let it land on a smaller carrier, or are you going to change the value of the plane size on the counter when appropriate?

As it is now, the value on the counter is changing.
I see no reasons for it not to be that way.



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/24/2006 7:14:30 PM)

quote:

It's not entirely clear the the second build cycle of a ship is Cst1+Cst2. It would make more sense - To me, to have the first and second cycle explicitly shown instead of making the player calculate the cost of the second cycle.

The second build cycle of a ship is NOT Cst1+Cst2.
The first and second cycle ARE explicitly shown in the screenshot here.
CST 1 / CST 2 / TRNS are displayed in the detailled view.
Vittorio Veneto : 2 / 3 / 6

Where is the problem ?



Froonp -> RE: Tutorial #5 - Naval Units (10/24/2006 7:19:24 PM)

quote:

(if its the japanese CL thats confusing you ...yes it cost "0" for the 2. cycle ...! hmm thats pretty cheep for a 6-mover ...


Well, this is also a 8 defense ship, so he suffers the damage inflicted 80% of the time, whih is pretty deadly.

Anyway, this point is moot in 90% (maybe even 99%) of the cases of ships with a 2nd cycle cost of 0, because they are already inluded at setup. And as the second cycle cost is never used again after a ship is built, it is not a problem (The first cycle cost is also used to find out the number of BP needed to repair a ship -- the second cycle cost is only used to "repair" a ship that was bottomed in a port attack).



Page: [1] 2 3 4   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.609375