RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (Full Version)

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



Message


lomyrin -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/17/2006 8:23:25 PM)

This setup table looks very good and indeed includes data that CWiF could not provide.

It gives a nice clean overview for the player to make his decisions.

Lars




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/17/2006 8:24:02 PM)

Here is what the new MWIF setup form looks like.

I have moved one of the 8 fighters into the reserve pool by first selecting it and then clicking on the Res button (2 mouse clicks).

I selected a second fighter and placed it on the map (3 mouse clicks); the form does not disappear, but remains "on top" and visible.

I selected two more fighters (1 mouse click each), and chose one of them for placement on the map; it is now "In Stack" (1 click) and ready to be placed on the map with a single mouse click - just select the hex.

You can undo a selection by holding down the control key while left clicking on a selected unit. That would change the numbers underneath the fighters from "1 out of 4" to "2 out of 5". You can get the unit I placed in reserve back by doing a control click on the Res button - that brings back all the air units from the reserve pool and the numbers would then be 2 out of 6.

I have selected only the "artillery units" for the land portion of the display. A single mouse click will change their status to "In Stack" and a second mouse click on a hex will place them on the map.

Note that the air unit already on the map has a green outline. That indicates it can be repositioned. All the units that are placed on the map can be repositioned whenever you want. You do not have to wait for the setup form to be empty of units.

Once all the units have been transferred from the setup form to the map, the setup panel disappears and the player can reposition the units - yet again. You can replace INF corps with Siberians and break down corps into divisions - just as it was done in CWIF.

The only thing I haven't implemented is the return of units that are placed on the map to the setup form. You might want to do that with the air units so you can throw them into the air reserve.

I also want to provide a button for "Start all over - I have screwed this up badly". Most of the code to support that feature is in place.

My point here is that setting up units is no longer painful - as it was in CWIF. Indeed, I have tried my best to make it a pleasure to set up your units at the start of a scenario. You can position the HQ's first and then assign them each an anti-aircraft gun. You can pick out the garrisons for holding frontline cities. You can assemble overrun stacks with armor, mech, and your best division. Everything is done with single left mouse clicks and control left mouse clicks 'undo' the selection.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/7D9C12EF1D2E42B3A38BA1B65F3CADDE.jpg[/image]




ieamlot -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/17/2006 8:28:32 PM)

Is there going to be an option to take a pre-defined setup & scrappig of units for newbies? i.e. we can just get on with the game rather than setting up all the units first.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/17/2006 8:41:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ieamlot

Is there going to be an option to take a pre-defined setup & scrappig of units for newbies? i.e. we can just get on with the game rather than setting up all the units first.


The scrap screen includes a "Load Defaults" button. Click on that and then click on "OK Done" and scrapping units is complete. There is also the option "Scrap Units". If that is NOT selected, then scrapping units is handled automatically, without input from the player, throughout the entire game.

Your phrase "get on with the game" without "setting up the units first" will strike some players as strange. I can see providing a saved game that starts at the point in the sequence of play just as the first player decides on his Action (e.g., Land, Naval, Combined). You will have a static set of units (always the same ones) and several decisions will have already been made on the player's behalf. But starting the game there is not a problem.

After the first 2 times you play the game from this saved game position, I suspect you will want to set up your own units. The decisions that were made on your behalf will be aggravating because you will find something 'wrong' with them.

Nonetheless, givng a new player the ability to jump right into the thick of the movement/combat is a good idea. Thanks for suggesting it. I will be sure to provide it.




ieamlot -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/17/2006 8:46:26 PM)

Thank you, it felt quite daunting to set up the vast amount of counters and decide on which units to scrap without nowing what i am scrapping and if they would be useful during the game. I am sure as a fairly experienced wargamer, computer and table top, that i and others in my position will feel happier going to sleep at night knowing that these decisions will be made for me to start with.




Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/24/2006 11:07:25 PM)

quote:

My point here is that setting up units is no longer painful - as it was in CWIF. Indeed, I have tried my best to make it a pleasure to set up your units at the start of a scenario. You can position the HQ's first and then assign them each an anti-aircraft gun. You can pick out the garrisons for holding frontline cities. You can assemble overrun stacks with armor, mech, and your best division. Everything is done with single left mouse clicks and control left mouse clicks 'undo' the selection.

Seems good [:D]. Thanks for sharing.

Will there be some "shading / lightening" of the map colors for better showing the possible hexes for setup ?
Same for movement, will there be some "shading / lightening" of the possible hexes for movement ?

Thanks




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/24/2006 11:41:59 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Will there be some "shading / lightening" of the map colors for better showing the possible hexes for setup ?
Same for movement, will there be some "shading / lightening" of the possible hexes for movement ?

Thanks


On the wish list for MWIF product 1. I need to get the rest of the map and unit depictions finalized first. I also want to make the movement of naval units into sea boxes a reality.

In other words, I want to have a solid understanding what the map will look like before shading it, ... before shading it. I also want to understand what the placement/movement possibilities are for all unit types: land, naval, and air. That will let me understand what needs to be shaded. One of the thoughts I had on this was to show how many units can go in a hex - especially useful for air units.




Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/24/2006 11:54:11 PM)

quote:

One of the thoughts I had on this was to show how many units can go in a hex - especially useful for air units.

Yes, very good idea !




YohanTM2 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/25/2006 1:45:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

One of the thoughts I had on this was to show how many units can go in a hex - especially useful for air units.

Yes, very good idea !


I hope that will be a toggle Steve? Don't want the map looking too cluttered.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (2/25/2006 2:21:16 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

One of the thoughts I had on this was to show how many units can go in a hex - especially useful for air units.

Yes, very good idea !


I hope that will be a toggle Steve? Don't want the map looking too cluttered.


All the overlays (e.g., flags, weather) are controlled by toggle switches.

Right now shading the map to indicate legal hexes is all in the vague idea stage. I try not to form any clear images until I have gathered as many possibilities as I can. Then I like to list advantages and disadvantages for each possbility. Shorten the list, see what others think, narrow the choice down to 2 or 3, flesh them out some more, make a final decision on design. See how the design turns out.

As I said earlier, there are some missing pieces of the puzzle I want to have defined before starting on designing this.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/15/2006 10:03:16 PM)

I have been taking the CWIF interface apart so that I can reassemble it in different ways. For you technical types out there, that means converting from MDI to SDI.

The effect is that each form is separate from the other, similar to how your screen looks when you have several different applications running at once.

At this point I am open to your suggestions as to how the pieces should be reassembled. The main component parts are the detailed map (which acn be made to fill the screen), the global map for navigating about the world quickly (CTRL G brings that screen up on top of whatever else in being displayed), the main window which contains a menu bar across the top with a host of drop down menus (save/restore, help, information screens, tools, etc.), an icon bar for the toggle switches (placed at the top of main form currently), and an information bar about the current hex/turn/weather etc. (placed at the bottom of the main form presently).

How would you like these arranged? What control would you like over them?

Here is a screen shot of some of the form scattered about.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/411D8726AD234BA59746C4CB140A4311.jpg[/image]




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/15/2006 10:07:02 PM)

There are a lot more forms that can be displayed. Indeed, you could have 2 detailed maps displayed concurrently to view (say) London and Cairo in different screens.

This screen shot shows the information bar at the bottom.

I have a lot more ideas about this but right now I am more interestied in learning about your ideas.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/4A38106EEDCA4B48BA603F83339B7560.jpg[/image]




Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/15/2006 10:52:32 PM)

Well, I for one like to put the Setup dialog on the bottom of the screen, on the top of the Unit Details box, but shifted to the right as much as my screen allows, so that I can actually see the unit box (so that I know the units that are in stacks of units).
I also like to have the main map in the total width of the screen, with the global map in the bottom right corner if possible.

Otherwise, I like the menus & toolbars on the top, and the status bar in the bottom, pretty standard.




lomyrin -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/15/2006 11:19:40 PM)

I agree with Patrice's wishes.

Perhaps from using CWiF for a long time that feels comfortable. It really is a pretty clean approach that also shows a lot of the information pertinent to playing the game without having to dig into hidden sreeens or extra windows th access needed data.

Lars




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/16/2006 4:26:17 AM)

One of the changes I am planning on is to make the unit details box (that large, empty, white box on the setup screen) a separate little window/form. It contains all the details about the unit currently under the cursor. I am thinking of separating it so the players can put it whereever they like on the screen or remove it entirely. That will also make the setup panel much smaller. Then I will give the players the ability to resize the setup panel to make it wider (so more units are visible) - or smaller.

The units details box appears on a lot of forms (most of them, in fact). By making it separate, the players can have it always appear in the same place on the screen AND I can either make the forms smaller or use the extra space on each form for other items.




c92nichj -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/16/2006 5:11:25 AM)

Not sure if this suggestion is achievable with reasonable developing effort, but Iwuld like to see less of unused space on the screen, with unused space I mean title bars empty tool bars scrollbars frames etc.

I think someone made the same suggestion a while ago





Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/16/2006 7:06:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: c92nichj
Not sure if this suggestion is achievable with reasonable developing effort, but Iwuld like to see less of unused space on the screen, with unused space I mean title bars empty tool bars scrollbars frames etc.

I think someone made the same suggestion a while ago


Yes. And that is one reason I am disassembling the main form/screen.

I expect the tool bar and the basic information bar to no longer be bars but rather panels. The panels would not have unused space unless it were deemed appropriate. They could be moved about on the screen (repositioned at will) and would not run the full width of the screen.

By appropriate use of white space I mean that things should not be too congested/cramped and similar items shuold be grouped together. For example, in the setup panel, I have the buttons for air and land unit subsets with some room between them so they are easier to read and click on. I think the buttons on the tools bar should be grouped too. Right now there is a group way to the left and a few on the right/middle.

If these were detached, the tool bar could be placed alongside the menu bar - as as extension and to the right of the menu bar items.

Separating and/or regrouping the information bar items should give the player more flexibility. At the moment I am not sure if it is possible, but it would make me happy if I could find a way that the player could make all these items be placed in a vertical column. Ideally that would let the player have a square shaped detailed map to work with rather than a rectangle that is wider than it is high.

But more ideas from everyone would be great. What do you like/dislike from the way other war games present maps and information?

I am going to go back and reread all of the earlier posts in this thread (again) to refresh my memory. Because some readers have only started reading this forum recently, I want to be sure they have a chance to put in their 2 cents worth too.




Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/16/2006 11:54:32 PM)

quote:

One of the changes I am planning on is to make the unit details box (that large, empty, white box on the setup screen) a separate little window/form. It contains all the details about the unit currently under the cursor. I am thinking of separating it so the players can put it whereever they like on the screen or remove it entirely.

I think this will be a good thing.
I never was happy that it was unmovable and non resizable.
If it is movable and resizable, everyone will be able to tailor it at he needs.

quote:

That will also make the setup panel much smaller. Then I will give the players the ability to resize the setup panel to make it wider (so more units are visible) - or smaller.

Good too.
Depending on the screen and resolution used (and taste), each player can have different needs for those boxes.




amwild -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/17/2006 3:14:03 PM)

Steve,

Whatever forms you have, add an option so that the edges and corners of forms will snap to one-another and to the edge of the screen and/or desktop. This means that forms can be moved and resized more easily without overlapping or without narrow, useless spaces left between them.

By snapping, I mean that when an edge of one form is brought near (say 5 pixels) another form or the edge of the screen or desktop, it will jump so that it lines up exactly with the other object, unless the user continues to move it further from the object in question. Also, when sizing, snap sizing to the height/width of immediately adjacent forms.

In games with a lot of forms, I spend too much time rearranging/resizing/aligning the forms and not enough time playing. A Snapping option will speed this process, and leave more time for playing.

Just my two cents worth.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/17/2006 8:40:55 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild
Steve,

Whatever forms you have, add an option so that the edges and corners of forms will snap to one-another and to the edge of the screen and/or desktop. This means that forms can be moved and resized more easily without overlapping or without narrow, useless spaces left between them.

By snapping, I mean that when an edge of one form is brought near (say 5 pixels) another form or the edge of the screen or desktop, it will jump so that it lines up exactly with the other object, unless the user continues to move it further from the object in question. Also, when sizing, snap sizing to the height/width of immediately adjacent forms.

In games with a lot of forms, I spend too much time rearranging/resizing/aligning the forms and not enough time playing. A Snapping option will speed this process, and leave more time for playing.

Just my two cents worth.


Good ideas. I will add them to the list of things I am considering. Thanks.

Having form A match the size of form B when it attaches to it (e.g., the same height when attached to the side), might not be desireable in all situations. For instance, there might be 2 or 3 smaller forms that you want to position adjacent to a larger form. I envision a column the height of the full screen (form A) and then 3 forms (B, C, D) 1/3 the height of the screen attached to the right side of form A such that B is on top, C in the middle , and D on the bottom. Autosizing would make that difficult to achieve.

I am thinking of letting the player position forms in corners or on sides (top, left, right, bottom). That way you could put things off to the sides and keep the center clear for your main activity at the time. Of course, the other alternative is to let the form "float free" and be positioned anywhere on the screen. If a form were 'anchored' to a side (say the top), then the player could move it left and right without breaking the lock on the top of the screen. I think this capability might resolve a lot of the problems you described - though maybe not all.

Presently, I am still in a very "open to ideas" design phase for overall screen layout. I had been willing to stay with CWIF's original design but I found it too restrictive. So, I am exploring possibilities. I have made no firm decisions yet and would like to learn more about other problems to avoid - such as the one described in your post.




Ballista -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/18/2006 11:57:11 PM)

I like the idea of being able to customize the screens as desired (which ones displayed and where etc). Can the settings be saved and recalled (by player maybe) for those of us having 3 or more players playing the game (e.g. I like my windows I need up different from another player on my side) ? Even when playing solitaire- it would be nice to recall the screens and setting based on the player activated (e.g. Italians will default differently from the Germans and Japanese usually). Its not really essential, but would be a nice feature....




Ballista -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/19/2006 12:02:52 AM)

.. As an aside, while we are on the interface, would it be possible to integrate a simple little notepad (maybe on a player basis) in order to jot down notes for future reference (real important when time between gaming sessions is extensive), especially for the CW/US and Japan. Currently I open notepad and save it that way for each side. It would be nice to have an integrated simple notebook (a window like this reply window for example) that you can put notes down on (maybe with tabs for the powers of that side and inaccessable to the other side). Just another nicety I think would be useful.....




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/19/2006 12:51:48 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ballista
I like the idea of being able to customize the screens as desired (which ones displayed and where etc). Can the settings be saved and recalled (by player maybe) for those of us having 3 or more players playing the game (e.g. I like my windows I need up different from another player on my side) ? Even when playing solitaire- it would be nice to recall the screens and setting based on the player activated (e.g. Italians will default differently from the Germans and Japanese usually). Its not really essential, but would be a nice feature....


Yes. I am undecided whether the player interface configurations (what and how you arrange forms on the screen) should be associated with the player (P) or the major power/country (C). One argument is that each major power will want things slightly different while the other side of the argument is that most of the layout will depend on what a player likes to see where. If I go with C (by major power), then when a player decides to make a change to his basic layout, he will have to repeat it for each of the major powers he controls. If I go with P, then forms for some major powers will be silly for others. For example, when playing the USA & China, the US will be very interested in the carrier fleets and the Chinese somewhat less so (i.e., not at all).

Currently I am trying to come up with a hybrid design that accommodates both - not easy to do though.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/19/2006 12:59:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Ballista
.. As an aside, while we are on the interface, would it be possible to integrate a simple little notepad (maybe on a player basis) in order to jot down notes for future reference (real important when time between gaming sessions is extensive), especially for the CW/US and Japan. Currently I open notepad and save it that way for each side. It would be nice to have an integrated simple notebook (a window like this reply window for example) that you can put notes down on (maybe with tabs for the powers of that side and inaccessable to the other side). Just another nicety I think would be useful.....


This came up before and I have the same opinion now. Especially if you read your own post closely, you'll see the strength of my logic here.

Taking notes will vary greatly from player to player. Each person will be use to certain editing/database systems and features. If I were to try to build in a capability, it would quickly grow into its own little application. Unless I decided to just stop adding the features people will continue to request. Rather than even begin to enter into that task I will just say "No, not part of the product." I have set MWIF up to run as a Windows application, so you can have any of the programs you are use to, running when playing MWIF.

[Though running a lot of applications simultaneously has caused problems for at least one beta tester: MS Word and Excel concurrently with MWIF - with insufficicent system resources.]




amwild -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/19/2006 2:22:25 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Having form A match the size of form B when it attaches to it (e.g., the same height when attached to the side), might not be desireable in all situations. For instance, there might be 2 or 3 smaller forms that you want to position adjacent to a larger form. I envision a column the height of the full screen (form A) and then 3 forms (B, C, D) 1/3 the height of the screen attached to the right side of form A such that B is on top, C in the middle , and D on the bottom. Autosizing would make that difficult to achieve.

I am thinking of letting the player position forms in corners or on sides (top, left, right, bottom). That way you could put things off to the sides and keep the center clear for your main activity at the time. Of course, the other alternative is to let the form "float free" and be positioned anywhere on the screen. If a form were 'anchored' to a side (say the top), then the player could move it left and right without breaking the lock on the top of the screen. I think this capability might resolve a lot of the problems you described - though maybe not all.

Presently, I am still in a very "open to ideas" design phase for overall screen layout. I had been willing to stay with CWIF's original design but I found it too restrictive. So, I am exploring possibilities. I have made no firm decisions yet and would like to learn more about other problems to avoid - such as the one described in your post.


When I said snap to size, I meant that if you are (for example) manually increasing the height of a sizeable form that is next to (i.e. snapped to) another form, when the two heights are nearly equal (or the corner being sized is near the corner of the adjcacent form), the form that is being sized would snap its corner to that of the immediately adjacent form. This does not limit the size of the form, rather it encourages forms to be the same size or to have aligned edges. Perhaps I am just a neat freak...





mlees -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/19/2006 5:40:37 PM)

I like the idea of moddable player interface configurations. (CWiF had a player associated system, but seemed to contribute to game instability.)

In regards to whether they should be associated by player or major power I have no preference. However, if you give the players the ability to "save" different configs, then they can make different setups for the countries under their control (with the ability to name these saved config files for ease of recall).

Also, is there a toggle to "lock" the configuration? Many games are now coming with configurable UI's, and after spending ten minutes grooming a display, I get annoyed at myself when I misclick and goof up the displays. For the love of all that is holy (and my blood pressure), "lockable" displays! (Pleading deliberately overplayed for sheer self-entertainment value only.)




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/19/2006 7:18:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amwild

When I said snap to size, I meant that if you are (for example) manually increasing the height of a sizeable form that is next to (i.e. snapped to) another form, when the two heights are nearly equal (or the corner being sized is near the corner of the adjcacent form), the form that is being sized would snap its corner to that of the immediately adjacent form. This does not limit the size of the form, rather it encourages forms to be the same size or to have aligned edges. Perhaps I am just a neat freak...


Ok




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/19/2006 8:14:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
I like the idea of moddable player interface configurations. (CWiF had a player associated system, but seemed to contribute to game instability.)

In regards to whether they should be associated by player or major power I have no preference. However, if you give the players the ability to "save" different configs, then they can make different setups for the countries under their control (with the ability to name these saved config files for ease of recall).

Also, is there a toggle to "lock" the configuration? Many games are now coming with configurable UI's, and after spending ten minutes grooming a display, I get annoyed at myself when I misclick and goof up the displays. For the love of all that is holy (and my blood pressure), "lockable" displays! (Pleading deliberately overplayed for sheer self-entertainment value only.)


I am getting a slightly better picture of this now.

CWIF used the word configuration for defining which forms were saved and their position on the screen. Configuration is a fine word but it has been usurped by many other applications and using it can interfere with communication because of all the baggage associated with the other definitions. So, I am going to use the phrase "MWIF layout" instead. To me MWIF layout describes what forms appear on the screen, their size and position.

Typically, there will be:
(1) A Main form which has the priamry menu bar at the top. Closing the main form closes the application, though the player is asked to confirm before the program goes away.

(2) A Detailed map which is used for moving units around and which serves as the primary form for playing the game.

(3) A Global map which is kept in the background but can be brought to the foreground with a single keystroke. It is used for quick navigation around the world. The detailed map is linked to the global map so changing the cursor position on one automatically changes it on the other.

(4) An Informtaion bar that displays the turn, current hex number, and other details about what is currently happening.

(5) A Tool bar which contains toggles for the detailed map and a host of other items that facilitate playing the game.

(6) Additional Detailed maps. Only one of the detailed maps is linked to the global map at any one time. All the detailed maps are equal as far as the program is concerned, but just one of them is linked to the global map (which one can be changed whenever desired).

(7) Other information forms.

---

I am thinking in terms of one or more default MWIF layouts being associated with a player's name. By necessity, these will be somewhat generic since they could be applied to all major powers. However, the default layout will get the number of forms, their position, and their size correct for how you like to play the game. Some of the details may be off somewhat since one-size-fits-all is unlikely to work given the diversity of the major powers. The player can invoke a default layout whenever he so desires and apply it to all the major powers (say when starting a new game) or to only the current major power (when you want a fresh start on the MWIF layout during the middle of a game).

In addition, there are country specific layouts associated with the player + country. One of these is current for each major power when playing the game. I see these as having country specific map characteristics: portion of map in view, zoom level (1-8), unit/counter resolution (high/medium/low), toggle switches, etcetera. The reason I say there may be several is that the USA player might want: East Coast USA, West Coast USA, Western Europe, North Africa, Central Pacific, and even more different layouts at his fingertips.

There is overlap here with a design feature that was discussed months ago, and to which I am still committed: Saved Map Views. By saved map views I mean the ability to associate a name with a particular detailed map view. A list of all the named views which have been saved will appear on the screen and can be clicked on for instant transformation of the current detailed map. My purpose here is to reduce my own frustration when playing the game. As the German, I want to be able to jump about and analyze portions of my position every impulse. It is tedious to keep scrolling the map from north to south in Russia and then going back to the homeland to check on any mischief that the British have gotten up to. How sweet it would be to simply have a single mouse click restore the same map view I was using last impulse/turn.

The overlap between MWIF layouts and Saved Map Views should be obvious, so I will only mention how they are different. Layouts apply to all the forms on a screen. Saved Map Views apply to only a single detailed map.

In summary, I see the player having:

MWIF Layouts: default(s)/generic(s) for each player and major power specific (multiple possible) for each player.

Saved Map Views: as many as your little heart desires (no extra charge).

---
I have gone into a lot of detail here because I am presently writing the code for these - replacing the CWIF code for configurations. Crucial for that task is defining what data will be stored when and where. If you have any comments on any of the above, now is the time to tell me about them.




mlees -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/19/2006 9:21:04 PM)

Hehe. Despite your attempt to be clear, I am still dumb as a "tree stump with glasses".

I followed you all the way up to "Saved Map Views. By saved map views I mean the ability to associate a name with a particular detailed map view."

Please remember, my only experience has been with CWiF.

In CWiF, if I recall correctly, there was only one Detailed Map view, the Global view (which I used to "jump" to locations to be displayed on the Detailed Map) up and to the right of the detailed map, and a map with a "zoomed out" view, similar to the Detailed Map view, but down and to the right of the Detailed map. (I ignored this third map view.)

Is this third map view what you are calling "#6: Additional Detail Maps"?

Are you saying that you can have several "Additional Detail Maps" in layered windows, each focused on different theatres, and can be used to "jump" the Main detailed map to?

And this setup of the "Additional Detail Maps" (number of windows, window sizes, and area of focus) are what are going to be the "saved map views"?




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/19/2006 9:56:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mlees
Hehe. Despite your attempt to be clear, I am still dumb as a "tree stump with glasses".

I followed you all the way up to "Saved Map Views. By saved map views I mean the ability to associate a name with a particular detailed map view."

Please remember, my only experience has been with CWiF.

In CWiF, if I recall correctly, there was only one Detailed Map view, the Global view (which I used to "jump" to locations to be displayed on the Detailed Map) up and to the right of the detailed map, and a map with a "zoomed out" view, similar to the Detailed Map view, but down and to the right of the Detailed map. (I ignored this third map view.)

Is this third map view what you are calling "#6: Additional Detail Maps"?

Are you saying that you can have several "Additional Detail Maps" in layered windows, each focused on different theatres, and can be used to "jump" the Main detailed map to?

And this setup of the "Additional Detail Maps" (number of windows, window sizes, and area of focus) are what are going to be the "saved map views"?


CWIF actually let you have multiple detailed maps visible at once. There was a menu item for "New Map" or some such label. Indeed, the default was for there to be 2 detailed maps shown on the opening screen.

But that is all beside the point of your question.

Working with just one detailed map on screen and a list of Saved Map Views (SMVs), you click on one of the SMVs and the detailed map restores the detailed map to the way it looked when you saved it. Now that is not precisely accurate, for units might have been moved around since then. But the idea is that clicking on a SMV sets the hex in the upper left corner to match what it was when you saved the view, the zoom level matches, all the toggle switches match, and so on. For example, as the Commonwealth you might have a SMV for London, one for the western Mediterranean, one for the eastern Mediterranean, one for India, and others for the other member nations of the Commonwealth. Instead of using the global map to reposition the detailed map, and then adjusting it so the zoom level and center hex are exactly where you want them, you just click on a SMV and Voila - you have arrived!

To continue the above example, the Commonwealth might have several different SMVs of London: (1) for conducting the naval blockade of the Baltic, (2) for strategic bombing Germany, (3) for protecting convoys in the Atlantic, and (4) for reinforcing the Mediterranean. They would all include London in the detailed map but the zoom level would be different and London would be in different corners of the detailed map, depending on whether you want to focus on operations east, west, north, or south of London.

The purpose of all this is to remove the tedium of setting up/adjusting the detailed map for each theater of operations/decision and replace it with single mouse clicks.




Page: <<   < prev  8 9 [10] 11 12   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.390625