RE: Memo (Full Version)

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



Message

Zorachus99 -> RE: Memo (5/13/2008 6:19:42 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Frankly, modifying the names of the units in the CSV files seems like opening a can of worms to me, because there are names that are already quite long (XXVII, XXVI, XXXIX, LXXXVII... there are scores of them), and those names are displayed on the counters themselves. So changing the names in the CSV and adding them 5-6 letters will cause display problems on the counters.

Those names might be used elsewhere inthe games, and I don't think that increasing their length of 5-6 letters is a good idea.


It doesn't add clarification to say LXXVII Inf?
or
XXVII Mot?

Changing 2 to 2nd Arm is great IMHO.

I'm willing to review the changes to verify the aesthetics of the units as drawn. Ironically many of the units already have specialized names that don't need changing.

Anyway whatever Steve decides.



composer99 -> RE: Memo (5/13/2008 6:28:08 PM)

Throwing in my two cents: I would definitely like to see the ground strike results include the generic unit type of the units getting struck. For the example ground strike featuring the armour & the Katyusha we would see "2 Armor". So the format for the target unit would be <Unit Name> <Unit Type>.

Even with corps like LXXXVII, tacking on the unit type (so it looks like, say, LXXXVII Infantry) does not seem to me to be too much elongation.

I don't think that this would require modifying CSVs, since each unit's generic type is part of its extant data.



Froonp -> RE: Memo (5/13/2008 7:01:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
It doesn't add clarification to say LXXVII Inf?
or
XXVII Mot?

Yes, I am not discussing that. I only say that MOT is already in the CSV, it is the type.
So the Type could be added in the form using that information that already exist in the CSV, so that it looks better, but not the ID changed, otherwise you will have MOT both in the ID and in the type.
And as I said, adding MOT in the ID, or "nd MOT", will print that on the counter, which will be too long.
Only using the type, that already exist, and displaying it in the Form, should be enough to have the extra information we want.



Froonp -> RE: Memo (5/13/2008 7:06:30 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

Throwing in my two cents: I would definitely like to see the ground strike results include the generic unit type of the units getting struck. For the example ground strike featuring the armour & the Katyusha we would see "2 Armor". So the format for the target unit would be <Unit Name> <Unit Type>.

This is what I propose.

quote:

Even with corps like LXXXVII, tacking on the unit type (so it looks like, say, LXXXVII Infantry) does not seem to me to be too much elongation.

I agree. The form seems able to have those 4-5 extra letters.

quote:

I don't think that this would require modifying CSVs, since each unit's generic type is part of its extant data.

Yes.
Let's take an example.
This is the US XVIII PARA Corps :
2029,2,11,XVIII,,1942,0,6,3,0,1,0,,0,,,,,

2029 is the ID.
2 is the type, here 2 is a PARA Corps.
11 is the country, here the USA.
XVIII is the displayed name. If you add "rd PARA" here, the total name will be too long on the counter.
You just need to add the type field to the form to have the "PARA" information.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (5/13/2008 7:54:19 PM)

The form does not really have that much extra room available in its width. Probably one of the longer names is the railway gun shown in the screen shot (800 mm Gustav/Dora), but there are also some heavy American bombers that have long names too as I recall - perhaps even longer.

And the unit type names can be very long. Mot. Heavy Anti-Air being an especially bad case.

Here is the complete list, including a smattering of other string constants used in the program:
================
// ****************************************************************************
// Unit type strings.
// ****************************************************************************
rs1HexsideFort = '1-Hexside Fort';
rs2HexsideFort = '2-Hexside Fort';
rs3HexsideFort = '3-Hexside Fort';
rsABomb = 'A-Bomb';
rsAircraftCarrier = 'Aircraft Carrier';
rsAir = 'Air';
rsAirborne = 'Airborne';
rsAirCav = 'Air Cav';
rsAirLanding = 'Air Landing';
rsAirTransport = 'Air Transport';
rsAmphibious = 'Amphibious';
rsAntiAircraft = 'Anti-Aircraft';
rsAntiTank = 'Anti-Tank';
rsArmor = 'Armor';
rsArmorDiv = 'Armor Div';
rsArmoredMarine = 'Armored Marine';
rsArmoredParatroop = 'Armored Paratroop';
rsArmorHQ = 'Armor HQ';
rsArtillery = 'Artillery';
rsASWCarrier = 'ASW Carrier';
rsASWEscort = 'ASW Escort';
rsAtomicBomb = 'Atomic Bomb';
rsAuxiliaryCruiser = 'Auxiliary Cruiser';
rsBattleship = 'Battleship';
rsBombarding = 'Bombarding';
rsBombingTarget = 'Target';
rsBuildPoints = 'Build Points';
rsSettingUpCountry = 'SettingUp %s';
rsBlue = 'Blue';
rsCaptured = 'Captured';
rsCarrier = 'Carrier';
rsCarrierAir = 'Carrier Air';
rsCarrierPlane = 'Carrier Plane';
rsCavalry = 'Cavalry';
rsCavalryDiv = 'Cavalry Div';
rsCityBasedVolunteer = 'City Based Volunteers';
rsConquered = 'Conquered';
rsConvoy = 'Convoy';
rsCruiser = 'Cruiser';
rsDamagedForcedAbort = 'Damaged/Aborting';
rsDamagedOilResource = 'Damaged Oil Resource';
rsDamagedOilRes = 'Damaged Oil';
rsDefected = 'Defected';
rsDeGaulle = 'De Gaulle';
rsDisorganized = 'Disorganized';
rsDoubled = 'Doubled';
rsDoubledEngineer = 'Doubled Eng';
rsDoubledOffHQ = 'Doubled Off HQ';
rsDoubledOffHQEngineer = 'Doubled Off HQ Eng';
rsEmergencySupply = 'Emer Sup';
rsEmergencySupplyEmergencySupplyHQ = 'Emer Sup/Emer Sup HQ';
rsEmergencySupplyHQ = 'Emer Sup HQ';
rsHQSupply = 'HQ Supply Link';
rsEnemy ='Enemy';
rsEngineer = 'Engineer';
rsEngineerDiv = 'Engineer Div';
rsFactory = 'Factory';
rsFactoryRepair = 'Factory Repair';
rsFieldArtillery = 'Field Artillery';
rsFighter = 'Fighter';
rsFirstCycle = 'First Cycle';
rsFlying = 'Flying';
rsForcedAbort = 'Aborting';
rsFort = 'Fort';
rsFriendly ='Friendly';
rsFrogmen = 'Frogmen';
rsGarrison = 'Garrison';
rsGreen = 'Green';
rsHalfLoaded = #189' Loaded';
rsHalfTransported = #189' Transported';
rsHeavyAntiAir = 'Heavy Anti-Air';
rsInfantry = 'Infantry';
rsInfantryDiv = 'Infantry Div';
rsInfantryHQ = 'Infantry HQ';
rsInitiate = 'Initiate';
rsIsolated = 'Isolated';
rsLandBomber = 'Land Bomber';
rsLandAir = 'Land Air';
rsLanded = 'Landed';
rsLangley = 'Langley';
rsLeader = 'Leader';
rsLightAircraftCarrier = 'Lgt Aircraft Carrier';
rsLightAntiAir = 'Light Anti-Air';
rsLightCarrier = 'Light Carrier';
rsLightCruiser = 'Light Cruiser';
rsLiner = 'Liner';
rsLoaded = 'Loaded';
rsLoan = 'Loan';
rsMarine = 'Marine';
rsMarineDiv = 'Marine Div';
rsMarineEngineer = 'Marine Engineer';
rsMechanized = 'Mechanized';
rsMechanizedDiv = 'Mechanized Div';
rsMilitia = 'Militia';
rsMotAntiTank = 'Mot. Anti-Tank';
rsMotEngineer = 'Mot. Engineer';
rsMotFieldArtillery = 'Mot. Field Artillery';
rsMotHeavyAntiAir = 'Mot. Heavy Anti-Air';
rsMotLightAntiAir = 'Mot. Light Anti-Air';
rsMotorized = 'Motorized';
rsMotorizedDiv = 'Motorized Div';
// rsMountain = 'Mountain';
rsMountainDiv = 'Mountain Div';
// rsNavalAir = 'Naval Air';
rsNavalBomber = 'Naval Bomber';
rsNavalConstruction = 'Naval Construction';
rsNavalConstructionSub = 'Sub Construction';
// rsNavalRepair = 'Naval Repair';
rsNavalRepairSub = 'Sub Repair';
rsNavalSupply = 'Naval Supply';
rsNavalTransport = 'Naval Transport';
rsNoPilot = 'No Pilot';
rsNote = 'Note';
rsNotional = 'Notional';
rsBPPoints = ' BPs';
rsOffensive = 'Offensive';
rsOilPoints = ' OIL';
rsOilResource = ' Oil Res.';
rsOffHQ = 'Off HQ';
rsOffHQEngineer = 'Off HQ Eng';
rsOilRepair = 'Oil Repair';
rsOilResources = 'Oil Resources';
rsOutOfSupply = 'Out Of Supply';
rsParatroop = 'Paratroop';
rsParatroopDiv = 'Paratroop Div';
rsPartisanHQ = 'Partisan HQ';
rsPilot = 'Pilot';
rsPrimarySupplySource = 'Prim Sup Source';
rsRailwayGun = 'Railway Gun';
rsRebased = 'Rebased';
rsRed = 'Red';
rsRemoveUnit = 'Remove Unit "%s" (%s)';
rsRetrainPilot = 'Retrain Pilot';
rsRetreated = 'Retreated';
rsRocketArtillery = 'Rocket Artillery';
// rsScrapped = 'Scrapped';
rsSelectable = 'Selectable';
rsSelectedA = 'Attacking';
rsSelectedB = 'Bombarding';
rsSelfPropelledGun = 'Self-Propelled Gun';
rsSentry = 'Sentry';
rsShattered = 'Shattered';
rsShip = 'Ship';
rsSki = 'Ski';
rsSkiDiv = 'Ski Div';
rsStayingAtSea = 'At Sea';
rsStilwell = 'Stilwell';
rsSubmarine = 'Submarine';
rsSupply = 'Supply';
rsSynthOil = 'Synth. Oil';
rsSyntheticOil = 'Synthetic Oil';
rsTankDestroyer = 'Tank Destroyer';
rsTerritorial = 'Territorial';
rsTransported = 'Transported';
rsTuchachevsky = 'Tukhachevsky';
rsUnnamed = 'Unnamed';
rsUseEngineer = 'Eng';
rsVWeapon = 'V-Weapon';
==========================

Using the unit name followed by the unit type would produce: 800 mm Gustav/Dora Railway Gun, which could be firing on Eisenhower Infantry HQ.

Yes, this is extreme, but that is what programming is all about, handling the worst case possibilities well.

The unit names come up in two places where having them simply as '2' has always bothered me. The one seen most often is on the Unit Data panel. An example of that is immediately under the unit stack viewer. The name is given as '2' and directly underneath it is Armor, which is clear. but the '2' does look a little lonely all by itself on the top line. The second place is on the unit review panel where a very wide label is shown in large font for the unit name. There the '2' seems rather absurd. It has always struck me as sort of like referring to Hitler as H and Stalin as S.

I am inclined to let Justin revise the unit names, making sure that they do not become too long. 2nd Inf, 2nd Armor, 2nd Mech would be fine. I would leave the German infantry corps names as they are, since XXXVII is both clear and fairly long already. I do not think the artillery units (AA, AT, ART) need any additions to there names. Katyusha and 76 mm are pretty clear. By having Justin go through and make reasonable adjustments so the names are more meaningful we would have the benefit that automation (e.g., name + unit type) can not provide: balanced trade-offs between conflicting goals (length versus clarity in this case).

But I leave this question open to more discussion. Your thoughts?



bredsjomagnus -> RE: Memo (5/13/2008 9:14:24 PM)

Or just name the targets "target 1", "target 2"....etc. And then write stuka disorganized target 1 and so on.




Froonp -> RE: Memo (5/13/2008 11:57:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus
Or just name the targets "target 1", "target 2"....etc. And then write stuka disorganized target 1 and so on.

Good idea !
Finaly, I think this is the best.

It avoids changing the names of the units in the CSV data, which is bad because it opens up too much possible problems.

For example, Steve says "I would leave the German infantry corps names as they are, since XXXVII is both clear and fairly long already", but what about the I German INF ? Do you leave it as is or do you add INF after ? And the X German INF, do you leave it as is ? And the LI ? or the IV or VI ? And so on... So, where are you leaving them and where are you not leaving them ? What is the correct length ? Same for the US. Do you leave them also or not ? They are also in Roman digits, as well as a lot of Minors, the Italians, the French and the CW. Nearly only the Russians have Arab digits.

In the end we will end up with a mess of some units who have their type in their names, and some who have not.

This will be worsened when the Heavies will be added to the game as the names won't match anymore for those who replace WiF corps.

And as I objected initialy, there will be problems on the counters, when we will have a too long name to be displayed on the height of the counter.

I think it would be cleaner to have it either as bredsjomagnus said (target 1, target 2, etc...), or to have the type added in the form where it is needed, the abreviated type I mean. No need to have "Infantry" written, INF is enough.

Also for other air strikes other than Ground Strikes, you will need to have the type too for target units, for example when hitting ships, or when hitting planes. So unless you wish to add the type to air and naval units too, this is cleaner to have this added in the form, using the field that has the right information, isn't it ?

I think we have too much things to do already to open such a possible source of problem. Counters are OK, let's keep them OK.



Zorachus99 -> RE: Memo (5/14/2008 12:42:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Good idea !

For example, Steve says "I would leave the German infantry corps names as they are, since XXXVII is both clear and fairly long already", but what about the I German INF ? Do you leave it as is or do you add INF after ? And the X German INF, do you leave it as is ? And the LI ? or the IV or VI ? And so on... So, where are you leaving them and where are you not leaving them ? What is the correct length ? Same for the US. Do you leave them also or not ? They are also in Roman digits, as well as a lot of Minors, the Italians, the French and the CW. Nearly only the Russians have Arab digits.



All of the land units should have their abbreviated type after their name, particularly in cases where numbers are used. If the longest land unit with Roman numeral can't handle a space and a three letter abbreviated type (Inf, Mot, Arm), I'd consider the edge cases. Secondly, these names will not be in CAPS, they will be as mentioned above (Inf, Mot, Arm).

quote:


In the end we will end up with a mess of some units who have their type in their names, and some who have not.


I disagree, we can have orderly and structured names. I've no intention of adding the words Rail-Gun to Gustav-Dora or other irrelevant nomenclature. The divisions tend to stand by themselves except for the ones that have numbers, which would be subject to the same convention.

quote:


This will be worsened when the Heavies will be added to the game as the names won't match anymore for those who replace WiF corps.


How? The heavies correspond directly to the numeric designation which hasn't changed, merely the description. The heavies should be named properly as well in any case.

quote:



And as I objected initialy, there will be problems on the counters, when we will have a too long name to be displayed on the height of the counter.



I can QC this.

quote:



I think it would be cleaner to have it either as bredsjomagnus said (target 1, target 2, etc...), or to have the type added in the form where it is needed, the abreviated type I mean. No need to have "Infantry" written, INF is enough.



INF in CAPS is ugly, why not make it nicer?

quote:



Also for other air strikes other than Ground Strikes, you will need to have the type too for target units, for example when hitting ships, or when hitting planes. So unless you wish to add the type to air and naval units too, this is cleaner to have this added in the form, using the field that has the right information, isn't it ?



I have no intention to do ALL of the units, just the ones where the combat results would be misleading / confusing. Why ask Steve to Code more for aesthetics sake? The permutations on his list above are voluminous and would probably drive one batty with size handling.

quote:


I think we have too much things to do already to open such a possible source of problem. Counters are OK, let's keep them OK.


OK isn't something to strive for... Do you really think the game will fall over and throw errors as result of this aesthetic change?

I'm content to let the developer make the call on this in any case.

It's all yours Steve [;)]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (5/14/2008 1:24:09 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus
Or just name the targets "target 1", "target 2"....etc. And then write stuka disorganized target 1 and so on.

Good idea !
Finaly, I think this is the best.

It avoids changing the names of the units in the CSV data, which is bad because it opens up too much possible problems.

For example, Steve says "I would leave the German infantry corps names as they are, since XXXVII is both clear and fairly long already", but what about the I German INF ? Do you leave it as is or do you add INF after ? And the X German INF, do you leave it as is ? And the LI ? or the IV or VI ? And so on... So, where are you leaving them and where are you not leaving them ? What is the correct length ? Same for the US. Do you leave them also or not ? They are also in Roman digits, as well as a lot of Minors, the Italians, the French and the CW. Nearly only the Russians have Arab digits.

In the end we will end up with a mess of some units who have their type in their names, and some who have not.

This will be worsened when the Heavies will be added to the game as the names won't match anymore for those who replace WiF corps.

And as I objected initialy, there will be problems on the counters, when we will have a too long name to be displayed on the height of the counter.

I think it would be cleaner to have it either as bredsjomagnus said (target 1, target 2, etc...), or to have the type added in the form where it is needed, the abreviated type I mean. No need to have "Infantry" written, INF is enough.

Also for other air strikes other than Ground Strikes, you will need to have the type too for target units, for example when hitting ships, or when hitting planes. So unless you wish to add the type to air and naval units too, this is cleaner to have this added in the form, using the field that has the right information, isn't it ?

I think we have too much things to do already to open such a possible source of problem. Counters are OK, let's keep them OK.

I have never liked INF, TERR, TRS, etcetera. I even cringe a little at CV, and CA, though I know they are very well established military conventions. The use of all capital letters usually means each letter stands for a word. Yet, not again, I do prefer WIF to WiF so I am not completely consistent in this point of view.[:D]

The reason this hasn't come up before is that the player usually selects the unit that is to receive the result of a combat. That is true for naval combat, air-to-air, anti-air, carpet bombing, and land combat results. Strategic bombing is a little different, in that the computer has a preset order in which units receive losses, but even there, a single die/dice roll is make. As far as I can think of at the moment, only ground strikes have this multiple die rolls against multiple targets, and hence deserve the more detailed feedback to the player about what has just happened.

Justin, why don't you make a pass at this and see what it looks like. The worst case scenario is it causes some unforeseen problem and we return to using the current CSV file for land units.

LXXXVIII Inf might even look ok, but we won't know for sure until you try it.

For infantry divisions, there are very few named ones in the counter mix, so 1st Inf Div will probably be ok. Even 3rd Arm Div might work, but I leave that up to you to explore. If it starts to get ugly, let me know, and we can decide whether to abandon this attempt at improvnig the land unit names.



Zorachus99 -> RE: Memo (5/14/2008 1:28:49 AM)

Will do.  I'll post updates on the Development forum.  [:)]



Sewerlobster -> RE: Memo (5/14/2008 5:24:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus
Or just name the targets "target 1", "target 2"....etc. And then write stuka disorganized target 1 and so on.


That's what I feebly tried to say.



Zorachus99 -> RE: Memo (5/15/2008 4:53:18 AM)

I've completed the work.  I'll post screenshots if I get the OK from Steve; that is, if he doesn't himself.

I was as minimalist as possible.  I had to drop the MIL type completely in the unit description because of city names like Sevastopol, Dnepropetrovsk, and many other toothy city names.  HQ type units did not get HQ designations.  The main additions were things like designation of 1 to 1st Inf.  The majority of designations I added were Inf, Cav, Garr, Mot, Mech, Arm and the Div moniker (due to there being identical corps designations).  An extreme example would be 1st Mech Div, from the numeral 1.  For most units it adds 4 characters, and it averages less than 7 new characters to the unit description overall.

Going through the Italian list I got the definite impression that someone had fallen in love due to them having the majority of uniquely named land units compared other Major Powers.  Germans and Russians are quite generic.

It was as I expected a few hours of work, no more.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (5/15/2008 5:37:13 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

I've completed the work.  I'll post screenshots if I get the OK from Steve; that is, if he doesn't himself.

I was as minimalist as possible.  I had to drop the MIL type completely in the unit description because of city names like Sevastopol, Dnepropetrovsk, and many other toothy city names.  HQ type units did not get HQ designations.  The main additions were things like designation of 1 to 1st Inf.  The majority of designations I added were Inf, Cav, Garr, Mot, Mech, Arm and the Div moniker (due to there being identical corps designations).  An extreme example would be 1st Mech Div, from the numeral 1.  For most units it adds 4 characters, and it averages less than 7 new characters to the unit description overall.

Going through the Italian list I got the definite impression that someone had fallen in love due to them having the majority of uniquely named land units compared other Major Powers.  Germans and Russians are quite generic.

It was as I expected a few hours of work, no more.

Thanks. I'll try to get to screen shots tomorrow. My new notebook computer arrived today and it needed a warm welcome into the household.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 1:43:25 AM)

Here is a revised Help page for the unit status indicators. If it is not self-explanatory, let me know.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/8731DC71A9F84E1ABDE2501483B117BE.jpg[/image]



Sewerlobster -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 6:09:27 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here is a revised Help page for the unit status indicators. If it is not self-explanatory, let me know.


I had never seen this Help Page and spent some time trying to understand the first part, but I can't explain what confused me. If you reverse the two parts I don't think I would have paused and puzzeled over whatever was confusing me



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 7:53:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here is a revised Help page for the unit status indicators. If it is not self-explanatory, let me know.


I had never seen this Help Page and spent some time trying to understand the first part, but I can't explain what confused me. If you reverse the two parts I don't think I would have paused and puzzeled over whatever was confusing me

I think it might be how I wrote the first sentence. How about this instead:

A unit that has no status indicators lit/displayed is:



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 8:01:04 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here is a revised Help page for the unit status indicators. If it is not self-explanatory, let me know.


I had never seen this Help Page and spent some time trying to understand the first part, but I can't explain what confused me. If you reverse the two parts I don't think I would have paused and puzzeled over whatever was confusing me

Perhaps I should redo this page, merging the top section with the bottom. My thought is that for each of the 7 placements for the status indicators I could put a line of text for when each status indicator is not shown (None). That text would be:

1 - Not available for movement during this phase/subphase.
2 - Organized.
3 - In supply.
4 - Not engaged in combat.
5 - None of the above
6 - Not transporting/being transported.
7 - None of the above.




wosung -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 10:28:20 AM)

Perhaps structuring this looong list of coloured dots by paragraphs and headlines (movement status , supply status....) would help? Even if it takes more space...

Regards



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 11:15:36 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wosung

Perhaps structuring this looong list of coloured dots by paragraphs and headlines (movement status , supply status....) would help? Even if it takes more space...

Regards

Yes.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 12:31:31 PM)

Here is a revised version.

This is a screen shot - I've written the code to display this when the menu item for status indicators help is selected.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/AE1B3DA97729487986C6CAC07DD6BCD8.jpg[/image]



YohanTM2 -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 12:47:32 PM)

What are your thoughts on coding for folks who are colour blind?

I think your most reecnt revision is laid out well but I kow I am going to have issues and I am only partially colour bilnd. Maybe use more primary colours? But for folks who are very colour blind i wonder if a toggle to a number system or going with different shaped symbols might help?



peskpesk -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 1:37:49 PM)

Diffrent shaps, maybe...Like this?





[image]local://upfiles/9545/64D796B6C9BD4C2093069D29B89A821C.gif[/image]



peskpesk -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 1:41:26 PM)

Here are ex of good colors to use.



[image]local://upfiles/9545/A64C9614B790494D8E4C4388A8F9B26F.gif[/image]



Sewerlobster -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 3:19:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here is a revised version.This is a screen shot - I've written the code to display this when the menu item for status indicators help is selected.


This caused me no confusion whatsoever, clearly the lowest common denominator has now been achieved!



composer99 -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 5:29:59 PM)

The revised shot looks okay, but it seems rather cluttered. Perhaps more white space is required?



Grapeshot Bob -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 5:52:38 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is a revised version.

This is a screen shot - I've written the code to display this when the menu item for status indicators help is selected.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/AE1B3DA97729487986C6CAC07DD6BCD8.jpg[/image]



I suggest that the various status indicator colors be modified slightly so they are more intuitive when you glance at them.

I suggest a pallete that has a spectrum that is green at one end and red at the other.

The "shades" indicate levels of "goodness". For example green is the best possible status. Red is the worst. The colors in between are varous shades that go from the green end of the spectrum to red (dark green, light green, dark blue, light blue, yellow, orange, red, for example).



GSB



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 8:10:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: peskpesk

Here are ex of good colors to use.



[image]local://upfiles/9545/A64C9614B790494D8E4C4388A8F9B26F.gif[/image]

Thanks.

The colors used in the game are slightly different from the ones shown on the help page because I have trouble matching them precisely in CorelDraw (which I used to create the help page). That is not a limitation of CorelDraw, which goes to extremes to give the user choices in colors and ways of specifying them. It is simply that my skill at matching program-generated colors (from Microsoft) is deficient.

I'll review what I am using presently against this list (I think I am pretty close to matching it if I swap out Red and Green with Vermillion and a Blueish-green, respectively). I do want 2 shades of green for supply, but I think Lime (bright) and a darker Blueish-green should work.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 8:13:09 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99

The revised shot looks okay, but it seems rather cluttered. Perhaps more white space is required?

I'll change the font size (make it smaller). When using one application for design and a second for implementation, it is often difficult to get the font size right. I tend to err on the side of making the font size too large.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: Memo (6/13/2008 8:17:56 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is a revised version.

This is a screen shot - I've written the code to display this when the menu item for status indicators help is selected.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/AE1B3DA97729487986C6CAC07DD6BCD8.jpg[/image]



I suggest that the various status indicator colors be modified slightly so they are more intuitive when you glance at them.

I suggest a pallete that has a spectrum that is green at one end and red at the other.

The "shades" indicate levels of "goodness". For example green is the best possible status. Red is the worst. The colors in between are varous shades that go from the green end of the spectrum to red (dark green, light green, dark blue, light blue, yellow, orange, red, for example).



GSB


That would work if I were trying to present an ordinal scale (ranging from a low value to a high value) everywhere. But in many cases here that is not true. For example, the use of Eng in combat, fighting through versus initiating naval combat, sentry, etc..

In those cases where it is true, I am using a bright green --> dark green --> yellow --> orange --> red 'scale' to represent good --> bad.



Taxman66 -> RE: Memo (6/14/2008 4:33:40 AM)

I presume for a stack of units the color of the worst status indicator is displayed.  Would it be possible to stick a number inside the status indicator so we know how many units are out of supply or disorganized, etc...




Page: <<   < prev  39 40 [41] 42 43   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
4.985352