RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (Full Version)

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

Message

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/9/2008 9:54:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I have some more touchups to do here: (1) I want to change A6 to "Air: 6", (2) the new added yellow panel to the right of the German flag in the Main form has to have the text 'Combined' inserted - its purpose is to indicate the Action type taken, and (3) the scroll bars on the Selectable Units form aren't they way I want them. (1) and (2) are very good ideas ! I was about to comment and propose (1).

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/13/2008 10:19:50 PM)
I've done some more work on the Main form and the Setup Tray based on feedback from the beta testers. At the bottom of this screen shot is the setup tray. The beta testers wanted a lower profile so more of the map is visible. Here I have it expanded horizontally. If I wanted to, I could reduce it so only 3 units would be visible in each list. That makes even more of the map visible. Also note that I have added Air Sets and Naval Sets headers for the button groups, clarifying that somewhat. The changes I have made today are for the flags in the Main form. There are 4 versions of the 8 flag buttons: 1 - current player controls the major power which is deciding: US flag shown in full (not faded). 2 - current player controls the major power, but the major power is not a decision maker:other Allied flags shown in full (faded). 3 - remote (or hotseat opponent, or AIO) player controls the major power, which is not deciding: Axis flags shown reduced (faded). 4 - remote (or hotseat opponent, or AIO) player controls the major power, which is deciding: no example shown here but it is reduced (not faded). The motivation behind this is so you always know which major powers are making decisions by which flags are bright (not faded). You also are reminded which major powers you control (full size), just in case you forget.[;)] There is a mistake here: the Vichy French flag should not be visible. [image]local://upfiles/16701/FA89623F25DB43D5B8BEDF6A67CA6FB6.jpg[/image]

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/13/2008 10:26:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets The motivation behind this is so you always know which major powers are making decisions by which flags are bright (not faded). You also are reminded which major powers you control (full size), just in case you forget.[;)] Maybe that's just me, but I feel that either the faded is not faded enough, or the bright flag is not visible enough. Good idea for the reduced flags !!!

ptey -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/13/2008 10:55:18 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets The motivation behind this is so you always know which major powers are making decisions by which flags are bright (not faded). You also are reminded which major powers you control (full size), just in case you forget.[;)] Maybe that's just me, but I feel that either the faded is not faded enough, or the bright flag is not visible enough. Good idea for the reduced flags !!! Its not just you, I agree with that. The other flags should also imo be faded some more. Maybe this question is answered in a previous post (I havent read all of this thread). But why not show the flags in the setup order?

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/13/2008 10:59:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ptey Maybe this question is answered in a previous post (I havent read all of this thread). But why not show the flags in the setup order? I think that they are arranged in alphabetical order. Germany Italy Japan Vichy France China Commonwealth France USA USSR

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 2:08:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ptey quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets The motivation behind this is so you always know which major powers are making decisions by which flags are bright (not faded). You also are reminded which major powers you control (full size), just in case you forget.[;)] Maybe that's just me, but I feel that either the faded is not faded enough, or the bright flag is not visible enough. Good idea for the reduced flags !!! Its not just you, I agree with that. The other flags should also imo be faded some more. Maybe this question is answered in a previous post (I havent read all of this thread). But why not show the flags in the setup order? I had tried a higher degree of fading but it was difficult to see what the flags actually were then. I guess that is less important than being able to tell the 'lit' ones from the 'unlit' ones though. I'll increase the amount of fade. -- As for their order, well, no one ever saw all the flags at the same time before this last change I made. Patrice is right, they are sorted by side (Axis then Allied) and then alphabetically. Obviously I could do whatever seems best for their order, and do so with a trivial amount of code. Set up order usually mixes the Axis and Allied (Note: I have changed that for PBEM). Maybe what I should do is setup order to start, and then once setup is completed, rearrange them by side/alphabetically. I don't want this to be too dynamic though - the player should be able to depend on the flag appearing where he expects it.

brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 5:05:02 AM)
why not just have a Convoy Point marker with the total remaining points left available to set-up?

brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 5:13:40 AM)
I like the 2/3 and 3/6 numbers on the planes. Many an experienced WiF player still can't get the hang of how to set up the airplanes using the WiF and PiF columns on the set-up chart. I'm guessing MWiF won't ever show that exact spreadsheet, and that will be a good thing.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 5:19:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian why not just have a Convoy Point marker with the total remaining points left available to set-up? By having units with preset values that are likely to be used, it is easier to simply drop into a sea area a unit that has the # of convoy points you want in the sea area. There are usually a few individual convoy points/units left over and you can drop those in where you want an extra convoy - or put them into a port as a reserve. Another advantage is that you can rearrange the 'units' as you see fit, if you change your mind. This is much easier than designing a separate system for designating how many of the 'remaining' convoys you want in a sea area - which needs a means for undoing their placement as well. Keeping the same 'system' makes it easier for people to learn and use. For instance, if you have 3 forts (hexsides) to set up, then get 3 single hexside fort markers to place. And you can pick them up and place them somewhere else (during setup). Saved oil points and relocated factories work the same way.

brian brian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 5:42:52 AM)
but won't you need a system to dynamically 'make change' with the CPs during movement anyway? in the above example, how do I put 2 CPs somewhere? probably by dragging the 1 CP unit out to a sea-zone twice. but then how do I know how many I have left? you're probably ahead of these questions already, I'm just wondering aloud based on what I see in the tray.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 5:56:21 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian but won't you need a system to dynamically 'make change' with the CPs during movement anyway? in the above example, how do I put 2 CPs somewhere? probably by dragging the 1 CP unit out to a sea-zone twice. but then how do I know how many I have left? you're probably ahead of these questions already, I'm just wondering aloud based on what I see in the tray. Right clicking on a convoy unit brings up a unit menu and one of the items listed lets you Split or Merge convoy units. Those are flexible systems, specific to that purpose. Splitting and merging convoy points needs to occur at many points in the game, for instance: when taking casualties. What I was debugging at the time (most of the screen shots I post are taken during a debug session) was splitting a 9 point convoy unit into 9 single point units. That works fine (and has for a long time) but for some very strange reason doing so at certain points during setup recenters the map. I still haven't been able to figure out why that occurs.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 6:03:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: brian brian I like the 2/3 and 3/6 numbers on the planes. Many an experienced WiF player still can't get the hang of how to set up the airplanes using the WiF and PiF columns on the set-up chart. I'm guessing MWiF won't ever show that exact spreadsheet, and that will be a good thing. Thanks. Originally these carrier air units had 4/7 underneath them. But I selected a class 4 to place on the carrier on map (Ranger), so all the text for the remaining carrier air units changed to 3/6. Clicking on/selecting one more will make the unselected ones' text go to 2/5. A selected unit has the text 'Ready' underneath (see the boat plane). Clicking on a Ready unit places it In Stack and it can then be placed on the map. Up until the point that you place it on the map, you can change your mind: using Ctrl left-click to reverse any part of the process.

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 7:28:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Obviously I could do whatever seems best for their order, and do so with a trivial amount of code. Set up order usually mixes the Axis and Allied (Note: I have changed that for PBEM). Maybe what I should do is setup order to start, and then once setup is completed, rearrange them by side/alphabetically. I don't want this to be too dynamic though - the player should be able to depend on the flag appearing where he expects it. The flag order is fine as it is. Anyway, if different, it should not change during the game.

bredsjomagnus -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 11:04:59 AM)
What exactly does the figures 2/3, 3/6, 1/2, under the air units, stand for?

Peter Stauffenberg -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 1:16:45 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus What exactly does the figures 2/3, 3/6, 1/2, under the air units, stand for? These numbers show how many air units you can still select of that group. For F2 units it shows 2/3. This means you can select 2 of the 3 F2 air units for placement on the map. The last one goes to the force pool. 3/6 means you can select 3 of the 6 available CP units. 1/2 means you can select 1 of the 2 available L3 units etc. F2 means fighters with a cost of 2. CP means carrier plans. L3 means land bombers with cost of 3. When you select e. g. an F2 fighter then the one you selected with have the hext ready meaning it can be placed on the map. The other 2 will get the text 1/2 because you then have a chance to select 1 of the other 2 F2 fighters. When you select the last one of a group then the units you didn't select will disappear from the setup tray and be moved to the force pool.

bredsjomagnus -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 2:28:57 PM)
quote: These numbers show how many air units you can still select of that group. For F2 units it shows 2/3. This means you can select 2 of the 3 F2 air units for placement on the map. The last one goes to the force pool. 3/6 means you can select 3 of the 6 available CP units. 1/2 means you can select 1 of the 2 available L3 units etc. F2 means fighters with a cost of 2. CP means carrier plans. L3 means land bombers with cost of 3. When you select e. g. an F2 fighter then the one you selected with have the hext ready meaning it can be placed on the map. The other 2 will get the text 1/2 because you then have a chance to select 1 of the other 2 F2 fighters. When you select the last one of a group then the units you didn't select will disappear from the setup tray and be moved to the force pool. Ok, thanks! Mayby it was just me that didn�t get it. But, otherwise, I think it should be explained for less confusion.

ptey -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 4:27:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: ptey quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets The motivation behind this is so you always know which major powers are making decisions by which flags are bright (not faded). You also are reminded which major powers you control (full size), just in case you forget.[;)] Maybe that's just me, but I feel that either the faded is not faded enough, or the bright flag is not visible enough. Good idea for the reduced flags !!! Its not just you, I agree with that. The other flags should also imo be faded some more. Maybe this question is answered in a previous post (I havent read all of this thread). But why not show the flags in the setup order? I had tried a higher degree of fading but it was difficult to see what the flags actually were then. I guess that is less important than being able to tell the 'lit' ones from the 'unlit' ones though. I'll increase the amount of fade. -- As for their order, well, no one ever saw all the flags at the same time before this last change I made. Patrice is right, they are sorted by side (Axis then Allied) and then alphabetically. Obviously I could do whatever seems best for their order, and do so with a trivial amount of code. Set up order usually mixes the Axis and Allied (Note: I have changed that for PBEM). Maybe what I should do is setup order to start, and then once setup is completed, rearrange them by side/alphabetically. I don't want this to be too dynamic though - the player should be able to depend on the flag appearing where he expects it. Am i misunderstanding you, or have you changed the setup order in PBEM? Swapping the flags around too much is certainly a bad idea. But having them in setup order during setup would imo seem like a nice aid, for a player who havent setup a scenerio 10+ times. Unless the info is easily accessable somewhere else ofcourse (while setting up a given MP). Having them in setup order would also indicate how far you in setting up.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 6:43:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: ptey quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: ptey quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets The motivation behind this is so you always know which major powers are making decisions by which flags are bright (not faded). You also are reminded which major powers you control (full size), just in case you forget.[;)] Maybe that's just me, but I feel that either the faded is not faded enough, or the bright flag is not visible enough. Good idea for the reduced flags !!! Its not just you, I agree with that. The other flags should also imo be faded some more. Maybe this question is answered in a previous post (I havent read all of this thread). But why not show the flags in the setup order? I had tried a higher degree of fading but it was difficult to see what the flags actually were then. I guess that is less important than being able to tell the 'lit' ones from the 'unlit' ones though. I'll increase the amount of fade. -- As for their order, well, no one ever saw all the flags at the same time before this last change I made. Patrice is right, they are sorted by side (Axis then Allied) and then alphabetically. Obviously I could do whatever seems best for their order, and do so with a trivial amount of code. Set up order usually mixes the Axis and Allied (Note: I have changed that for PBEM). Maybe what I should do is setup order to start, and then once setup is completed, rearrange them by side/alphabetically. I don't want this to be too dynamic though - the player should be able to depend on the flag appearing where he expects it. Am i misunderstanding you, or have you changed the setup order in PBEM? Swapping the flags around too much is certainly a bad idea. But having them in setup order during setup would imo seem like a nice aid, for a player who havent setup a scenerio 10+ times. Unless the info is easily accessable somewhere else ofcourse (while setting up a given MP). Having them in setup order would also indicate how far you in setting up. Setup order is different for each sceanario. I'll add the information to the blurb on the scenario - or somewhere. But you don't really need to worry about this with MWIF like you do when playing over the board. The program advances to the next major power to be setup automatically. When you are setting up, say, France, you will obviously know if Italy and Germany are already setup or not.

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 7:59:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen These numbers show how many air units you can still select of that group. For F2 units it shows 2/3. This means you can select 2 of the 3 F2 air units for placement on the map. The last one goes to the force pool. Or the reserve pool (a reserve of unpiloted air units), if playing with pilots.

paulderynck -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 9:20:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I had tried a higher degree of fading but it was difficult to see what the flags actually were then. I guess that is less important than being able to tell the 'lit' ones from the 'unlit' ones though. I'll increase the amount of fade. Another way to go is to change the flags to grey and white (like black and white but substitute grey for black) or use grayscale. That way you have a clear graphic of the flag but it is obviously "greyed out".

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/14/2008 9:32:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I had tried a higher degree of fading but it was difficult to see what the flags actually were then. I guess that is less important than being able to tell the 'lit' ones from the 'unlit' ones though. I'll increase the amount of fade. Another way to go is to change the flags to grey and white (like black and white but substitute grey for black) or use grayscale. That way you have a clear graphic of the flag but it is obviously "greyed out". Yes. But what I currently have 'works' and is already coded. If you want to explore alternatives, be my guest. I'll take them into consideration.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/19/2008 9:11:54 PM)
Here is a question for people familiar with WIF. I've created a Selectable Units List and have found it to be a real nice feature during air missions. For the current major power, the program automatically determines all the units that can fly during each subphase of an air mission and puts them in the list. This lets you see at a glance which units you have available for ground strikes, interceptions, returning to base, and so on. Besides air units, it also shows other unit types that can be active during air missions, such as artillery performing ground support and anti-aircraft guns that can fire. I just added Naval Air missions to the phases where the Selectable Units List (SUL) is instantiated/populated. Other places where I will fill the SUL with available units are: - Naval air support (WIFFE, naval air interception). - HQ support. - Choose Action when a Offensive chit is used; I'll show the HQs that are available for using the o-chit. I don't want to use this form for land movement or naval movement, because there are simply too many units that can move. Are there other places in the Sequence of Play that I haven't thought of, where this form should be filled out with Selectable Units?

terje439 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/19/2008 10:02:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Are there other places in the Sequence of Play that I haven't thought of, where this form should be filled out with Selectable Units? Invasions maybe? Debarkation? Moving of factories? Just me thinking out loud.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/19/2008 10:10:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Are there other places in the Sequence of Play that I haven't thought of, where this form should be filled out with Selectable Units? Invasions maybe? Debarkation? Moving of factories? Just me thinking out loud. Thanks. Invasions and debarkation from ships are good additions. I am not so sure about rail moving factories. Except for the USSR, none of the other major powers will be interested in having all their factories listed for possible rail moves. Even the USSR will not want to see this after they have moved 6-10 of them.

Orm -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/19/2008 10:47:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: terje439 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Are there other places in the Sequence of Play that I haven't thought of, where this form should be filled out with Selectable Units? Invasions maybe? Debarkation? Moving of factories? Just me thinking out loud. Thanks. Invasions and debarkation from ships are good additions. I am not so sure about rail moving factories. Except for the USSR, none of the other major powers will be interested in having all their factories listed for possible rail moves. Even the USSR will not want to see this after they have moved 6-10 of them. Maybe units eligible to emabark as well? -Orm

paulderynck -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/20/2008 12:00:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Are there other places in the Sequence of Play that I haven't thought of, where this form should be filled out with Selectable Units? Air transport and paradrop. (if not already included as air missions) Offensive and defensive shore bombardment. Reorganization (include TRS and ATR)

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/20/2008 12:20:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: paulderynck quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Are there other places in the Sequence of Play that I haven't thought of, where this form should be filled out with Selectable Units? Air transport and paradrop. (if not already included as air missions) Offensive and defensive shore bombardment. Reorganization (include TRS and ATR) Thanks. Air transport, paradrop, and air resupply (reorganization using ATRs) are all covered under air missions. Offensive and defensive shore bombardment are good additions. So is reorganization by TRS and HQs. --- Orm. I don't think I'll include embarkation since that is relatively rare while the opportunity to do it is likely to be enormous. For instance, divisions can be picked up by any SCS, so the possibilities there might include dozens of units. Showing those possibilities every impulse could quickly become annoying.

lomyrin -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/20/2008 1:44:05 AM)
one problem with these lists will occur later in the game when there may be more than a dozen planes available and often another dozen from a cooperating power as well. Lars

paulderynck -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/20/2008 3:58:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lomyrin one problem with these lists will occur later in the game when there may be more than a dozen planes available and often another dozen from a cooperating power as well. Lars Yeah I was thinking that too. 1945 is a very different kettle of fish then 1940. Is there any way to limit the display to planes in range of where the mouse is pointing? (Holy Processing Time, Batman!)

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (8/20/2008 8:51:13 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lomyrin one problem with these lists will occur later in the game when there may be more than a dozen planes available and often another dozen from a cooperating power as well. Lars You only see 1 major power at a time, though you can switch back and forth between major powers before/while deciding which units to use. I still need to add the vertical scroll bar for the form, so it won't be too bad once that is in place. I have thought about enabling a simple filter: bombers only, escorts only, or both. That will cut the number of units almost in half in most cases.

Page: << < prev 44 45 [46] 47 48 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.09375