RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (Full Version)

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

Message

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/21/2009 5:59:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye The "Only use Primary Monitor" option there I noticed. Does this mean support for dual-monitors? (I use 2x22" LCD's). Multi-monitors, not just dual. If you have 4, you can use them all (assuming that they are configured as one logical screen under Windows).

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/21/2009 6:04:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: micheljq So you have CV - carrier, CVL - escort carrier, and ASW carrier right? Thanks a lot. Check out the tutorial thread on naval units. It covers this in more detail. All the tutorials are accessible from a thread at the top of the forum. They contain the entire development process, so you might want to just skip to the posts with the interesting screen shots. Though the screenshots are slightly out of date (since I keep tweaking them from time to time), nonetheless, the threads contain at least one example of each of the 110+ pages in the tutorials.

OzHawkeye2 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/22/2009 1:37:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: OzHawkeye The "Only use Primary Monitor" option there I noticed. Does this mean support for dual-monitors? (I use 2x22" LCD's). Multi-monitors, not just dual. If you have 4, you can use them all (assuming that they are configured as one logical screen under Windows). That's excellent news. I have a third and fourth monitor I can connect and that'd be quite fun playing it like that.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 1:15:50 AM)
Here is what the aftermath of an air-to-air cmobat looks like. At teh bottom are all the units that particiapted in the combat and received a result. Only one unit was destroyed, and 3 of the 4 bombers (their range numbers are in gray) that were cleared through did so because all the US fighters had been destroyed or aborted. There is a list of the odds, die rolls, and results in the little table. That's so players can bemoan their bad luck, supported by statistics. The second screen shot shows the result of those 4 bombers trying to ground strike the Australian motorized infantry. Now I bet you are wondering why so much air power was expended, by both sides, on such an insignificant task/goal. Well, I had asked the beta testers to hammer away at ground strikes, in particular testing how well the code worked for carrier air units performing those missions. [image]local://upfiles/16701/2D8E273136494BE9963AB9DB27E1067F.jpg[/image]

bredsjomagnus -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 9:20:07 AM)
It´s always nice with screenshots but... ...why is there only three bombers under "Axis bombers (attacking)"? Isn´t there a BN51 with range 4 missing? Or was it cleared through and put aside?

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 9:57:16 AM)
Also, what is the "AX PX" result that the little table show for a die result of 18 ? Is "PX" meaning "pilot destroyed" ?

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 6:05:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus It´s always nice with screenshots but... ...why is there only three bombers under "Axis bombers (attacking)"? Isn´t there a BN51 with range 4 missing? Or was it cleared through and put aside? The Axis units shown above where still available for combat when the last Allied/US air unit was aborted. The list at the bottom shows all the units that had a die roll result (chronologically from left to right; the first two units were aborted in the first round of the combat) + the bombers that were cleared through because the last enemy fighter was removed (in this case it was aborted). The 3 bombers you see above as 'attacking' are also shown below (perhaps I should only show them at the bottom, but some information would be lost if I did). The 'missing' bomber had been cleared thruogh earlier - in the third round of combat, die roll of 11, DC result. --- Patrice, the PX does mean that the pilot was killed.

gridley -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 6:47:29 PM)
If you click the [OK - Done] button while you still have fighters and bombers, does that abort the mission? In Netplay would the CW, USA, and Japanese all have this screen on thier monitor? By the way, excellent screen.[:)]

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 6:52:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets The list at the bottom shows all the units that had a die roll result (chronologically from left to right; the first two units were aborted in the first round of the combat) Just a remark here. The order shown in the form above is not really chonologic. First the Axis rolls a 9 which achieve a DA result on the Allies. The allies then choose to abort their F4F-4. Next the Allied rolls a 5 which achieve an AA result on the Axis. The allies then choose to abort the Axis A6M6. etc... In the list of counters, if it was really chronological, you'd see the US CVP before the Japanese CVP, they are reversed. I know that the rolls are considered simultaneous, so in reality, both the F4F-4 and the A6M6 were aborted simultaneously, but since you display them sequencially in the small table above, maybe it would be good to show them sequencially inthe bottom display in the same order as in the table.

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 6:55:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets The list at the bottom shows all the units that had a die roll result (chronologically from left to right; the first two units were aborted in the first round of the combat) Just a remark here. The order shown in the form above is not really chonologic. First the Axis rolls a 9 which achieve a DA result on the Allies. The allies then choose to abort their F4F-4. Next the Allied rolls a 5 which achieve an AA result on the Axis. The allies then choose to abort the Axis A6M6. etc... In the list of counters, if it was really chronological, you'd see the US CVP before the Japanese CVP, they are reversed. I know that the rolls are considered simultaneous, so in reality, both the F4F-4 and the A6M6 were aborted simultaneously, but since you display them sequencially in the small table above, maybe it would be good to show them sequencially inthe bottom display in the same order as in the table. I think that there is a problem with the bottom list. You say that it is displayed chronologically, but this would mean that when the Axis rolled a 18 and got an AX + PX, that they chose the crappy F3F ? This is not true, as the F3F is shown as Aborted. The only unit that is destroyed is the SBD-3, so it must be the unit that the Japanese have chosen. It is far from its chronological position then. It is displayed at the 6th place, when it was destroyed during the second round on the Axis roll. So it should be at the 3rd place, shouldn't it ?

gridley -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 7:02:54 PM)
Don't forget round 1 is not on the screen. The screen starts at round 2 you would have to scroll up to see round 1.

willycube -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 7:08:46 PM)
The map above shows a plane over Brisbane on the left of the map and on the right of the map it looks like a flame on the same plane over Brisbane, has it been destroyed, what does that yellow mark mean? Willy

Orm -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 7:12:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willycube The map above shows a plane over Brisbane on the left of the map and on the right of the map it looks like a flame on the same plane over Brisbane, has it been destroyed, what does that yellow mark mean? Willy The yellow mark mean that they are bombing in that hex.

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 7:42:25 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gridley Don't forget round 1 is not on the screen. The screen starts at round 2 you would have to scroll up to see round 1. OK, I did not notice that. So the SBD-3 is in the right position. There are just the Axis / Allies planes that are in reversed positions in the bottom display compared to the table above.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 7:43:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets The list at the bottom shows all the units that had a die roll result (chronologically from left to right; the first two units were aborted in the first round of the combat) Just a remark here. The order shown in the form above is not really chonologic. First the Axis rolls a 9 which achieve a DA result on the Allies. The allies then choose to abort their F4F-4. Next the Allied rolls a 5 which achieve an AA result on the Axis. The allies then choose to abort the Axis A6M6. etc... In the list of counters, if it was really chronological, you'd see the US CVP before the Japanese CVP, they are reversed. I know that the rolls are considered simultaneous, so in reality, both the F4F-4 and the A6M6 were aborted simultaneously, but since you display them sequencially in the small table above, maybe it would be good to show them sequencially inthe bottom display in the same order as in the table. I think that there is a problem with the bottom list. You say that it is displayed chronologically, but this would mean that when the Axis rolled a 18 and got an AX + PX, that they chose the crappy F3F ? This is not true, as the F3F is shown as Aborted. The only unit that is destroyed is the SBD-3, so it must be the unit that the Japanese have chosen. It is far from its chronological position then. It is displayed at the 6th place, when it was destroyed during the second round on the Axis roll. So it should be at the 3rd place, shouldn't it ? This is a ground strike so all the US air units are flying as fighters (their range is in yellow). Results are always applied to the front unit, so the Japanese player does not get to choose which US air unit to abort/destroy.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 7:45:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: gridley Don't forget round 1 is not on the screen. The screen starts at round 2 you would have to scroll up to see round 1. OK, I did not notice that. So the SBD-3 is in the right position. There are just the Axis / Allies planes that are in reversed positions in the bottom display compared to the table above. No.. The order is correct. The US is defending so it rolls its dice first. This means the Japanese units appear in the affected units table first.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 7:47:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willycube The map above shows a plane over Brisbane on the left of the map and on the right of the map it looks like a flame on the same plane over Brisbane, has it been destroyed, what does that yellow mark mean? Willy Those are flames. If you put your hand up to the computer screen, you can feel the heat.[:D]

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 7:47:38 PM)
Yes, but what I meant is that in the table above you show the Axis as rolling the dice first, and then the allied. So the results, if shown in the same order, should be : the result on the allied plane (from the axis roll) and then the result on the axis plane (from the allied roll). They are simultaneous, but as the table above shows the axis first, it would be logical to show the allied plane first in the bottom display.

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 7:48:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: gridley Don't forget round 1 is not on the screen. The screen starts at round 2 you would have to scroll up to see round 1. OK, I did not notice that. So the SBD-3 is in the right position. There are just the Axis / Allies planes that are in reversed positions in the bottom display compared to the table above. No.. The order is correct. The US is defending so it rolls its dice first. This means the Japanese units appear in the affected units table first. Yes, the US is defending, so he rolls first. So the table should show them rolling first. It looks like it show them as rolling second.

willycube -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 7:56:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: willycube The map above shows a plane over Brisbane on the left of the map and on the right of the map it looks like a flame on the same plane over Brisbane, has it been destroyed, what does that yellow mark mean? Willy Those are flames. If you put your hand up to the computer screen, you can feel the heat.[:D] What a great sense of humor for an ex south Phila. guy, I liked you better when you were dry and morbid.[:D] Willy

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/26/2009 9:08:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: gridley Don't forget round 1 is not on the screen. The screen starts at round 2 you would have to scroll up to see round 1. OK, I did not notice that. So the SBD-3 is in the right position. There are just the Axis / Allies planes that are in reversed positions in the bottom display compared to the table above. No.. The order is correct. The US is defending so it rolls its dice first. This means the Japanese units appear in the affected units table first. Yes, the US is defending, so he rolls first. So the table should show them rolling first. It looks like it show them as rolling second. I had trouble with the table and decided that I would always show the Axis and then the Allied die rolls. Who is doing what is extremely confusing when you are down in the depths of the code. For instance, during a land combat resolution phase, the attacking player (phasing side) advances after combat and overruns some naval units. The "player to decide" changes to the player who controls the naval units and he excutes an overrun digression to rebase his naval units. While moving his naval units they enter a sea area where the phasing side can intercept them. The interception succeeds and a naval combat ensues. A naval air combat is chosen and one of the subphases of that is an air-to-air combat. The question is: which side is the attacking side in the air-to-air combat? The program figures this out, but when I was writing the code to build the table, I foulnd it much simlper to just always put the Axis die rolls in the odd rows and the Allies in the even rows. By the way, I simplified my example enormously and left out a half dozen other places in that little sequence of play where the person who decides can change (e.g., naval air support, surprise points, choosing sea box sections included, ...).

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/27/2009 6:27:38 AM)
Page 1 of 2. I spent some time this afternoon spiffing up the Production form. Here is the US at the start of the war. They have 10 build points available and their gearing limit is 1 per type - because they are still neutral. [image]local://upfiles/16701/A473BC133DBE40F8A89E6FED4628BB06.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/27/2009 6:29:45 AM)
Page 2 of 2. Germany just entered the war this turn, so they can build as many as they want - no gearing limits. However they only have 16 build points, and look at all those lovely units they could build! [image]local://upfiles/16701/91A305322A994442BA75D446CBDD8041.jpg[/image]

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/27/2009 9:09:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Here is the US at the start of the war. They have 10 build points available and their gearing limit is 1 per type - because they are still neutral. During the first prod step of a scenario, the gearing limits are infinite IIRC.

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/27/2009 9:16:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Here is the US at the start of the war. They have 10 build points available and their gearing limit is 1 per type - because they are still neutral. During the first prod step of a scenario, the gearing limits are infinite IIRC. From 13.6.6 : **************************** Exceptions On the first turn of any scenario or campaign there are no gearing limits. Major powers are not subject to gearing limits on the turn that a major power declares war on it. ****************************

composer99 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/27/2009 3:46:26 PM)
Also, should the US not have 11 build points on the first turn of a Global War game? They usually produce 10 and get an extra one from their trade with Japan. Unless they are saving a lot of oil, I suppose.

micheljq -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/27/2009 4:14:12 PM)
NVM.

caine -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/27/2009 4:55:00 PM)
Why forts are unlimited under the column available for US screenshot? They should not. In GE screenshot there are no fort to be built ! Santi

gridley -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/27/2009 4:56:32 PM)
Again, very nice form. From your german screen, lets say I were to click build for a random mech unit. Then I were to change my mind and click unbuild. Then...change my mind again and decide I actually want a Mech Unit. The second time I click Build is it random again or do I get the same unit that was built initially? 'cause, you know, I don't trust anyone...especially my Buddies[;)]

SamuraiProgrmmr -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (4/27/2009 5:05:06 PM)
To be completely fair, would it not be best if the actual unit does not get chosen until the end of the selections? (That is to say, when they can no longer be undone.) This would prevent someone building a Mech, getting a crappy one, and saying 'I think I will build the armor after all'. Just thinking out loud.....

Page: << < prev 52 53 [54] 55 56 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.90625