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 (9/21/2009 10:03:29 PM)
4th in a series of 5. And what you have all been wanting to see, here is Global War, sometime after Germany has conquered the Lowlands. [image]local://upfiles/16701/996263E6D7BC4613BC26029C37178129.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/21/2009 10:05:58 PM)
5th and last in the series. This is Lebensraum, still early in the campaign. I think I'll change the column headers to match the currrent major power. here they are shown as if the Commonwealth were viewing the form. [image]local://upfiles/16701/67C3E816BBF0473D80FC36ACCA21A8A4.jpg[/image]

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/21/2009 10:35:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Here is the other scenario that is limited to half of the world. Another problem I have is the very long names for some objective hex (e.g., Rabual). I'll have to shorten those too. Well is it really important ? The forms you did add to the game, giving a clear picture of what you have and what remains to get, but Rabaul is understandable as is. quote: [image]local://upfiles/16701/1A3D6480713244F79CF668BA26C950A8.jpg[/image] How came China to be given credit for Diego Suarez (Madagascar). Isn't India closer ?

composer99 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/21/2009 10:59:48 PM)
You could probably omit the country/territory names from the objective names.

sajbalk -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/21/2009 11:12:09 PM)
Would it be possible to list the objectives alphbetically or by map? Also, designer needs to be aware that for neutral objectives, the closest (unconquered) major power capital gets control. India's capital is closer to, I think, Aden, Riyahd, Teheran, and perhaps Bagdhad.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/21/2009 11:24:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sajbalk Would it be possible to list the objectives alphbetically or by map? Also, designer needs to be aware that for neutral objectives, the closest (unconquered) major power capital gets control. India's capital is closer to, I think, Aden, Riyahd, Teheran, and perhaps Bagdhad. I thought about different sorting schemes but I wasn't really happy with any of them. What you see here are the objectives from north to south; except for Barbarossa where the true objective cities are listed first, followed by the USSR cities that count for victory pioints in that scenario. One of the reasons I really wanted this information listed was to check that the calcualtions of ownership/nearest is being done correctly. === Here is another scenario with the form slightly improved. I will have to allocate more room for the table in the upper left for when there are multiple players (up to 6). [image]local://upfiles/16701/FE8DBFBF8C03448EAF0BD14B8C263505.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 12:58:16 AM)
One last screen shot of this form for today. I shortened the names of some places so they fit within the space available. I need to write more code for Guadalcanal and Day of Infamy which have different victory conditions. I also want to indicate when the 'owner' is because of proximity. [image]local://upfiles/16701/400F3910D2254B99932BB898132B978F.jpg[/image]

warspite1 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 4:34:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets One last screen shot of this form for today. I shortened the names of some places so they fit within the space available. I need to write more code for Guadalcanal and Day of Infamy which have different victory conditions. I also want to indicate when the 'owner' is because of proximity. [image]local://upfiles/16701/400F3910D2254B99932BB898132B978F.jpg[/image] Warspite1 Nice forms [:)] Suggestion Could you amend the Owner name, rather than shorten the Objective description? The reason I say this is that some of the objective places will not be readily identifiable to players new to the game and/or with limited geographic knowledge e.g. Pago Pago, Diego Suarez etc. Instead why not have: CW, USA, Fr, Jap, China, USSR and Ger. Because you have added the colours (excellent idea), this makes it clear which major power you are referring to without the full name.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 4:46:53 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets One last screen shot of this form for today. I shortened the names of some places so they fit within the space available. I need to write more code for Guadalcanal and Day of Infamy which have different victory conditions. I also want to indicate when the 'owner' is because of proximity. [image]local://upfiles/16701/400F3910D2254B99932BB898132B978F.jpg[/image] Warspite1 Nice forms [:)] Suggestion Could you amend the Owner name, rather than shorten the Objective description? The reason I say this is that some of the objective places will not be readily identifiable to players new to the game and/or with limited geographic knowledge e.g. Pago Pago, Diego Suarez etc. Instead why not have: CW, USA, Fr, Jap, China, USSR and Ger. Because you have added the colours (excellent idea), this makes it clear which major power you are referring to without the full name. That's the full list of objective hexes - I only had to shortened 3 names (Aleut., Neth., and Terr.). I don't think anything has bee lost by doing so. I will use abbreviations for the major powers when there are more than 1 of them and their name is long (i.e., CW & US). That will come up very rarely. I have added an asterisk if the objective is assigned by proximity of the capital (not shown here - maybe I'll find time to do that tomorrow).

warspite1 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 4:56:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets One last screen shot of this form for today. I shortened the names of some places so they fit within the space available. I need to write more code for Guadalcanal and Day of Infamy which have different victory conditions. I also want to indicate when the 'owner' is because of proximity. [image]local://upfiles/16701/400F3910D2254B99932BB898132B978F.jpg[/image] Warspite1 Nice forms [:)] Suggestion Could you amend the Owner name, rather than shorten the Objective description? The reason I say this is that some of the objective places will not be readily identifiable to players new to the game and/or with limited geographic knowledge e.g. Pago Pago, Diego Suarez etc. Instead why not have: CW, USA, Fr, Jap, China, USSR and Ger. Because you have added the colours (excellent idea), this makes it clear which major power you are referring to without the full name. That's the full list of objective hexes - I only had to shortened 3 names (Aleut., Neth., and Terr.). I don't think anything has bee lost by doing so. I will use abbreviations for the major powers when there are more than 1 of them and their name is long (i.e., CW & US). That will come up very rarely. I have added an asterisk if the objective is assigned by proximity of the capital (not shown here - maybe I'll find time to do that tomorrow). Warspite1 Okay thanks - as I say, these are nice, well set out, user friendly forms that let a player know at-a-glance what the state of play is.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 5:56:37 AM)
One more screen shot with the lateset revisions. I've added the asterisks for those hexes that are not physically owned by a major power. I'm going to need one more tweak to allow 15 items in the list of player. There is only room for 14 presently. EDIT: By the way, the order of victory cities is by latitude, with Helsinki the northernmost and Wellington the southernmost. [image]local://upfiles/16701/66050817DE4141B9A91233FD3F52571A.jpg[/image]

Orm -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 8:00:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I decided it was moderately insane to not include a list of the objective hexes and who controls them - as part of the Victory Totals. Here is my first pass on this. The scenario is Barbarossa. Notice that some cities appear twice because they are counted twice (e.g., Moscow). [image]local://upfiles/16701/5EEF22A061CD47D382665167EFCAB45A.jpg[/image] Could you make the color a neutral white for when the victory point is split between 2 sides? Or maybe use both the nations colors? I think that I would prefer that Helsinki in this example was in white color.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 8:20:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets I decided it was moderately insane to not include a list of the objective hexes and who controls them - as part of the Victory Totals. Here is my first pass on this. The scenario is Barbarossa. Notice that some cities appear twice because they are counted twice (e.g., Moscow). [image]local://upfiles/16701/5EEF22A061CD47D382665167EFCAB45A.jpg[/image] Could you make the color a neutral white for when the victory point is split between 2 sides? Or maybe use both the nations colors? I think that I would prefer that Helsinki in this example was in white color. I think the asterisks will help with that. But I'll see how it looks with white for split ownership. One thing I want to do for the Barbarossa victory list is to put a '2' after those that count double - and remove the duplicate entries.

composer99 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 3:39:17 PM)
For the asterisk identifying when a neutral objective is going to a major power based on proximity, I trust there will be a note at the bottom of the form telling the viewer what it is for?

Plainian -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 4:30:05 PM)
I like the colour code scheme as well. White for 'shared' ownership is a good idea. I find ownership by proximity rather than occupancy a strange game concept? If game ended would the Major power really get these Victory Points? Layout is fine but I would have thought that a columnar approach with countries as column headings and VP sites owned underneath would have been a better approach? However Steve says that he needs 14 spaces for countries (which would be the column headers) and I've no idea what the longest row would be? So possibly the layout above is more cost effective in space. (I see France would need 3 headings...) I think the space or row taken up with the declaration of who is winning is unecessary though. The table at top clearly shows this? But it does add a bit of flavour to all the tables. [8\|]

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 5:46:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets EDIT: By the way, the order of victory cities is by latitude, with Helsinki the northernmost and Wellington the southernmost. I think that an alphabetical list would be better. If you search for Rabaul for example, it is easier to search at "r" rather than between Singapore and Batavia.

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 5:48:15 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Plain Ian I like the colour code scheme as well. White for 'shared' ownership is a good idea. I find ownership by proximity rather than occupancy a strange game concept? If game ended would the Major power really get these Victory Points? Yes. All 67 objectives count, and all need to be attributed to a Major Power. The neutral ones are considered under influence by the nearest Major Power, and that Major Power gets the credit for that Objective.

composer99 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 6:46:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets EDIT: By the way, the order of victory cities is by latitude, with Helsinki the northernmost and Wellington the southernmost. I think that an alphabetical list would be better. If you search for Rabaul for example, it is easier to search at "r" rather than between Singapore and Batavia. I concur with Patrice.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 6:48:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 For the asterisk identifying when a neutral objective is going to a major power based on proximity, I trust there will be a note at the bottom of the form telling the viewer what it is for? See post 1811 for the note about the asterisks.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 6:58:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: composer99 quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets EDIT: By the way, the order of victory cities is by latitude, with Helsinki the northernmost and Wellington the southernmost. I think that an alphabetical list would be better. If you search for Rabaul for example, it is easier to search at "r" rather than between Singapore and Batavia. I concur with Patrice. Ok, I'll look into adding the ability to sort by: (1) alphabetically by name of location, (2) controlling major power, and (3) by latitude. Any others? --- I'll add the function that if you click on a city, the detailed map centers on the city. For players with a limited background in geography that should be a big help.

Orm -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 7:28:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Ok, I'll look into adding the ability to sort by: (1) alphabetically by name of location, (2) controlling major power, and (3) by latitude. Any others? --- I'll add the function that if you click on a city, the detailed map centers on the city. For players with a limited background in geography that should be a big help. If it is not to much trouble it would be nice to be able to sort by area. For example: -Africa -America -Asia -Europe -Pacific Or something like that.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 9:23:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Orm quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets Ok, I'll look into adding the ability to sort by: (1) alphabetically by name of location, (2) controlling major power, and (3) by latitude. Any others? --- I'll add the function that if you click on a city, the detailed map centers on the city. For players with a limited background in geography that should be a big help. If it is not to much trouble it would be nice to be able to sort by area. For example: -Africa -America -Asia -Europe -Pacific Or something like that. That is difficult to do, since there is no underlying data for which continent a hex is in. I do know which country it is in, but some countries span more than one continent. === Here is today's version of this form. 1 of 2 screen shots. [image]local://upfiles/16701/AE852B9657E2472F89C0B05AEED42516.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 9:25:01 PM)
2nd and last of 2 in the series. [image]local://upfiles/16701/BC5E4BA972D74DC0A7D656321F31EEFB.jpg[/image]

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 10:04:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets quote: ORIGINAL: Orm If it is not to much trouble it would be nice to be able to sort by area. For example: -Africa -America -Asia -Europe -Pacific Or something like that. That is difficult to do, since there is no underlying data for which continent a hex is in. I do know which country it is in, but some countries span more than one continent. You can also sort by map. The map information is part of the map data files, but maybe the problem is that some countries are on 2 maps. Well, both the screenshots you presented here are very satisfying to me, I need no more.

macgregor -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/22/2009 11:03:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Froonp quote: ORIGINAL: macgregor I noticed this replacement unit for the Gneisenau, which I imagine assumes the Germans replace the 11" guns with 15-inchers, plus upgrades to the AA guns(re-adjusting the radar for slow moving biplanes) but I could not find anything about this kind of naval upgrade in the rules. Is this something that comes with one of the new addons? Naturally I think it's a great idea. I'm just not aware of it. Here is the relevant part of RAW that deals with replacement naval units : ************************************* 4.1.4 Replacement naval units (SiF option 9) A few naval units have a gold box around their availability year. In a later year, replacement units will turn up for these units. Their availability year will also be shown in a gold box. If the original unit has been removed from the game when the replacement unit arrives, remove the replacement unit from the game. Otherwise, during any reinforcement step, you can remove the original unit from the game and add the replacement unit. Put the replacement unit in the force pool if the original unit is either in the force pool or face-down on the production circle; or Put the replacement unit in the construction pool if the original unit is in: � the repair pool, � the construction pool, � on the map, or � face-up on the production circle. ************************************* Available replacement naval units in WiF FE : French CL De Grasse replaced by CVL De Grasse in 1940 French CL Guichen replaced by CVL Guichen in 1941 German CA Seydlitz replaced by CVL Seydlitz in 1942 German BB Gneisenau upgunned in 1940 German BB Scharnhorst upgunned in 1941 Japanese BB Hyuga replaced by CV Hyuga in 1942 Japanese BB Ise replaced by CV Ise in 1942 Japanese BB Shinano replaced by CV Shinano (2 possibilities) in 1942 Japanese BB Karyu replaced by CV Karyu (2 possibilities) in 1943 The Schnarhorst & Gneisenau upgrades came up with the latest CS23 in 2007 2 years ago. Thank you so much for that Froonp. I'm astounded at the speed of these threads. It appears as thought there is a large contingent of community members that are rising to the challenge of making a game that is more complex, more capable, and more detailed than anything imagined 3 years ago. I may be 4f when it comes to programming, but I don't want to hide behind my lack of skills. If there is something someone needs that I can research and compose, I'd be happy to chip in even at this 11th hour. Just PM me. [image]local://upfiles/10934/1C850BA355D84F17965D75B7298F95C3.jpg[/image]

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/23/2009 10:01:22 PM)
Here is the last of the major combat charts. [image]local://upfiles/16701/5058B5D269644E8395E8609C78953B8A.jpg[/image]

sajbalk -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/23/2009 11:18:36 PM)
The format looks great. I would remind you however that the neutral objective hexes trace to the closest major power capital. The CW has 6 such capitals. Delhi is closer than Moscow to at least Teheran. Teheran should show as CW. Oh, I see that Tehreran does not have an asterik, so it must have been captured by the USSR.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/24/2009 3:00:27 AM)
Here's a screen shot taken at the 2nd impulse of the first turn of the Global War scenario. There are only two victory hexes that might have split ownership. And I believe that is true forever in the game. Notice that China gets credit for Batavia until: the Axis declares war on the Netherlands and that country aligns to the Commonwealth. [image]local://upfiles/16701/C642E025A6914B6583EC79E452AFF4AF.jpg[/image]

sajbalk -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/24/2009 4:05:36 AM)
Shannon V. -- Batavia is closer to Delhi or Canberra, I think. If you have chosen to trace only to London, that is fine but you will need to recount the levels necessary for victory.

Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (9/24/2009 4:50:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: sajbalk Shannon V. -- Batavia is closer to Delhi or Canberra, I think. If you have chosen to trace only to London, that is fine but you will need to recount the levels necessary for victory. Welcome to the world of computers.[;)] [image]local://upfiles/16701/DFDD977EE81E443BB694DE3E229A81BA.jpg[/image]

Page: << < prev 59 60 [61] 62 63 next > >>

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

1.391113