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 (10/3/2009 10:19:16 PM)

4th in a series of 5. Here are all active Allied major powers. In effect, the US and CW convoys are merged. That's important when you are looking for unused convoys from an allied major power to use.

The locations of the sea area names are intentionally unaligned. When the numbers for the units in the sea area become so long they do not fit within the sea area, I do not want them overwriting each other. I need to go through and double check all of these. The names are just below the numbers, so there are effectively two rows in each sea area that should not overlap with their neighbors on the left and right.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/D04A4EFD997C476193A3A75764AAC565.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/3/2009 10:23:07 PM)

5th and last in the series. These are the active Axis convoys against the weather map.

I just wanted to point out how difficult it is to get the colors right. In the end, there are always combinations that are garish (to say the least).

I recommend not showing the convoys when looking at the weather map.[;)] If you must, then prepare yourself mentally first, and turn it off as soon as possible.[:D]



[image]local://upfiles/16701/C95FABEF060A43669D784350745DE521.jpg[/image]



paulderynck -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/4/2009 12:03:49 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The program handles the trade agreements, since they are mandatory. Then it rails non-oil resources to factories, which is a no-brainer. But for the rest, there is the Production Planning phase (not part of WIF FE per se). The Prod. Plan. phase was inserted in the sequence of play expressly to enable players to do what you are asking for.

I am still in the process of figuring out how to improve that phase. I redid the PP form extensively last spring, and I am working on the map graphics for routing resources now. Then I'll go back to the PP form and look at how to use all the different buttons for saving oil and routing resources. I am thinking along the lines of merging the lists of resources and factories portion of the form with the double size global map.

Those maps are looking great!

About the program handling the trade agreements - and lending I assume? It may be better to let the player do that and just have a check that the lending rules are enforced. If not then the player is prompted to change what he has done until the lends are satisfied or he loses the RPs/BPs he can't deliver. Of course the program must enforce delivery if delivery is possible - those are the rules.

However here is a case in point from my game in progress. Russia is holding out against Barbarosa on the line Yaroslavl-Moscow-Voronezh-Rostov and has two factories in Archangel which are in their own pocket. Every turn the CW is lending 2 oil and 2 reources to Russia. CW has taken Iraq and the resource in Finland. When Archangel is iced in, stored oil there is used for production and the lends come in through Persia. When Archangel is ice free, the lends all go there with the resources being produced and the oil being stored. If the oil reaches its max limit of 8 (I should be so lucky), then the oil goes in through Persia and gets stored in Siberia somewhere.

So from this example I think trying to write the program to do the lends might be really frustrating and then likely result in players wanting it to be done differently then the progam might have.

I think the lending needs to be controlled by the players, with the program just checking to enforce the rules.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/4/2009 1:26:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck


quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The program handles the trade agreements, since they are mandatory. Then it rails non-oil resources to factories, which is a no-brainer. But for the rest, there is the Production Planning phase (not part of WIF FE per se). The Prod. Plan. phase was inserted in the sequence of play expressly to enable players to do what you are asking for.

I am still in the process of figuring out how to improve that phase. I redid the PP form extensively last spring, and I am working on the map graphics for routing resources now. Then I'll go back to the PP form and look at how to use all the different buttons for saving oil and routing resources. I am thinking along the lines of merging the lists of resources and factories portion of the form with the double size global map.

Those maps are looking great!

About the program handling the trade agreements - and lending I assume? It may be better to let the player do that and just have a check that the lending rules are enforced. If not then the player is prompted to change what he has done until the lends are satisfied or he loses the RPs/BPs he can't deliver. Of course the program must enforce delivery if delivery is possible - those are the rules.

However here is a case in point from my game in progress. Russia is holding out against Barbarosa on the line Yaroslavl-Moscow-Voronezh-Rostov and has two factories in Archangel which are in their own pocket. Every turn the CW is lending 2 oil and 2 reources to Russia. CW has taken Iraq and the resource in Finland. When Archangel is iced in, stored oil there is used for production and the lends come in through Persia. When Archangel is ice free, the lends all go there with the resources being produced and the oil being stored. If the oil reaches its max limit of 8 (I should be so lucky), then the oil goes in through Persia and gets stored in Siberia somewhere.

So from this example I think trying to write the program to do the lends might be really frustrating and then likely result in players wanting it to be done differently then the progam might have.

I think the lending needs to be controlled by the players, with the program just checking to enforce the rules.

Yes.



BallyJ -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/4/2009 2:37:45 AM)

Just me again.
Writting with regard to "stuff on the map".
Will we be able to turn off those sea names.
I can understand why you did it but for me they are very distracting.
Can I add that I latest world maps are great.
Regards John




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/4/2009 4:58:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: BallyJ

Just me again.
Writting with regard to "stuff on the map".
Will we be able to turn off those sea names.
I can understand why you did it but for me they are very distracting.
Can I add that I latest world maps are great.
Regards John



Hmmm. I think the names will be very important when examining convoys & ships at sea. But if you turn off the convoy/ships at sea information, then the sea area names disappear. That isn't eactly a straight toggle on/off capability, but pretty close. Also, I only show the sea area names on the double size global map; they are absent on the lower resolution global map.

Perhaps you'll like the names better with this set of screen shots. I have cleaned them up quite a bit.
===
Here are the German subs: the 3rd number in the sea area is for submarines. The first is convoys and the second is surface ships/escorts.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/A52B822D997B4E27B10AF70ACFBF44E7.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/4/2009 5:00:11 AM)

2nd in a series of 5.

I found the black on red font too difficult to read. I've changed the font to white for Japan, US, USSR, and the CW.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/16F768533EF242DB8AED95CA528479E3.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/4/2009 5:05:45 AM)

3rd in the series of 5. Here are the few USSR naval units at sea with the hex control as a background. Notice that Italy has been reduced to just Albania.

I worked on the placement of the names most of the afternoon. I found that when the sea areas have engouh room I could align them horizontally, which make the visual more coherent. I also lengthened the name in many places/ I really like the name Mouths of the Amazon; it gives my images of piranas and alligators.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/3F85D6A9333F4C2FA4B1FA27020DC6D8.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/4/2009 5:11:18 AM)

4th in a series of 5. The 4th number in a sea area is for air units. That includes both land based and carrier based air units present in the sea area. In summary, the 4 numbers are: convoys, surface ships, subs, and air units.

I was unhappy with the conencting lines 'disappearing' against the sea area color. I've since changed them to cream for the CW.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/AE83A574690B445BBAE3947D041D6DC8.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/4/2009 5:13:33 AM)

5th and last in the series. Here is what the connecting lines look like when they are colored cream. The annoyance is that the Red Sea to Eastern Med connection disappears on this background. I think I'll try a 'dirtier' white.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/465AA09057D44875987802CCFB31F9BE.jpg[/image]



BallyJ -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/4/2009 11:32:27 AM)

Thanks for the reply.
I know most of the the names of the sea areas.
It is just that being a senior 65+ the names dominate my field of vision.
Look I love this game and have played it for more yearsd than I can remember.
This is a minor issue just would like to be able to see the bare mininum.
Regards John



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/12/2009 10:34:55 PM)

I am working on integrating using the double sized global map with the other forms. I tied it into the Units In Hex form yesterday. Here is what it looks like with the Naval Review Details form.

If you look closely, you can see the cursor is on Gibraltar in the Global Map. My intent here is to let you see what units are at sea while choosing which naval units to move (ignore the fact that the screen shot was taken during Port Attack CAP). If this works correctly, you can review the entire Atlantic Ocean without scrolling - just by moving the cursor over different sea areas, which updates the Naval Review Details form. It is a little trickier to position the cursor on an individual city (e.g., Brest, Kiel, La Spezia). The Naval Review Summary works better if you want to know which units (friendly and enemy) are in specific ports.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/9E028C5A6D6B4EBEA42698B95DE9DC16.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/12/2009 10:37:36 PM)

2nd and last in a series of 2. Here I moved the cursor slightly to the left, into Cape St. Vincent. That explains what the 9/1 represents on the Global Map. You might notice that the NRD form isn't being fully refreshed - it still has info from the previous screen shot. I'll fix.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/59D1694EE3C747B4A705CE06F5751B6F.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/12/2009 10:50:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd and last in a series of 2. Here I moved the cursor slightly to the left, into Cape St. Vincent. That explains what the 9/1 represents on the Global Map. You might notice that the NRD form isn't being fully refreshed - it still has info from the previous screen shot. I'll fix.

And it shows 9 CP and 2 combat ships while the global map says 9/1.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/13/2009 3:53:29 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd and last in a series of 2. Here I moved the cursor slightly to the left, into Cape St. Vincent. That explains what the 9/1 represents on the Global Map. You might notice that the NRD form isn't being fully refreshed - it still has info from the previous screen shot. I'll fix.

And it shows 9 CP and 2 combat ships while the global map says 9/1.

One of the combat ships is transporting a division.



warspite1 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/13/2009 5:31:22 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd and last in a series of 2. Here I moved the cursor slightly to the left, into Cape St. Vincent. That explains what the 9/1 represents on the Global Map. You might notice that the NRD form isn't being fully refreshed - it still has info from the previous screen shot. I'll fix.

And it shows 9 CP and 2 combat ships while the global map says 9/1.

One of the combat ships is transporting a division.

Warspite1

This is an excellent idea - keeping track of the exact whereabouts of CW / US and Japanese ships can be a real chore, so I think this is a really useful tool [:)].

One query - why would the fact that a combat vessel is transporting a unit mean that it does not appear in the summary of what is in the sea area?



Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/13/2009 6:24:21 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd and last in a series of 2. Here I moved the cursor slightly to the left, into Cape St. Vincent. That explains what the 9/1 represents on the Global Map. You might notice that the NRD form isn't being fully refreshed - it still has info from the previous screen shot. I'll fix.

And it shows 9 CP and 2 combat ships while the global map says 9/1.

One of the combat ships is transporting a division.

I seem to remember back in the days of CWiF that the indicators at sea indicated the number of ships transporting other units, such as TRS / AMPH and loaded SCS. Isn't it the case anymore ?
You had 4 figures : Convoys, Ships, Air units, Transporting unit. Maybe the 2 last ones were in reverse order, don't remember.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/13/2009 9:25:39 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd and last in a series of 2. Here I moved the cursor slightly to the left, into Cape St. Vincent. That explains what the 9/1 represents on the Global Map. You might notice that the NRD form isn't being fully refreshed - it still has info from the previous screen shot. I'll fix.

And it shows 9 CP and 2 combat ships while the global map says 9/1.

One of the combat ships is transporting a division.

I seem to remember back in the days of CWiF that the indicators at sea indicated the number of ships transporting other units, such as TRS / AMPH and loaded SCS. Isn't it the case anymore ?
You had 4 figures : Convoys, Ships, Air units, Transporting unit. Maybe the 2 last ones were in reverse order, don't remember.

I haven't (knowingly) touched this code from CWIF. Nor have I closely examined it for accuracy. As a sort of side effect of my quest to provide the players with better/more complete information, screenshots like the one I posted enable cross-checking/validating data presented in forms.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/17/2009 1:28:24 AM)

I am still working on making naval movement easier. Towards that end I have made changes to the Naval Review Details form over the past few days (in between Phillies play-off games).

As usual with this form, my goal is to make as many units visible as possible. As you can see, the form is tightly packed and the buttons smaller than usual.

The screenshot on the left has the cursor over a single unit (the CV Indefatigable). The one in the middle is the same except that 4 units have bee selected for movement: two BB and 2 CA. If you look close you can see the light green bar under the selected units. The center screenshot also shows the summary information for the selected units in the unit data panel. The interesting stuff is NAtt = 19 factors, NBomb = 8 factors, NMov = 5. The idea is to move them into the Bay of Biscay to provide shore bombardment for an invasion.

The way the interface works is that if you move the cursor over a unit the data panel shows the stats for that unit. If you click on a blank area, then the data panel toggles between showing summary information for just the selected units and for all the units in the current port/sea area.

On the right an HQ has been selected and that fact is made visually by displaying the unit in the upper right corner. If there were an empty transport in the list, the HQ could then be loaded onto it by simply clicking on the transport.

Similarly, carrier air units can be assigned/deassigned to carriers by selecting the carrier air units and then clicking on a carrier. That is permitted during the setup and reinfrocement phases, as well as during air rebase.
===
The check boxes are inclusive filters. The radio button group Section is exclusive filters. The radio button group Cycle controls the interpretation of the First/Previous/Next/Last buttons; clicking on those buttons either cycles through all the ports or all the sea areas.
===
I am still coding the radio button group Unit Lists and should have that done today or tomorrow. Nada just has a small space underneath the units so you can see which ones are selected. Status shows the status indicators (e.g., able to move, disrupted) and Sectn shows the sea box sections numbers when examining a sea area.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/46795F7D165E4448B76463FB2CE37314.jpg[/image]



Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/18/2009 8:41:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The one in the middle is the same except that 4 units have bee selected for movement: two BB and 2 CA. If you look close you can see the light green bar under the selected units.

It is hard to see which units are selected.



Skanvak -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/18/2009 7:23:11 PM)

May be it is the color because nearly half the CW ships seems to have a light green bar around them, which is confusing with the light green one below.

I would rather go with an unselected box and a selected box with a click and drag/drop between the two boxes to select and not make row for BB/cruisers/Carriers (may be a button to show it, but i could do with carrier display first then BB then cruisers with the number of row according to the windows size (like icons in windows)). For the drag and drop multi-select you can then do with a standard greyed out counter (as you wan't really have to care about the counter being readable while selected for the drag and drop).

I don't know how you handle TF, but that could be a way to simplify the system if you compel ships to be a TF to be moved in stack. So one row for each TF would allow easy selection, as you would simply have to select TF on map for move once you form them.

I hope that I am not widely out of topics as I don't palytest, I reason only on the screenshot.




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/18/2009 7:46:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

May be it is the color because nearly half the CW ships seems to have a light green bar around them, which is confusing with the light green one below.

I would rather go with an unselected box and a selected box with a click and drag/drop between the two boxes to select and not make row for BB/cruisers/Carriers (may be a button to show it, but i could do with carrier display first then BB then cruisers with the number of row according to the windows size (like icons in windows)). For the drag and drop multi-select you can then do with a standard greyed out counter (as you wan't really have to care about the counter being readable while selected for the drag and drop).

I don't know how you handle TF, but that could be a way to simplify the system if you compel ships to be a TF to be moved in stack. So one row for each TF would allow easy selection, as you would simply have to select TF on map for move once you form them.

I hope that I am not widely out of topics as I don't palytest, I reason only on the screenshot.



I doubled the size of the area below the selected unit (from 2 pixels high to 4) and used gray instead of light green. That should solve the visiblity issue.
---
Selecting and deselecting units is only one of the purposes of the Naval Review Details form. It will be used extensively to review enemy units at sea and in ports - in those cases all the units would be 'unselectable' and the 'selectable' column/row would be wasted space.

Similarly, you will want to examine units belonging to other major powers on your side. The game design is for a player to only be able to 'move' units for the currently active major power. You can switch between which major power is 'current' freely, provided the rules permit that to be done, but while the US player is making decisions, he can not 'move' CW units (for instance). During over-the-board games players are often a little loose in obeying those rules, and no harm is done. But for the computer version of WIF, all rules are strickly enforced.

All-in-all, I would guess that the word Review in the name of the form indicates its primary use.

The NRD form is designed to occupy no more than half the screen. That leaves room for the Naval Review Summary form to occupy the other half. I have also taken to using the double sized global map in the other half of the screen (instead of the NRS form). That lets me move the cursor over the different sea areas on the global map and have the NRD form update when the cursor enters a new sea area (or port).
---
I am not a fan of drag-and-drop. It requires some additional dexterity with the mouse - holding down the button while repositioning the cursor on the 'target'. MWIF never employs drag-and-drop. Instead, the player clicks on a unit/object to select it and then clicks on the 'target'. The benefit of this difference should be obvious to anyone who has used drag-and-drop extensively: when the target is not visible and scrolling (or something similar) is required, drag-and-drop requires contortions from either the interface design and/or the user.



morgil -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/18/2009 10:05:56 PM)

How about marking the units with a big phat red stripe right across the chit, just over the name of the unit ?
And then use a white one for japan ?
Unsubtle, but definate..



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/18/2009 10:32:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morgil

How about marking the units with a big phat red stripe right across the chit, just over the name of the unit ?
And then use a white one for japan ?
Unsubtle, but definate..


I'll show some more screen shots later today. Right now I am in the middle of making changes and the program does not compile cleanly.
---
This is mostly a moot point. The screen shots shown so far are without status indicators, which will be displayed when selecting units - the indicators let you identify which units can be moved. When the status indicators are shown, which units are selected is blatantly obvious.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/1B95088CB59C43B29614818245774625.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/19/2009 6:40:22 AM)

Here are some more screenshots of the Naval Review Details form. I've fixed some of the blemishes, though there are still a couple more that are annoying me.

What you see here are the 4 variations on displaying the Unit Lists. If you look at the Unit Lists radio button group you can see which one is which. Selected units are pretty obvious except when there are so many units in a column that the scroll bar is present. Even that isn't too bad unless you are using Nada as the Unit Lists setting.

The first two screenshots here show the summary stats for the selected units. The 3rd shows the summary stats for all units on the page.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/A66489DD06174F3FA334D5273E103020.jpg[/image]



Skanvak -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/19/2009 6:42:34 AM)

For the movement path, will it be one-click move or select path (pathe highlight) and validate (like in blood bowl). As there are possibility of ennemy interception the second possibility is interesting, unless you want to impose an area by area move (ie several click).



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/19/2009 6:45:14 AM)

Second in a series of 3. Here is a composite screenshot comparing the Flyouts to the NRD form. When there are 9 or fewer units, the Flyouts are probably preferable, since they have a smaller footprint and show the units at zoom level 6, instead of 5. They do that showing the status indicators, but not the sea box section.

The Flyouts don't have any controls/filters - you get the same information every time, and all the units in the hex (which can be a sea area section box) are shown.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/38EDB96D10CB49209CF6C6EC50A340B4.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/19/2009 6:49:31 AM)

3rd and last in the series.

Here is a case where the NRD form is much easier to use than the Flyouts. With 50 units in the hex, filtering out the CW Mosquito (and other CW units) is a good idea while you are moving the US units. The NRD form makes it easy to load the marines on the transports and chose which of the CVs, BBs, and CAs should accompanying them on their visit to Japanese held islands.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/7C8B1E741361454D825CDA9D9EB757E6.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/19/2009 6:56:58 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skanvak

For the movement path, will it be one-click move or select path (pathe highlight) and validate (like in blood bowl). As there are possibility of ennemy interception the second possibility is interesting, unless you want to impose an area by area move (ie several click).

1. When a stack of units is selected, the program determines all possible/legal destination hexes/sea areas.

2. You can Ctrl-left click on a sea area (or hex) to move the stack of units through a series of contiguous sea areas (hexes). By choosing the correct path, you could go around a sea area where enemy units might intercept your moving stack.

3. If you click on a single destination sea area, then that is where your units are placed - unless that is a sea area where you can be intercepted.

4. If interception is possible, then a series of decisions are made by the opposing sides as part of the "naval interception digression". If the moving stack is permitted to continue moving, and the player wants to have them continue moving, then the program redetermines all possible/legal destination sea areas (and we are back to #1).



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (10/19/2009 7:03:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: morgil

How about marking the units with a big phat red stripe right across the chit, just over the name of the unit ?
And then use a white one for japan ?
Unsubtle, but definate..


Just a note that I might appear somewhat brusque in my replies (or lack thereof) to suggestions.[8|] That is not intentional, just one of my personality defects.[:(]

I do read all suggestions seriously and throw them into my mix of thoughts & ideas on the game. Some ideas may have zero apparent impact on what I am doing until months later, when they resurface in a modified form.



Page: <<   < prev  61 62 [63] 64 65   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.78125