RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (Full Version)

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



Message

Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/7/2006 10:24:40 AM)

quote:

Why do you want the future years?

Just to be sure you're not scrapping a unit for which there is none or too few replacements in the future years additions to the force pools.
There are force pools where there are few units, sometimes there is not 1 per year, so seeing 2 years in advance may be interesting (TRS & AMPH for Italy for example). If you are proposed to scrap a unit and that there is no such unit next turn, you'd better be sure there are some in the following year, assuming you have no immediate need to rebuilt the destroyed counter.
There are force pools who are strange in their distribution of quality of units amongst the years (SUBs for instance) and sometimes ou have a good counter (good on attack for example, but bad in range, or the reverse) that you could scrap, that is replaced with worse counters the following year and better ones 2 years after.
Well, to sum up, in the paper game you are free to look at all years force pools additions when scrapping units (provided they are all sorted out and all easily reachable, which is the case for our group), so it would be good to be able too in the Computer game.



Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/7/2006 10:44:41 AM)

quote:

We are only trying to scrap units after all.

Oh, I just thought agout something.
When scrapping carrier planes, it is mandatory to have the remaining carrier planes in the force pool, those in the reserve and those on the map to be viewable sorted out by class.
For the CW & Japan this is essential.
Is this crappy (0-3) swordfish (0 fighter 3 naval) the only one class 1 CVP that I have in my force pool ?
If I scrap it, will I have enought class 1 CVP left in my force pool to fit my 3 important class 1 CVs & CVLs (Eagle, Hermes, Argus), and to have good chances to draw some ?
I always do this when scrapping carrier planes especially as the CW player because there are years when my added CVP are nearly all unable to enter my class 2 CVs (1941 for example, the 10 new planes are all of classes 4 & 3, there are no 2 or 1, so I need to keep some even if they are scrapable and not the very best planes I have available), only a few are able too even with the lowering of the CV class, so it is important to keep some of the early and scrapable CVPs.

Well, you know what ?

I think you'd better design a separate dialog that shows units, give the option to filter & sort them out as the player see fit, and have this dialog be called from the scrap dialog, wouldn't you ?

The "Units" dialog was perfect in this regard IIRC. The only thing that you need is to call it from the "scrap" dialog, and have the "scrap" dialog automatically move somewhere where it can still be seen from the "unit" dialog.

Well, I don't know, these are ideas...



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/7/2006 10:53:31 AM)

Your explanation for why you want the out years is compelling. I'll add that capability.

I share your concern about the carriers and their accompanying carrier air units. It is the main thing that bothered me about this form.

Rather than borrow using a different form (the view units form) let's think about what we would really like to see when deciding about carriers and carrier air units. I am a little sleepy right now and can't formulate my ideas into words very well. Visually I would like the carriers somehow lined up with the carrier air units. I'll think about this some more with my eyes close while making weird noises through my mouth and nose. Tomorrow is another day.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/7/2006 6:30:06 PM)

I was right! Tomorrow is another day.

Here are some overnight improvements for the scrap units form.

I have added the check boxes for which years to include units in the future entries list.

I have added a whole pantheon of buttons at the top. Besides the all units of each major type (air/land/naval), the player can now choose examine and work on just a subset of each. I haven't written any code to support those buttons, but it is easy to do.

I eliminated the reserve count since it just confused me as a player.

The garrison count seems wrong - I'll investigate.

The bottom list is not used for land units. For air it shows the air reserve, for naval it shows units in repair and construction. I thought about showing reserve units for land types but that didn't seem really relevant. Most of the time all the reserves have been called out, and when they haven't, your not at war yet any way. Also, reserve units can never be scrapped.

I am not sure if this ability to view the unit types in more detail solves the carrier/carrier air problem. What do you think?

[image]local://upfiles/16701/F351D3A86B14489AB26AE7709BB6F3E9.jpg[/image]



Glen Felzien -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/7/2006 7:22:32 PM)

This is a good evolution.

I suppose the question now is, can on map carriers and on map carrier air (or in force pool, or Entering force pool) be viewed at the same time? Is this important? (I last played 5th Ed.) Is multiple views of two or more classes of units simultaniously important or even worthwhile? If it is, there seems to be a little extra room near the bottom of the form to spread things out if need be.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/7/2006 8:49:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Glen Felzien

This is a good evolution.

I suppose the question now is, can on map carriers and on map carrier air (or in force pool, or Entering force pool) be viewed at the same time? Is this important? (I last played 5th Ed.) Is multiple views of two or more classes of units simultaniously important or even worthwhile? If it is, there seems to be a little extra room near the bottom of the form to spread things out if need be.


Extra room? I prefer as much white space as I can get on a form. Though that doesn't seem to be borne out in this one example does it?

The status boxes at the top of each unit indicate whether the carrier has an assigned air component or is empty. They also indicate whether the carrier air unit is on a carrier or unassigned. So, ... looking at the groups separately doesn't seem that bad an imposition.

And remember this form is just for the purpose of scrapping units. It comes up infrequently during game play and usually is an easy decision to make.

I sometimes despair that we are way over the top on this. On the other hand, scrapping units allows better players to exert their superior knowledge of how to play WIF - experienced WIF players will want this detailed level of information. We just have to tell the newbies to take the defaults for this screen until they have played the game enough to be able to make sense of all the tradeoffs involved.



Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/7/2006 10:06:07 PM)

quote:

I was right! Tomorrow is another day.
Here are some overnight improvements for the scrap units form.

Maybe change the buttons to filter the units to checkboxes, so that it allow for mixing the filters.
For the Carrier planes, you need to show the carrier planes sorted out by carrier class to be effective.
The better would be to be able to sort out using any value. Maybe this would be possible using a right click menu on the units in a given box ?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/7/2006 10:32:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
1 - Maybe change the buttons to filter the units to checkboxes, so that it allow for mixing the filters.
2 - For the Carrier planes, you need to show the carrier planes sorted out by carrier class to be effective.
3 - The better would be to be able to sort out using any value. Maybe this would be possible using a right click menu on the units in a given box ?


1 - I don't see any gain in function, only in interface complexity.

2 - Yes. That is how it is already being done.

3 - Same answer as for #1.

Our purpose here is to scrap units. Nothing more, nothing less.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 2:15:23 AM)

I have most of this working. The out years needs to be coded and so do the load and save functions.

For first time players, we'll just tell them to click on "Load Default List" and then "OK".

I am thinking of using a similar (but different) layout for a "review the troops" form. I like the idea that it is restricted to just one major power. I also like the sectioning by location (e.g., on map, in force pool). CWIF has a "see all the units in the game" form but that doesn't really provide an overview, just a very long vertical list.

The Reivew Units form could use this same layout with the scrappable and scrapped units lists removed. Instead of Load and Save List buttons, there would be buttons to switch to a different major power (even opposing major powers). I also would add a small piece of the detailed map (5 hexes by 5 hexes?) that would update whenever you passed the cursor over a unit in the On Map list (centering on that map on the unit).

Some commonality between all forms will help the players learn where to look to find information.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/D2243966597242B39A971D208337181D.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 2:20:37 AM)

Here are just the carriers. I have to figure out why they are not sorted correctly. The carrier air units are.

Note that the named naval units are now shown as being on the map. They aren't really but they soon will be. There is no random draw for named units (e.g., Carriers, HQs). If you look back at the previous screen shot you will see that some of the land units are required too. What is happening there is that set up calls for a specific type of unit (including nationality) and there is only one to choose from. It is therefore known that that unit will be selected (it is required for setup), and it is shown in the On Map list.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/926A668E10104F08BDF2CBAF0B729DB5.jpg[/image]



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 2:23:51 AM)

Here are just the carrier air units. This screen shot is the companion for the previous one. You can switch back and forth instantaneously to check on which carrier air units you hae available for which carriers. That seems to work pretty well without needing any additional improvements.

[image]local://upfiles/16701/271BA65AA25D4939A4E8DCA276FAF550.jpg[/image]



Glen Felzien -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 2:57:28 AM)

quote:

Some commonality between all forms will help the players learn where to look to find information.

An excellent point.

Will a player be able to have multiple windows open at any one time? This would allow a person to have two (or more) instances of this form open at one time thus allowing a side by side viewing. At least if that's what they want.



stretch -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 3:47:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Glen Felzien

Will a player be able to have multiple windows open at any one time?


I'd like to add to this.. .will we be able to utilize dual monitor configuration in any way ? I could have sworn this has been answered before but I searched and got nothing...




Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 4:42:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Glen Felzien

quote:

Some commonality between all forms will help the players learn where to look to find information.

An excellent point.

Will a player be able to have multiple windows open at any one time? This would allow a person to have two (or more) instances of this form open at one time thus allowing a side by side viewing. At least if that's what they want.


It depends on whether the form is modal or not. Modal means that the player (user - it is a Microsoft Windows term) has to finish with the screen before doing anything else. The scrap form is modal. You have to decide on scrapping units before the program can make a random selection for setting up the scenario.

Most forms are not modal and they can be opened simultaneously, overlapped playfully around on the screen and otherwise add to the general confusion (I personally do not like to have a lot of windows open at once). Some forms will only permit a single copy of that form - for various reasons. The detailed map, on the other hand, is available for replication to your heart's content. Each one can have a different zoom factor, unit resolution, dimensions, and focus on a different part of the world.

If I do the interface right, there should be very few occasions for multiple forms to be open at one time. If you find that to make decisions, you need to look at several different forms, then I screwed up (my personal standards for game interface design).

The game does support 2 monitors. I use 2 all the time. It also now permits the game to be played without requiring the entire screen display. That let's you run other programs simulataneously (e.g., music).



dhatchen -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 7:26:40 AM)

Could you maybe set the Unit Type subset button to toggle instead. A small point, but in a large list, the player can glance at the button group and see which one is depressed.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 8:03:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dhatchen

Could you maybe set the Unit Type subset button to toggle instead. A small point, but in a large list, the player can glance at the button group and see which one is depressed.


I really dislike buttons. When the artist gets around to it, I want them all reskinned to something that looks man made, not machine made. The selected button is slightly different from the rest. It is not noticable in the JPG, but is on the screen.



Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 8:07:03 PM)

quote:

Here are just the carrier air units.

This arrangement is great.
I forgot that in CWiF the class displayed on the counter was always the current class. It's even easier to sort the CVP out by sight.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 9:02:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Here are just the carrier air units.

This arrangement is great.
I forgot that in CWiF the class displayed on the counter was always the current class. It's even easier to sort the CVP out by sight.



Good, getting a design point past you is always a milestone. I still have to get them sorted correctly, but the Scrap Units form is ready for play test.



YohanTM2 -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 9:33:02 PM)

I jsut want to complement you Steve on all the effort you are taking to listen to experienced players and make the game excellent. It is a huge labour and you are to be commended!



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/8/2006 9:37:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yohan

I jsut want to complement you Steve on all the effort you are taking to listen to experienced players and make the game excellent. It is a huge labour and you are to be commended!


Thank you. Moving this elephant down the road is hard but I am getting help from people all over the world.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/17/2006 4:55:01 AM)

I am back working on the setup units process and I have a question for you-all.

There are replacements for some units that occur later in the game. Mostly these are naval units that have received upgrades, (I believe). For the AIO I have the replacements always taken when they are offered.

The current setup process has this little side query asking the player whether he wants the replacements or not. I would just as soon skip the dialog and always give the player the replacement - perhaps with a message informing the player it has happened.

What do you think? Do you want to be asked or would you prefer to have the program automatically give you the replacement(s)?



Glen Felzien -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/17/2006 5:41:59 AM)

I would like the replacement to occur automatically with a message stating as such.

I am curious, does the replacement occur at the port the vessel is currently at or does the replacement show up in the nearest home port to where to vessel is?



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/17/2006 6:10:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Glen Felzien

I would like the replacement to occur automatically with a message stating as such.

I am curious, does the replacement occur at the port the vessel is currently at or does the replacement show up in the nearest home port to where to vessel is?


To answer your question I looked up the rule (WIF FE 4.1.4, SIF option #9). I think that answers my question too.

You will need to build the replacement unit (1 year + build points) so there will definitely be occasions when players will want to keep the old unit.

If the old unit is in the forcepool or still in its first year of construction, the replacement goes to the forcepool. I will only automate the former.

If the unit is in the construction pool, repair pool, on map, or in its 2nd year of production, then the replacement goes into the construction pool. I will only automate the first instance.

By my count there are only 10 of these units in the game: 8 for the Japanese and 2 for the Germans.



lomyrin -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/17/2006 9:28:44 AM)

I firmly believe the replacement ships should be offered to the player but not automatically taken. The game situation when the replacements become available can often be such that one does not want to take them. In my own experience playing WiF many years I have seen them taken less than half the time.

Lars




Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/17/2006 11:16:52 AM)

quote:

The current setup process has this little side query asking the player whether he wants the replacements or not. I would just as soon skip the dialog and always give the player the replacement - perhaps with a message informing the player it has happened.

What do you think? Do you want to be asked or would you prefer to have the program automatically give you the replacement(s)?

It's a bad idea to give the replacement to the player automatically.
If you prefer your battleships and are happy with the carriers you have, no need for replacement. The replacements are only for those who want to go carrier crazy.
Anyway the player need to be presented the choice.

It is as if you skiped the choice for land combat and automatically chosed Blitz when it was available. Sometimes the attacking player will want to choose assault, even if he could have chosen blitz, so the player need to have the choice.



c92nichj -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/17/2006 4:20:37 PM)

I agree with Lars and Patrice on this one, replacement will not always be taken, some of the Japaneese battleships are replaced with rather poor carriers, so you might want to keep the allready onmap battleships.
When it comes to Shinano you will make sure taht he is allready in the constuction pool and have him replaced there, so you not waste any build points.

/Nicklas



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/17/2006 5:38:24 PM)

Thanks everyone. Replacements will remain totally at the discretion of the player. This is a new rule that I have never played with. There certainly is a lot of code dedicated exclusively to dealing with those 10 replacement units.



Froonp -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/17/2006 6:09:52 PM)

Yes, but it used to work fine in CWiF.
I was prompted for the replacements when I had my test games, and it worked ok.



Shannon V. OKeets -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/17/2006 9:15:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Yes, but it used to work fine in CWiF.
I was prompted for the replacements when I had my test games, and it worked ok.


The CWIF beta only had 3 scenarios. The replacements always arrived during the game in those scenarios.

Some of the additional 8 scenarios have to handle the situation where the replacements are part of the starting setup.

Also, though the program may have executed ok from the player's perspective, it was a very twisted path it followed to achieve that result.

When making changes to the interface, I have to decypher exactly what the code does. In more than one instance I have found code that is totally irrelevant and I have excised it from the listing. Most of the time I rename variables so they make more sense to me. I frequently split large program units into pieces (e.g., what use to be one unit called SetupScrap is now 6 different units for scrapping units, setup data, setup data types - F2, F3 - , setup groups, setup variables, and the setup form). I always add comments to the code I examine - there were virtually none when I started. Case in point, there were no comments at all in the code for setting up and scrapping units.

When I work on the code I constantly break it - the program no longer runs. And I then fix it so it does what it use to do but with my changes in place. The reason the program breaks is because the code is very intertwined.

As an easy(?) to understand example, there are separate files for: (1) the terrain in each hex; if the terrain is an all sea hex, then it has an index identifyng (2) the sea area; if the terrain is a coastal hex, then there is an index to the sea areas to which it is (3) adjacent. When Chris helped me renumber the sea areas from 1 to 83 (they use to be from 1 to 142 with gaps in the sequence), he wrote a special routine to modify all the different places the sea area indices were used in the program.

There is code about the replacements in a lot of different locations. I needed to understand how the players relate to that aspect of the game in order to integrate it into the new interface.



lomyrin -> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design (1/17/2006 9:42:42 PM)

In the CWiF 7.71 Global war scenario the replacement ships arrived as electable ships, the player had the choice whether to accept or decline any or all of the replacement units.

From your last entry I get the impression that you may not be working from the latest CWiF 7.71 which had the global war.

I still have a list of my own detailing the bugs in that program that I was aware of when development stopped.

I can post it here if you so desire.

Lars



Page: <<   < prev  6 7 [8] 9 10   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
5.734375