I have a dream... a dream of vectors !!!

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

I have a dream... a dream of vectors !!!

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> I have a dream... a dream of vectors !!!

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

I have a dream... a dream of vectors !!! - 5/2/2003 12:34:53 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

I still hope that some way of telling us where enemy spotted TFs are going
will be in WitP (as opposed to current UV system)...

IMHO the best way would be to draw a vector (line with arrow) over each sighted enemy TF.

The vector would point towards the TFs (estimated) course and its length would
depict the speed (long for fast moving TFs - short for slow ones).

When user would put mouse over TF with such vector he would get "balloon" info
of when and who sighted the TF and numerical info about speed (in knots and
HEXes and estimated course).

It would really be great (ahh... I am dreaming again)...

Leo "Apollo11"

Post #: 1

- 5/2/2003 12:51:43 AM

Tankerace

Posts: 6400
Joined: 3/21/2003
From: Stillwater, OK, United States
Status: offline

I definately agree.

It would be so nice if that when one of my subs spots a Japanese Carrier TF, I could plot its' course and speed and make a decent assumption as to where it was when spotted, where it is currently (during the actual turn), and what its probable destination will be. Also, I'd like to see a spotting information system more akin to that used in the old PTO 2, such as " Task force spotted, hex 33,33, 10 ships, including 1 Shokaku class carrier. TF course 180, speed 20 knots". From there, you could plot were its going (South), and when it should arrive. It would be so much easier to bring in ships to combat it then, and would be more historical.

_____________________________

Designer of War Plan Orange
Allied Naval OOBer of Admiral's Edition
Naval Team Lead for War in the Med

Author of Million-Dollar Barrage: American Field Artillery in the Great War coming soon from OU Press.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 2

- 5/2/2003 8:23:25 AM

Raverdave

Posts: 6520
Joined: 2/8/2002
From: Melb. Australia
Status: offline

YES YES YES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vectors!

_____________________________

Never argue with an idiot, he will only drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 3

- 5/3/2003 4:51:24 PM

derwho

Posts: 236
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

Finland says yes to vectors!

And there was much rejoicing.

_____________________________

Imperial Field Service Code (senjinkun):
"Remember always the good reputation of your family and the opinion of people of your birthplace. Do not shame yourself by being taken prisoner alive; die so as to not leave behind a soiled name."

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 4

- 5/4/2003 4:32:59 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

Let's hope Matrix/2by3 would share our enthusiasm regarding this... :-)

Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 5

I dissent - 5/4/2003 6:41:51 PM

foliveti

Posts: 371
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Buffalo, NY
Status: offline

The one problem I have with vectors is how to deal with flight operations. Carriers are turning into the wind which may not be the general direction they are heading. If there is a single sighting by aircraft any vector information needs to have a bit of unreliability built into it to account for this issue.

_____________________________

Frank

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 6

- 5/4/2003 9:17:20 PM

derwho

Posts: 236
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

I seriously doubt that carriers turning into the wind is modelled.. ;)

In my opinion vectors should be submitted to FOW and you should be able to get unreliable information based on how good your sighting was and so on.

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 7

- 5/4/2003 10:02:34 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

Yes, my original idea was exactly what "drwho" is talking about.

The FoW (Fog Of War) has influence as usual and this is why there would be
"balloon info" when user would put his mouse over vector to tell him who
sighted it (better info would be, of course, if several aircraft sighted TF).

Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 8

Plotting Board - 5/4/2003 10:54:42 PM

gus

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline

While I like the idea of modeling a spotted TF's estimated course and speed I have a feeling that adding vectors could clutter up the interface especially if a TF is spotted more than once per turn. Also it will only give you current info for the TF and does not represent where it has been like a true naval plot would.

What I would prefer is that if you right click on a spotted TF you would see 'shadows' of where it has been since it was initially spotted and all other game icons would be hidden so that you could focus on the TF in question. Each of these shadows would preserve the data of that spotting and older sightings would be dimmer than newer ones so that by visual inspection you could essentially connect the shadows to see where the given TF has been and what it is up to. So not only do you get current data for the TF in question but also its history. Think of it as the WitP equivalent of the RN Naval HQ's Plotting Room in 'Sink the Bismark'. Using this method you could deduce whether or not that pesky IJN air combat TF is simply patrolling in a box or if it's intent is to strike deep into the Coral Sea!

Of course all this data would be subject to FOW and may or may not be nearly as accurate as you may think.

-g

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 9

- 5/5/2003 12:52:23 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

Instead of a graphical representation, why not just say "PBY Catalina sights CV CA CA DD DD DD headed SE"?
Just give the rough direction in the actual sighting report, subject to some FOW calculation - seems to me this wouldn't be too hard, and is completely historical. I don't even need the detail of a compass heading. Just a rough approximation is better than the nothing we have now...

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 10

- 5/5/2003 1:44:12 AM

derwho

Posts: 236
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Instead of a graphical representation, why not just say "PBY Catalina sights CV CA CA DD DD DD headed SE"? [/QUOTE]

..And when you have ~30 enemy taskforces roaming around the map how on earth do you intend to keep track? I'd go mad.

[QUOTE]What I would prefer is that if you right click on a spotted TF you would see 'shadows' of where it has been since it was initially spotted and all other game icons would be hidden so that you could focus on the TF in question. Each of these shadows would preserve the data of that spotting and older sightings would be dimmer than newer ones so that by visual inspection you could essentially connect the shadows to see where the given TF has been and what it is up to. So not only do you get current data for the TF in question but also its history. Think of it as the WitP equivalent of the RN Naval HQ's Plotting Room in 'Sink the Bismark'. Using this method you could deduce whether or not that pesky IJN air combat TF is simply patrolling in a box or if it's intent is to strike deep into the Coral Sea! [/QUOTE]

Too **** complicated. You can do that with vectors by using a pen and a pencil with the printed map if you feel this is very necessary.

I vote for the party that promises us free beer and vectors!

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 11

- 5/5/2003 2:13:37 AM

gus

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by drwho
[B]... Too **** complicated. You can do that with vectors by using a pen and a pencil with the printed map if you feel this is very necessary.

I vote for the party that promises us free beer and vectors! [/B][/QUOTE]

It's actually less complicated if you think about it. Instead of writing down TF sightings from turn to turn as some folks do now or have a screen filled with vectors for every task force you simply right click on the TF and get a clear view of what is going on. Remember that by definition a vector has both direction and magnitude so it wouldn't be just a little arrow on each TF it would be an arrow with its endpoint on the TF and its head x hexes away from the endpoint denoting its speed, imagine what the WitP screen would look like with all of the hundreds of TF's waiting to be spotted.

With the plotting board suggestion you right click on the TF and the map is cleared automatically of all extraneous icons and only that TF's current position and previous sightings are displayed. All of this is done for you so you do not have to place map notes as you would in some sims like SH2. It should take about 2-3 seconds if you have enough info to determine what are the TF's intentions. So you actually get more information, the interface is cleaner and it's easier to use.

Using pencil & paper would take several minutes to record the new position, find the TF's previous positions and then collate all this data to determine what is going on. I tried this with UV when I first started playing and it was just too cumbersome for words especially when playing multiple games.

I am with you on the free beer though :)

-g

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 12

- 5/5/2003 2:26:42 AM

derwho

Posts: 236
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]It's actually less complicated if you think about it. Instead of writing down TF sightings from turn to turn as some folks do now or have a screen filled with vectors for every task force you simply right click on the TF and get a clear view of what is going on. Remember that by definition a vector has both direction and magnitude so it wouldn't be just a little arrow on each TF it would be an arrow with its endpoint on the TF and its head x hexes away from the endpoint denoting its speed, imagine what the WitP screen would look like with all of the hundreds of TF's waiting to be spotted.[/QUOTE]

I have two problems with this:

- It's very difficult to get a quick overall picture on what's going on if you have a lot of spotted taskforces.
- FOW. If you have a system like that you would always get more or less correct intel and you wouldn't have a real possibility in mixing up taskforces. You could more or less rely on "shadows" as creating FOW code just to confuse this would be a waste of time in my opinion.

Vectors are far superior. I agree that by definition vectors have a direction and a magnitude. But you don't have to spread them more than a few hexes away from the given TF.. Perhaps only three? One hex for slow, two for cruise and three for flank. Or you could use colors and so on. This is definately a solvable to a vector-winning situation. ;)

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 13

- 5/5/2003 2:47:28 AM

pasternakski

Posts: 6565
Joined: 6/29/2002
Status: offline

I agree that more and better recon information is needed, but I think the best solution would be a simple "daily reconnaissance report" that lists what was sighted, where, speed, course, and time of sighting. This puts the player in the same position as the historical commander (always a good thing, in my estimation), trying to sort through the reports and get an understanding of the strategic situation.

As a side note, I hope that some improvement will be made in recon sightings to remove some of the silliness that you see now. Submarines being reported as carriers in unlikely places (like halfway between Truk and Rabaul) and obviously erroneous reports (Japanese AKs, for example, or a list of ships like "DD DD AP BB").

_____________________________

Put my faith in the people
And the people let me down.
So, I turned the other way,
And I carry on anyhow.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 14

- 5/5/2003 3:35:33 AM

gus

Posts: 237
Joined: 3/16/2002
From: Corvallis, OR
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by drwho
[B]I have two problems with this:

- It's very difficult to get a quick overall picture on what's going on if you have a lot of spotted taskforces.
- FOW. If you have a system like that you would always get more or less correct intel and you wouldn't have a real possibility in mixing up taskforces. You could more or less rely on "shadows" as creating FOW code just to confuse this would be a waste of time in my opinion.[/B][/QUOTE]

The overall picture would be far more muddled by vectors than by shadows. WitP will have at least an order of magnitude more spotting per turn than UV and to make sense of where all those vectors are going and which one belongs to which TF, especially when they are near each other and intersect, will be a bit difficult to unravel.

FOW is the same whether you are using vectors or shadows. GIGO rules apply, i.e. Garbage In Garbage Out. The added abstraction with shadows is that it would be possible to confuse sightings. If two similarly constituted TF's are spotted and near each other it would be possible to that they would be recorded as the same TF, or worse their respective observations would be swapped corrupting your spotting data as happens IRL.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by drwho
[B]Vectors are far superior. I agree that by definition vectors have a direction and a magnitude. But you don't have to spread them more than a few hexes away from the given TF.. Perhaps only three? One hex for slow, two for cruise and three for flank. Or you could use colors and so on. This is definately a solvable to a vector-winning situation. ;) [/B][/QUOTE]

Actually if you used colored arrows they would no longer be vectors ;-)

I agree that the issue at hand is solvable I just don't put as much stock in the vector solution as some do. I am also sure that there is a better solution than my shadows idea and some bright soul will come along and enlighten us.

Cheers

-g

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 15

- 5/6/2003 1:00:27 AM

Veer

Posts: 2231
Joined: 6/25/2002
From: Excuse me
Status: offline

bah, not needed...

What i really want is the ability for surface combat groups to find and engage each other without the player having to put them in the exact same hex at the end of the 'phase'.

Like if i put a SC TF on react to enemy and if another enemy TF came within 3-4 hexes and was spotted, allowing a bit for commader ability, weather, mistakes, etc, the SC TF should move to engage the enemy automatically rather than the player having to do some intrict maths to determine where the TF is going to be next turn.

I mean, what is a staff for!

_____________________________

In time of war the first casualty is truth. - Boake Carter

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 16

- 5/6/2003 3:50:38 AM

derwho

Posts: 236
Joined: 8/22/2002
From: Finland
Status: offline

[QUOTE]What i really want is the ability for surface combat groups to find and engage each other without the player having to put them in the exact same hex at the end of the 'phase'.[/QUOTE]

Rumours in Finnish State TV (YLE) speculate that vectors might bring taskfroces this ability that has been requested by many! Quoting sources that want to remain anonymous but have been identified as male and beer loving with a exuisite taste in the finer things of life.

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 17

dreaming of vectors...just once - 5/8/2003 4:39:03 PM

spence

Posts: 5400
Joined: 4/20/2003
From: Vancouver, Washington
Status: offline

Hi to all :
Just a newbie at this but I think the proper perspective on this situation needs to be that of theater/fleet/airforce commander rather than pilot or PT Boat skipper.

Admirals and Generals have lots of Ensigns,Lieutenants and Captains to go over the sighting reports and try to make sense of what the guys or guy dodging the flak and fighters are reporting from out there in the wild blue yonder over the vast oceanic waste. REMEMBER THE TIME SCALE!!!!! The game engine is gonna give you a chance to make use of the sighting information 24 game hours after the sighting(s). All your computerized Lieutenants (1st, 2nd, J.G.s & S.G.s) will have figured out for you by then their best guess as to whether that task force is headed for Soerebaya or Kwajelein and you the player are most basically gonna figure out what forces you have available within reach and decide to fight or not. Not being a computer jock I don't know how hard to do this would be but a single vector per task force during the player turn representing what your Operations Staff believes is the direction of motion would be helpful.

This graphic could (should) be an arrow (vector) pointed in the direction of motion. As far as length is concerned there would really only be two realistic reportable speeds: slow (short) and fast(long). Transports/merchies would go slow (10 kts or less) and warships would go fast (15-20 kts). Oh I guess you gotta have a lack of an arrow too for ships that aren't moving. Warships going 30 kts are already in a battle, not making an operational move towards one. As the Admiral you can tell the force commander to get to wherever at best possible speed but best possible speed is not 30 kts even if the ship can do that speed when under attack. I was in Operations and it was a while back but I served on vintage 1937 steam turbine Coast Guard cutters which could run on one boiler for 3+ weeks at 10 kts on fisheries patrol but were sucking fumes after 5-6 days running around at 20 kts on both boilers chasing dopers. We could steam around at around 15 kts on both boilers for around 10 days so the point here is that those extra 5 kts cost a lot in fuel consumption. The Cutters I served on compared very favorably sizewise with WWII DD's (in fact they were the largest escort type in the Atlantic in 1942-43) but they were built with endurance in mind and only had two boilers burning fuel rather than the 4 that were normal on DD's and gave them a 35+ kt speed.

Given that the inherent inaccuracies in position, course and speed reported by your sighting platforms in a single sighting the direction of the arrow ought to be an average of all the previous days sightings. The inaccuracies would be mitigated by multiple sightings or force shadowing so a color coded vector reflecting the confidence of the estimate could be incorporated with say 3 levels: red equaling say 1 sighting only, yellow being 2-4 sightings, and green being 5 or more sightings. Keep in mind this vector graphic only "needs" to be displayed during the player turn. If a hex has more than one task force in it a left clicking on a specific one could be made to temporarily blank out the others in the hex or something so the graphics don't obscure each other.

That's all you get for 2 cents folks. :p

I believe the PBY crews had a black sense of humor with a little ditty sorta like this; "Sighted enemy carriers, Notify next of kin".

Spence

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 18

- 5/16/2003 7:30:49 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

Vectors sound great.

In addition, because of the large number of units in this game, I would suggest that with the simple movement of the mouse pointer over a friendly ship, the player should be able to ascertain the following:

1) ship direction

2) type of ship (warship, cargo, etc)

3) whether a ship is low on fuel (a simple red "F" would be sufficient)

3) if cargo ship (whether empty or full)

4) if warship or sub (whether low on ammo - indicated by red "A")

5) if ship is damaged (indicated by percantage in red)

Currently in UV, I must make 4 mouse clicks to see how much ammo a sub has left. That's 40 mouse clicks for 10 subs - just to check on ammo levels.

These few additions to the information available to the player when he passes a mouse pointer over a unit would go a longggg way to saving the poor 'ol mouse finger. And it would help alleviate some of the tedium of checking on all the units on the map.

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 19

- 5/16/2003 8:05:06 AM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

I concur --
If anyone here ever played TF 1942 back in the day, you could get this kind of info on your TFs by waving your cursor over them... TF 1942 also had the "shadow" system of vectors, but I don't like that for WiTP because the whole friggin map will be covered with shadows.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 20

- 5/16/2003 1:13:54 PM

von Murrin

Posts: 1760
Joined: 11/13/2001
From: That from which there is no escape.
Status: offline

Why not just put course and speed in the TF info pop-up? Before everybody goes "huh??", what I'm specifically referring to is the little black box that you get when you hover your mouse over a TF. Instead of this:

Ships sighted: 5
CA CL DD DD

You'd get this:

Ships sighted: 5

CA CL DD DD

Speed: 26, SSE

_____________________________

I give approximately two fifths of a !#$% at any given time!

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 21

- 5/16/2003 3:02:52 PM

madflava13

Posts: 1530
Joined: 2/7/2001
From: Alexandria, VA
Status: offline

Von Murrin -
I think thats the way to go. I don't know how difficult it is to program - considering FOW needs to be a part of it, but that seems to be the easiest way to deal with this problem.

_____________________________

"The Paraguayan Air Force's request for spraying subsidies was not as Paraguayan as it were..."

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 22

- 5/16/2003 3:12:26 PM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by von Murrin
[B]Why not just put course and speed in the TF info pop-up? Before everybody goes "huh??", what I'm specifically referring to is the little black box that you get when you hover your mouse over a TF. Instead of this:

Ships sighted: 5
CA CL DD DD

You'd get this:

Ships sighted: 5

CA CL DD DD

Speed: 26, SSE [/B][/QUOTE]

This is what I am advocating, in addition to all the other information I have listed in my post above, and all this information should be placed inside that "Black Box" that appears when you place a mouse cursor over a unit.

This would save so much time and energy, and would alleviate a lot of the busy work. I want to plan strategy, not spend my time clicking, clicking, clicking. . .

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 23

- 5/16/2003 7:39:54 PM

Sonny

Posts: 2008
Joined: 4/3/2002
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by madflava13
[B]Von Murrin -
I think thats the way to go. I don't know how difficult it is to program - considering FOW needs to be a part of it, but that seems to be the easiest way to deal with this problem. [/B][/QUOTE]

The list of ships is already a part of the FOW (although it seldom hides anything meaningful) so the direction and speed could be under FOW also.:)

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 24

- 5/19/2003 1:11:02 AM

LargeSlowTarget

Posts: 4443
Joined: 9/23/2000
From: Hessen, Germany - now living in France
Status: offline

AE Mod "Bottlenecks" UPDATED 01/2022

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 25

- 5/19/2003 3:39:54 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by von Murrin
[B]Why not just put course and speed in the TF info pop-up? Before everybody goes "huh??", what I'm specifically referring to is the little black box that you get when you hover your mouse over a TF. Instead of this:

Ships sighted: 5
CA CL DD DD

You'd get this:

Ships sighted: 5

CA CL DD DD

Speed: 26, SSE [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes... exactly as I originally suggested (see post #1 in thread):

[I][B]
When user would put mouse over TF with such vector he would get "balloon" info
of when and who sighted the TF and numerical info about speed (in knots and
HEXes and estimated course).
[/B][/I]

I also added the additional info who sighted TF (i.e. more
sighting equals more accurate info)...

Leo "Apollo11"

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 26

MAYBE NOT AS MUCH AS YOU THINK... - 5/19/2003 11:55:19 PM

Mike Scholl

Posts: 9349
Joined: 1/1/2003
From: Kansas City, MO
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]This is what I am advocating, in addition to all the other information I have listed in my post above, and all this information should be placed inside that "Black Box" that appears when you place a mouse cursor over a unit.

This would save so much time and energy, and would alleviate a lot of the busy work. I want to plan strategy, not spend my time clicking, clicking, clicking. . .

Cheers! [/B][/QUOTE]

I think I'm still going to have to side with those that would
like a "graphic" representation (ie. ARROWS). What you have suggested would certainly be an improvement, but it doesn't
deal with one of the main usages for which it's needed. I'm
talking about multiple TF's in the same general area. If you are
trying to make sense of a number of sightings to figure out what
your opponant is up to, it's going to be a whole lot easier with
a "vector arrow" that stays visable. Then you can look at the
"larger picture" without continually clicking on it's parts. Do a
number of these "sightings" point towards a single target? Or
are they just a lot of single-purpose TF's that happen to be near
each other right now? Being able to visually absorb large chunks
of the mass of information that this game could present will be
a vital factor in it's playability. Anything 2by3 can do to make that
task easier is going to broaden the number of people willing and
wanting to play it. And that's all to the good...

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 27

Re: MAYBE NOT AS MUCH AS YOU THINK... - 5/20/2003 5:32:02 AM

Von Rom

Posts: 1705
Joined: 5/12/2000
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Mike Scholl
[B]I think I'm still going to have to side with those that would
like a "graphic" representation (ie. ARROWS). What you have suggested would certainly be an improvement, but it doesn't
deal with one of the main usages for which it's needed. I'm
talking about multiple TF's in the same general area. If you are
trying to make sense of a number of sightings to figure out what
your opponant is up to, it's going to be a whole lot easier with
a "vector arrow" that stays visable. Then you can look at the
"larger picture" without continually clicking on it's parts. Do a
number of these "sightings" point towards a single target? Or
are they just a lot of single-purpose TF's that happen to be near
each other right now? Being able to visually absorb large chunks
of the mass of information that this game could present will be
a vital factor in it's playability. Anything 2by3 can do to make that
task easier is going to broaden the number of people willing and
wanting to play it. And that's all to the good... [/B][/QUOTE]

I agree, and hopefully 2By3 can find an "easy on the eyes" approach to the "arrow" issue so it won't be intrusive.

It would also be helpful to have the information obtainable in the black box I mentioned earlier, whenever you pass the mouse cursor over a unit AND base (you would not actually have to click on a unit to see this information).

In a monster game like WiTP, and to ease gameplay (and our poor mouse fingers), all the ways to streamline gameplay and information will be necessary. . .

Cheers!

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 28

Re: I have a dream... a dream of vectors !!! - 5/21/2003 5:43:01 PM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Apollo11
[B]Hi all,

I still hope that some way of telling us where enemy spotted TFs are going
will be in WitP (as opposed to current UV system)...

IMHO the best way would be to draw a vector (line with arrow) over each sighted enemy TF.

The vector would point towards the TFs (estimated) course and its length would
depict the speed (long for fast moving TFs - short for slow ones).

When user would put mouse over TF with such vector he would get "balloon" info
of when and who sighted the TF and numerical info about speed (in knots and
HEXes and estimated course).

It would really be great (ahh... I am dreaming again)...

Leo "Apollo11" [/B][/QUOTE]

I have added this to th ewish list.

Rick

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 29

- 5/21/2003 5:44:06 PM

siRkid

Posts: 6650
Joined: 1/29/2002
From: Orland FL
Status: offline

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Von Rom
[B]Vectors sound great.

In addition, because of the large number of units in this game, I would suggest that with the simple movement of the mouse pointer over a friendly ship, the player should be able to ascertain the following:

1) ship direction

2) type of ship (warship, cargo, etc)

3) whether a ship is low on fuel (a simple red "F" would be sufficient)

3) if cargo ship (whether empty or full)

4) if warship or sub (whether low on ammo - indicated by red "A")

5) if ship is damaged (indicated by percantage in red)

Currently in UV, I must make 4 mouse clicks to see how much ammo a sub has left. That's 40 mouse clicks for 10 subs - just to check on ammo levels.

These few additions to the information available to the player when he passes a mouse pointer over a unit would go a longggg way to saving the poor 'ol mouse finger. And it would help alleviate some of the tedium of checking on all the units on the map.

Cheers! [/B][/QUOTE]

I have added this to the wish list.

_____________________________

Former War in the Pacific Test Team Manager and Beta Tester for War in the East.

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 30

Page: [1]

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> I have a dream... a dream of vectors !!!

Page: [1]