RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

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

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Page: << < prev 20 21 [22] 23 24 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/6/2007 9:24:28 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Task Force Interface
(as of May 6, 2007)

As I entered all the units from Cruisers in Flames and Convoy in Flames into the setup data, it became painfully obvious to me that there are going to be a lot of units for players to setup. Now the obvious solution to that, as we have discussed before, is to create task forces. How to design the player interface for task forces is today�s question from me to you.

Each task force would simply be a group of naval units, which could include any cargo they are carrying (e.g., invasion troops). There should be a form/box which displays all the units in the task force (duh). I am thinking of making the size of the units in that display larger than the other unit displays since each naval unit is uniquely named and players might enjoy knowing which ship, by name, are in each task force. In fact, I have a request from one of the beta testers (from long ago) to make the unit size in all displays larger so they are easier to read. If making the unit size in the �StackViewer�s larger isn�t too difficult to do, then I will. Of course then the player will be able to change the size of the units displayed from small to large. But I doubt I will provide all 8 levels of zoom that the map has.

So let�s take as a starting point that there is some box that shows all the units in a task force. Indeed, there may be several task force boxes on the screen simultaneously. During setup, there will be the setup tray too, with its display of units to be set up. Drag and drop seems the correct way to transfer units from one display to another. So units could be moved from one task force to another and to and from the setup tray.

Each task force box should provide some summary statistics about the task force�s ability to move and fight. I�ll try to limit that information to just the essentials, since it is easy to make it so detailed that the important items become lost in the clutter. If you have ideas about what those summaries should include, please let me know.

I am puzzling over the actual creation of a task force. I think it has to be associated with either a specific port or a sea area section box. That way I can impose restrictions on which units are available for populating the task force, and where to place units that are removed from a task force. How about whenever a player right clicks on a port or a sea box that contains more than 1 naval unit (or any viable set up port/sea area during setup), the option of creating a task force appears? The task force would be given a (unique) name by the player and voila!, a spanking new task force has been born. At the same time a form/box would be should that contains all the units currently in the port/sea box that are available for inclusion in the task force.

Comments? Suggestions?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 631

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/6/2007 9:48:58 PM

trees

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline

I think it would be quite simple for the program to prohibit dragging and dropping units from TF to TF when the TF's are in different locations.

For the TF summary, I would just want to see a summary of the possible movement points and range of the TF (simply the lowest MP/range of an individual ship in the TF), and a short list of quantities of the ship types therein: CV/BB/CA/lift. Others will want a sum of the total factors for each combat ship, which would be a bunch more work to display, but I would be content to know there are 2 Carriers, 3 Battleships, 6 Cruisers and an AMPH. If you neeed to know more than that, open a windown on the entire Task Force and take a look at all the ships; perhaps that window could show a total. That would be my suggestion.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 632

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/6/2007 10:00:17 PM

trees

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/28/2006
Status: offline

I like being able to name the TF, definitely. When SiF and TF's appeared we started using them but in the long run just decided it's easier to make Sweden=Kiel, Spain=Gibraltar, Turkey=La Spezia, the gray map edge=Pearl Harbor, etc, than using another location 2-3 feet away from the action.

I'm guessing unlimited TF? I don't see why not. Except if the Hidden TF optional is currently part of the rules or not, I forget. It is not a popular option though I've always wished to use it more. WiF is so big and detailed, and I think many players tend to approach the game with a land focus first, that hidden TF's are harder for players to conceive of and plan for, so it isn't used often. If Hidden TF is 'in' then the amount of TF's can't be unlimited as there is a mechanical problem with the search rules that immediately gets abused by players. Perhaps that was fixed with the second version of the Hidden TF optional, I forget on that point too. (Obviously I never get to play with it, but I can recall talk about these issues).

And as for how to display a TF, with different zoom and such, wouldn't it be easiest to make it the same routines that display land stacks? With three land units and up to 6 uniquely designated aircraft in a hex, wouldn't the same issue come up?

(in reply to trees)

Post #: 633

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/6/2007 10:07:11 PM

npilgaard

Posts: 175
Joined: 5/3/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Task Force Interface
Each task force box should provide some summary statistics about the task force�s ability to move and fight. I�ll try to limit that information to just the essentials, since it is easy to make it so detailed that the important items become lost in the clutter. If you have ideas about what those summaries should include, please let me know.

Good idea with the task forces.

In addition to the movement info (speed/range) mentioned I would like to see the combat relevant info:
- total number of surface/sub (if they can enter task forces)/AA/naval air factors (maybe each followed by column number on the naval battle CRT, to make it easy to reach the right numbers)
- total number of ships (again, maybe followed by row number) - and maybe types specified as suggested above

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Task Force Interface
I am puzzling over the actual creation of a task force. I think it has to be associated with either a specific port or a sea area section box. That way I can impose restrictions on which units are available for populating the task force, and where to place units that are removed from a task force. How about whenever a player right clicks on a port or a sea box that contains more than 1 naval unit (or any viable set up port/sea area during setup), the option of creating a task force appears? The task force would be given a (unique) name by the player and voila!, a spanking new task force has been born. At the same time a form/box would be should that contains all the units currently in the port/sea box that are available for inclusion in the task force.

Comments? Suggestions?

Sounds like a good way of handling it. However, if such task forces are unlimited and present whenever more than 1 ship is at an sea box, then it should be possible to somehow disable viewing enemy task forces on map, and instead viewing the stacks. Otherwise it will be hard to get a quick overview, eg. for Germany when determining where to move the subs, as there will probably be 1-2 CW task in each and every sea area containing convoys.
Also, maybe convoys should not be included in task forces when they are in destination sea area, again for easier overview of the convoy lines (they should be able to be included when in port or when moving, to make movement easier)

_____________________________

Regards
Nikolaj

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 634

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/6/2007 10:34:47 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

Each task force box should provide some summary statistics about the task force�s ability to move and fight. I�ll try to limit that information to just the essentials, since it is easy to make it so detailed that the important items become lost in the clutter. If you have ideas about what those summaries should include, please let me know.

Well, the usual summary of statistics would be :
Total Number of ships.
Total Surface factors.
Total Shore Bombardment sactors (adjusted by the sea box).
Total AA.
Max speed (being the speed of the slowest ship)
Max range (being the range of the lower ranged ship)
Total ASW factors (counting planes).
Max possible Air to Air Strengh.
Max Possible Air to Sea Strength.

Also, Task Force need to be able to be maintained while in port too, so that the player do not need to create it again and again. This Task Force "maintain" has not to be visible for the enemy, only the allied player knows that this and this ships are associated in a "future task force" in a port.

Also, the Task Force screen may be similar to the port screen (not existing, but that should be created). After all, a Task Force is just an assembly of ships. A Port is the same, except that a port is immobile.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 635

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/6/2007 10:34:57 PM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

Hi Steve,

I have seen a nice interface in other (business) programs I like for this instead of drag and drop. It consists of two text windows presented in column style with some buttons in between. The left hand column would be the units available and the right hand column would be the units in the task force. The text would be the unit names and maybe all of their factors, FREX: "Andrea Doria 6-5-5-1-2-3". The buttons in the middle would be Add, Remove, Add All, Remove All. Usually the buttons also show a direction arrow to remind you the selection is going left to right or vice versa. Of course, you can use standard shift and control keys when clicking the mouse to select groups of items.

I find Drag and Drop can be tedious at times and accidental clicks can slow the whole process down, whereas the selection list idea appeals to me as more efficient.

For Drag and Drop you can use the same multi-select options and even add the "lasso" ability (which can be both good and also annoying when an error is made) - but I wonder if the real estate required wouldn't be too much for really large fleets. The advantage of text is it is more compact. Of course either a text list or a list of unit graphics can be scrolled...

Anyway, just an idea. Maybe a hybrid of the two would work even better.

BTW, on the subject of Task Forces, is the WiF option for Task Forces employable - just curious, personally I don't like it and would not vote for it when starting a game. I got the impression "your" task forces mentioned here are for playability and can be examined freely by all players.

Cheers.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 636

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/7/2007 3:07:39 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Task forces as described in WIF FE (i.e., Hidden Task Forces) are not part of MWIF product 1. I am using the word Task Force here as simply a convenience for players moving naval units around on the map.

In particular, MWIF Task Forces have absolutely no effect on any other rules. It is simply as if you were picking up and moving a stack of naval units - which is a common occurrence in WIF. Having units identified as being in a Task Force , does not commit the player to moving them together. At any time, on the merest whim, the player can disband or reconfigure a task force(s) - though all the rules pertaining to moving groups of naval units are still in effect.

So, the enemy player can examine your task forces if he so desires, though that does not mean that is the group of units that will be in the task force once it is your turn to move naval units.

I like the idea of a separate column/area for each task force and arrows connecting them that could be clicked on for moving ships from one location to another. That is the design/style used for moving markers between offense & defense and for moving US Entry chits between entry and tension pools.

However, I am concerned that we might need several task forces active at the same time, instead of just 2 areas. For example, when setting up the CW navy in almost any scenario, there are a lot of different locations you might choose in Europe: Portsmouth, Scapa Flow, Liverpool, Gibraltar, Malta, and Suez come to mind. When distributing the large number of naval units into separate task forces (perhaps one per port), and shuffling them about as you try different configurations, you will probably want to have all those places visible at once.

Maybe having a display of the units in each force pool/location (i.e, multiple areas containing units visible at the same time) and then a simple text list of the same locations would work. The player could select units from whichever location he likes, including selections from multiple locations at the same time, and then click on a 'destination' location. The selected units would then be moved from the old into the new locations/force pools. I have a couple variations on this style in mind. It's a new idea, less than 2 minutes old, but I think it has potential.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 637

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/7/2007 5:40:35 PM

wfzimmerman

Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline

I wonder if it might be worth repurposing the AI's task force creation logic for the player interface. I know that when I set up navies that have a lot of units many of my choices are rather arbitrary. It would be nice to be able to just have the computer set up a bunch of reasonable task forces and let me drag each task force to the port that I want it it.

the tradeoff here, of course, is between the competing values of player responsibility and ease of use. I don't think it's unreasonable or out of the spirit of gaming for the human commander to tell his Admiralty "create ten task forces and I will tell you to put them."

_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 638

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/7/2007 9:14:01 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

I wonder if it might be worth repurposing the AI's task force creation logic for the player interface. I know that when I set up navies that have a lot of units many of my choices are rather arbitrary. It would be nice to be able to just have the computer set up a bunch of reasonable task forces and let me drag each task force to the port that I want it it.

the tradeoff here, of course, is between the competing values of player responsibility and ease of use. I don't think it's unreasonable or out of the spirit of gaming for the human commander to tell his Admiralty "create ten task forces and I will tell you to put them."

Rather than create a feature where the AIA (Assistant) does this, I would prefer written guidelines/advice as part of the player's manual. Something along the lines of what is a good balance of forces for different roles against different enemy forces:

Role
1 - invasion force
2 - convoy protection
3 - control of sea area/blockade
4 - for a strongly contested sea area

Enemy forces
a - against submarines
b - against a surface fleet (no air)
c - against a surface fleet with air
d - a response/retaliation fleet - requires increased range and movement

My preference is for the player to play the game instead of watching the computer play it for him. However, I do not want to force the player to figure everything out through trial and error either.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)

Post #: 639

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/7/2007 10:06:02 PM

wfzimmerman

Posts: 660
Joined: 10/22/2003
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman

I wonder if it might be worth repurposing the AI's task force creation logic for the player interface. I know that when I set up navies that have a lot of units many of my choices are rather arbitrary. It would be nice to be able to just have the computer set up a bunch of reasonable task forces and let me drag each task force to the port that I want it it.

the tradeoff here, of course, is between the competing values of player responsibility and ease of use. I don't think it's unreasonable or out of the spirit of gaming for the human commander to tell his Admiralty "create ten task forces and I will tell you to put them."

Rather than create a feature where the AIA (Assistant) does this, I would prefer written guidelines/advice as part of the player's manual. Something along the lines of what is a good balance of forces for different roles against different enemy forces:

Role
1 - invasion force
2 - convoy protection
3 - control of sea area/blockade
4 - for a strongly contested sea area

Enemy forces
a - against submarines
b - against a surface fleet (no air)
c - against a surface fleet with air
d - a response/retaliation fleet - requires increased range and movement

My preference is for the player to play the game instead of watching the computer play it for him. However, I do not want to force the player to figure everything out through trial and error either.

That's what I figured you would say! What I really object to, in particular, is having to spend an hour or two on sifting through Treaty cruisers every time I do a global war setup. ;-)

_____________________________

Contribute to the Steve H. thank you book! http://www.nimblebooks.com/wordpress/2009/04/contribute-to-the-wargamers-wwii-quiz-book/

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 640

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/7/2007 11:46:46 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: wfzimmerman
That's what I figured you would say! What I really object to, in particular, is having to spend an hour or two on sifting through Treaty cruisers every time I do a global war setup. ;-)

Well, for that I believe I have a solution. The beta testers have expressed a strong desire to be able to save setup positions. Because of the random draw of air and land units, I am unhappy about doing that completely. However, I have agreed to enable partially saved setups, for the units that are always the same (not drawn randmoly). That includes all the named naval units, and the naval units that have zero variation (e.g., convoys). Oh, and HQs too.

This is on my todo list (very long list) and once I have other more important items taken care of, I'll get to it because it will make all testing much faster (for me as well as for the beta testers).

So, you only have to do the decision making process for which naval units go where once and then save it. Of course the game will ship with some saved setups (those that the beta testers think are good), so the WIF beginner isn't cast into deep water and told to learn how to swim.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to wfzimmerman)

Post #: 641

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/8/2007 4:53:20 AM

paulderynck

Posts: 8201
Joined: 3/24/2007
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

It's a new idea, less than 2 minutes old, but I think it has potential.

Here's another one. There should be a summary statement for all the naval units currently selected for the task force, which gives the number of ships, their total surface value and total AA value, as well as the maximum range and movement allowance for the combined group (based on the lowest ones of its members, of course).

That would be for those of us who must ensure they optimize the best selection of the best combinations to align with the breakpoints on the Naval CRT. (Guilty, your Honor.

)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 642

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/8/2007 7:33:59 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

quote:

It's a new idea, less than 2 minutes old, but I think it has potential.

Here's another one. There should be a summary statement for all the naval units currently selected for the task force, which gives the number of ships, their total surface value and total AA value, as well as the maximum range and movement allowance for the combined group (based on the lowest ones of its members, of course).

That would be for those of us who must ensure they optimize the best selection of the best combinations to align with the breakpoints on the Naval CRT. (Guilty, your Honor.)

Here is Patrice's list:
-------------
Well, the usual summary of statistics would be :
Total Number of ships.
Total Surface factors.
Total Shore Bombardment sactors (adjusted by the sea box).
Total AA.
Max speed (being the speed of the slowest ship)
Max range (being the range of the lower ranged ship)
Total ASW factors (counting planes).
Max possible Air to Air Strengh.
Max Possible Air to Sea Strength.
-------------

Is that all I need to show? I will work on some pencil on paper mockups for the Task Force display tonight and maybe a CorelDraw rendering tomorrow.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to paulderynck)

Post #: 643

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/8/2007 11:30:28 AM

ptey

Posts: 41
Joined: 9/25/2006
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: offline

I would like to see the "target profile table" next to each of the different numbers for the task force. So fx. if there were 6 ships selected for a task force, it would display 5-7 next to the number of ships, and likewise for the other numbers defining the task force. Simply to make it easy for you to target profile optimize your task forces, so to speak.
If you already have something similar in mind, you can just ignore my comment.:)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 644

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/8/2007 12:48:20 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: ptey

I would like to see the "target profile table" next to each of the different numbers for the task force. So fx.�if there were 6 ships selected for a task force, it would display 5-7 next to the number of ships, and likewise for the other numbers defining the task force. Simply to make it easy for you to target profile optimize your task forces, so to speak.
If you already have something similar in mind, you can�just ignore my comment.:)

Maybe the game could show this information for all factors, like this :
Total Number of ships : 11 (8-11)
Total Surface factors : 52 (51-64).
Total Shore Bombardment sactors (adjusted by the sea box) : 23.
Total AA : 35 (29-38).
Max speed (being the speed of the slowest ship) : 6
Max range (being the range of the lower ranged ship) : 4
Total ASW factors (counting planes) : 11 (11-14)
Max possible Air to Air Strengh : 5.4
Max Possible Air to Sea Strength : 3 (3)

This means that you have 11 ships and are in the 8-11 row, you have 52 factors and are in the 51-64 factors row, etc... This let you know if you're far or not from the other row / column.

(in reply to ptey)

Post #: 645

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/8/2007 2:41:54 PM

ptey

Posts: 41
Joined: 9/25/2006
From: Copenhagen, Denmark
Status: offline

Yes, this was also pretty much what i meant.:)

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 646

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/8/2007 9:06:07 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: ptey
I would like to see the "target profile table" next to each of the different numbers for the task force. So fx.�if there were 6 ships selected for a task force, it would display 5-7 next to the number of ships, and likewise for the other numbers defining the task force. Simply to make it easy for you to target profile optimize your task forces, so to speak.
If you already have something similar in mind, you can�just ignore my comment.:)

Maybe the game could show this information for all factors, like this :
Total Number of ships : 11 (8-11)
Total Surface factors : 52 (51-64).
Total Shore Bombardment sactors (adjusted by the sea box) : 23.
Total AA : 35 (29-38).
Max speed (being the speed of the slowest ship) : 6
Max range (being the range of the lower ranged ship) : 4
Total ASW factors (counting planes) : 11 (11-14)
Max possible Air to Air Strengh : 5.4
Max Possible Air to Sea Strength : 3 (3)

This means that you have 11 ships and are in the 8-11 row, you have 52 factors and are in the 51-64 factors row, etc... This let you know if you're far or not from the other row / column.

Space is at a premium, as always, so I will not be as verbose. Here is what I worked up last night.

Summary
# of ships: # [#-#]
Max Move: #
Max Range: #
Nav Air: sum (#) [#-#]
Air-to-air: best (#)
Anti-Air: sum [#-#]
Surface: sum [#-#]
Bombard: sum (#)
ASW: sum [#-#]

Sum is the sum of all the factors.
(#) is the # of units.
[#-#] is the column range in the CRT.

I am working on a mock up.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 5/8/2007 9:09:56 PM >

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 647

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/8/2007 9:42:03 PM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

Air-to-air: best (#)

I would not display the best Air to Air strength, I would display the Max Air to Air strength that can be achieve with this TF.
For example.
Let's imagine that the TF has 4 CVP counters, as follow :
(4-0-0-0), (2-3-0-0) (1-3-0-0) (0-3-0-0) (do you recognize the planes and the navy ???

)

I would like the information displayed to be :
Best A2A : 4.3 (3 CVP)
Best A2S : 9 (3 CVP)

So that the player knows he can have as much as 4.3 A2A strength if he puts all his CVP as Fighters, or 9 A2S strength it he puts 3 CVP as bombers.
Knowing his best CVP A2A strength from simple glance at the counters, he know he can have from 4 to 4.3 A2A strength.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 648

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/8/2007 10:15:02 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

Air-to-air: best (#)

I would not display the best Air to Air strength, I would display the Max Air to Air strength that can be achieve with this TF.
For example.
Let's imagine that the TF has 4 CVP counters, as follow :
(4-0-0-0), (2-3-0-0) (1-3-0-0) (0-3-0-0) (do you recognize the planes and the navy ??? )

I would like the information displayed to be :
Best A2A : 4.3 (3 CVP)
Best A2S : 9 (3 CVP)

So that the player knows he can have as much as 4.3 A2A strength if he puts all his CVP as Fighters, or 9 A2S strength it he puts 3 CVP as bombers.
Knowing his best CVP A2A strength from simple glance at the counters, he know he can have from 4 to 4.3 A2A strength.

Ok, but I will use Max instead of Best then.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 649

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/8/2007 11:21:06 PM

composer99

Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline

quote:

(do you recognize the planes and the navy ??? )

I don't recognize the planes themselves, but if I was betting, I'd say CW.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 650

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/9/2007 2:59:22 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Here are a couple of rough mockups for Task Forces.

The form size is fixed at 500 by 375, or so. That will permit 4 of these to be displayed at the same time on screens 1024 by 768. During setup, one of those screens would be the setup screen. During other times, it is likely that one of those screens would be the non-task force units in the port/sea area section box.

The zoom level here is 5 which makes the names of the units mostly legible but limits the number of visible units per column to 5. I'll show an alternative in the next post.

The top of the form (e.g., #1 Map Window) would give the task force name and location. The blank area to the left would show summary statisitcs. The separate scroll bars for each column do not need to run all the way to the top of each column, so I expect to have enough room to display the number of naval units in each column. For example, the NT/Amph column heading would be: NT/Amph-3; and the BB would be: BB-4.

When a naval unit is carrying another unit, then the transported unit is directly below it. That lets you know which carrier has which carrier air unit.

Rather than drag and drop, I am thinking of a simpler system (to code) where you click on a unit and then click on a destination task force heading bar. That would initiate code to transfer the unit from its current task force screen to the other. At the start of setup, you would create empty task forces for the ports & sea area section boxes you desire, and then transfer units from the setup screen (which will look like a task force screen during this process) to the task force screens. It seems like a pretty obvious mechanism to me, with instant feedback on each deployment, and easy to undo mistakes - by tranferring the unit back.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 651

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/9/2007 3:03:46 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

Second and last in series.

Here is an alternative, using zoom level 4, and medium resolution. This permits 6 units to be visible per column. You lose the names of the units here, but the column headings should make it clear which are BB versus CA/CL. You will lose the distinction between CA and CL.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 652

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/9/2007 4:03:46 AM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

Looking at these screens I lean towards liking the CWIF Units strip at screen bottom presentation better, both for naval units and sea box contents.

Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 653

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/9/2007 4:16:37 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: lomyrin
Looking at these screens I lean towards liking the CWIF Units strip at screen bottom�presentation better, both for naval units and sea box contents.

Lars

Do you mean horizontal versus vertical?

By the way, CWIF used both. The units review panel was vertical.

I chose vertical here because of the summary text that has to be shown.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to lomyrin)

Post #: 654

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/9/2007 4:21:52 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

I was thinking, perhaps I could remove the sub column, since they would rarely be part of a task force. I could then create a varation of a task force, called a Wolfpack that would be composed exclusively of submarines. A wolfpack could be a named gourp of submarines that travel together as a group. Or is that completely unnecessary?

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 655

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/9/2007 5:49:03 AM

lomyrin

Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline

I meant the horizontal 2 counter high display running a bit more than the left half of the bottom screen followed by a variety of information in a separate box at the right of the bottom screen.

The pull down option for unit review is an entirely separate issue and your version is very good for that i think.

Perhaps the task force issue should be a separate form as you have, but I think the bottom of screen unit information panel as in CWiF was very functional. It could still be called in or out.

Lars

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 656

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/9/2007 6:54:50 AM

amwild

Posts: 105
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I was thinking, perhaps I could remove the sub column, since they would rarely be part of a task force. I could then create a varation of a task force, called a Wolfpack that would be composed exclusively of submarines. A wolfpack could be a named gourp of submarines that travel together as a group. Or is that completely unnecessary?

Considering that a task force is nothing more to the game than a convenient UI handle by which to move naval forces as a group, my preference would be to have only one type of Task Force that the player can call anything he wants, e.g.: "TG1.0", "Wolfpack 1", "Big nasty collection of ships", "Wallowing bait", or whatever... Having different types of handle for different types of naval vessel seems unnecessary.

On the other hand, if a task force had some tangible game effect, I would almost say that submarines shouldn't be in one at all. A wolfpack was not really an official formation, but a more-or-less ad-hoc group of subs that congregated in an area to prey on some big, hapless convoy. A "task force" is effectively a group of ships in some sort of formation, and submarines don't always hold formation so well...

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 657

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/9/2007 9:17:28 AM

Froonp

Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I was thinking, perhaps I could remove the sub column, since they would rarely be part of a task force. I could then create a varation of a task force, called a Wolfpack that would be composed exclusively of submarines. A wolfpack could be a named gourp of submarines that travel together as a group. Or is that completely unnecessary?

Submarines should not be part of TF, at least they should not have their own column. If submarines are in a task force, then let them be displayed in another column, but do not loos room for a column that will be empty most of the time.

Same for TRS and AMPH (do not abreviate TRS as NT), they are not very often part of TF.

Maybe have the last column named "OTHERS" and have the TRS / AMPH / SUB / WHATEVER listed in it ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 658

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/9/2007 10:48:35 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I was thinking, perhaps I could remove the sub column, since they would rarely be part of a task force. I could then create a varation of a task force, called a Wolfpack that would be composed exclusively of submarines. A wolfpack could be a named gourp of submarines that travel together as a group. Or is that completely unnecessary?

Submarines should not be part of TF, at least they should not have their own column. If submarines are in a task force, then let them be displayed in another column, but do not loos room for a column that will be empty most of the time.

Same for TRS and AMPH (do not abreviate TRS as NT), they are not very often part of TF.

Maybe have the last column named "OTHERS" and have the TRS / AMPH / SUB / WHATEVER listed in it ?

'Other' is a fine column heading - a good idea - thanks.

OTHERS is not so good, since it carries connotations of aliens from outer space.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 659

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 5/9/2007 2:34:04 PM

iamspamus

Posts: 433
Joined: 11/16/2006
From: Cambridge, UK
Status: offline

Wow, can't wait.
Jason

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are a couple of rough mockups for Task Forces.

The form size is fixed at 500 by 375, or so. That will permit 4 of these to be displayed at the same time on screens 1024 by 768. During setup, one of those screens would be the setup screen. During other times, it is likely that one of those screens would be the non-task force units in the port/sea area section box.

The zoom level here is 5 which makes the names of the units mostly legible but limits the number of visible units per column to 5. I'll show an alternative in the next post.

The top of the form (e.g., #1 Map Window) would give the task force name and location. The blank area to the left would show summary statisitcs. The separate scroll bars for each column do not need to run all the way to the top of each column, so I expect to have enough room to display the number of naval units in each column. For example, the NT/Amph column heading would be: NT/Amph-3; and the BB would be: BB-4.

When a naval unit is carrying another unit, then the transported unit is directly below it. That lets you know which carrier has which carrier air unit.

Rather than drag and drop, I am thinking of a simpler system (to code) where you click on a unit and then click on a destination task force heading bar. That would initiate code to transfer the unit from its current task force screen to the other. At the start of setup, you would create empty task forces for the ports & sea area section boxes you desire, and then transfer units from the setup screen (which will look like a task force screen during this process) to the task force screens. It seems like a pretty obvious mechanism to me, with instant feedback on each deployment, and easy to undo mistakes - by tranferring the unit back.