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  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/22/2007 5:57:52 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: composer99

The actual air unit stacking limits range from 0-3 depending on the terrain of the hex and the port/city contained therein (ports & cities override the terrain limit).

You can then add +1 air unit for an HQ and +1 for an engineer.
Then you can add a flying boat on top of that as long as the hex in question is a coastal hex.

So, Gibraltar (mountain & major port), if loaded with an HQ & engineer, can have 2 corps/army size land units, 1 division-size land units, 5 planes plus a flying boat plane.

If the flyout only includes land and air units, you will never have more than 9 units.

Might I add that the flyouts look pretty nice.

If you have 2 HQ and an ENG (hyper rare case never encountered) in a major port or a city, you can have 3+1+1+1 planes plus 1 seaplane.

(in reply to composer99)
Post #: 811
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/22/2007 6:32:18 PM   
haromar

 

Posts: 19
Joined: 10/22/2007
Status: offline
Irregardelss of the frequency of such a possible case, the flyout should start withe the 3 land units followed by the AC. These are the most relevant inspected units. In the board game we also tend to put ships besides (not in) the hex so as to get them out of the way. Since with oil, railed factories and ships you will easily supersede the 9 unit/marker limit, I suggest to use a red "UUC" unit as the last 9th icon in such cases indicating the player that he's got to look at the UUC box. 95% of your hexes will do fine with the 9 unit limit. The other 5% hexes which will usually also either include ports, stored oil or railed factories, or bombed factories markers etc. will have a red "UUC" as the 9th symbol.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 812
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/22/2007 7:37:26 PM   
Arron69


Posts: 115
Joined: 10/24/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: haromar

Irregardelss of the frequency of such a possible case, the flyout should start withe the 3 land units followed by the AC. These are the most relevant inspected units. In the board game we also tend to put ships besides (not in) the hex so as to get them out of the way. Since with oil, railed factories and ships you will easily supersede the 9 unit/marker limit, I suggest to use a red "UUC" unit as the last 9th icon in such cases indicating the player that he's got to look at the UUC box. 95% of your hexes will do fine with the 9 unit limit. The other 5% hexes which will usually also either include ports, stored oil or railed factories, or bombed factories markers etc. will have a red "UUC" as the 9th symbol.


I find this a very good sujection.

Andi.

_____________________________

The winner of a battle may not be the one who wins the War.

(in reply to haromar)
Post #: 813
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/22/2007 7:38:22 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: haromar

you can also have a fyling boat which stack for free on coastal hexes etc. I suggest to start the flyout with land units (where the maximum per hex is always at most 3 units), then ac, where together with the 3 land units you could theoretically exceed the total 9 units limit. then go to either oil/ships/factories etc. if land units and ac exceed the 9 units limit (rare case but for pearl harbour or london not that unusual), the flyout should be in red. 

Useful. Thanks.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to haromar)
Post #: 814
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/22/2007 7:42:04 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: haromar

Irregardelss of the frequency of such a possible case, the flyout should start withe the 3 land units followed by the AC. These are the most relevant inspected units. In the board game we also tend to put ships besides (not in) the hex so as to get them out of the way. Since with oil, railed factories and ships you will easily supersede the 9 unit/marker limit, I suggest to use a red "UUC" unit as the last 9th icon in such cases indicating the player that he's got to look at the UUC box. 95% of your hexes will do fine with the 9 unit limit. The other 5% hexes which will usually also either include ports, stored oil or railed factories, or bombed factories markers etc. will have a red "UUC" as the 9th symbol.

Changes to factories are incorporated into the map and do not appear as units. They might temporarily appear as units, for instance while you are placing them on the map or in the process of rail moving them. But once a phase is over, the mobile units are removed and the map image updated.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to haromar)
Post #: 815
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/22/2007 9:53:00 PM   
bredsjomagnus

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline
It would be nice if you could set so that the flyout appears after a few seconds after hovering the hex. That way you don´t get alot of flyout windows that youre not interested in when you move the mousepointer over the map.

Just a slider or something that sets a timer.

/Magnus

(in reply to Mziln)
Post #: 816
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/22/2007 9:59:23 PM   
SamuraiProgrmmr

 

Posts: 353
Joined: 10/17/2004
From: Paducah, Kentucky
Status: offline
If I understand correctly, you doubleclick and it works until you click somewhere.

I like the idea of toggling it on and it being instantaneous until turned off.  

_____________________________

Bridge is the best wargame going .. Where else can you find a tournament every weekend?

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 817
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 12:07:23 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

It would be nice if you could set so that the flyout appears after a few seconds after hovering the hex. That way you don´t get alot of flyout windows that youre not interested in when you move the mousepointer over the map.

Just a slider or something that sets a timer.

/Magnus

The hovering and waiting can get old real fast. It blinks off as soon as you move to a new hex - either disappearing completely (empty hex) or showing the contents of the new hex. The only difficulty I have noticed so far is that when reviewing a series of hexes you need to start at the bottom or the right, progressing up and/or left. That's because the flyout appears to the right and below the cursor (point). If you start at the top left, then the flyout gets in the way as you move.

We'll see what the beta testers say when I upload 5.07.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 818
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 12:09:59 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here is a screen shot I composed for the Matrix web site (marketing). There are 11 of them total and I have one more to do. Once I have sent Sean the last 4 (he already has 7 of them) I expect he will post them all.

Title: Invasion at Anzio.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 819
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 12:15:47 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is a screen shot I composed for the Matrix web site (marketing). There are 11 of them total and I have one more to do. Once I have sent Sean the last 4 (he already has 7 of them) I expect he will post them all.

Title: Invasion at Anzio.


Cool down Steve, AMPH can't load MECH unit.
Unless you're playing without AMPH, and that AMPH are treated like normal TRS units.
Also, MECH can't invade.
Plus, invading from the 1 box is pretty much a suicide, especially on Anzio where you setup a strong German ARM with a second unit.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 820
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 12:25:34 AM   
composer99


Posts: 2923
Joined: 6/6/2005
From: Ottawa, Canada
Status: offline
In terms of the promo shot not really matching up with the reality of the game, it's not much different than the ones on the WiF:FE box.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 821
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 12:44:42 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is a screen shot I composed for the Matrix web site (marketing). There are 11 of them total and I have one more to do. Once I have sent Sean the last 4 (he already has 7 of them) I expect he will post them all.

Title: Invasion at Anzio.


Cool down Steve, AMPH can't load MECH unit.
Unless you're playing without AMPH, and that AMPH are treated like normal TRS units.
Also, MECH can't invade.
Plus, invading from the 1 box is pretty much a suicide, especially on Anzio where you setup a strong German ARM with a second unit.

Rats, I meant to move the 8-3 but forgot.

Section 1 was because I set up the BB in section 2 and I wanted less than 10 units in the sea box section.

There is a small coastal hex available for the invasion just west of the German armor - The 'A' of Anzio not the 'nzio'.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 822
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 12:53:34 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is a screen shot I composed for the Matrix web site (marketing). There are 11 of them total and I have one more to do. Once I have sent Sean the last 4 (he already has 7 of them) I expect he will post them all.

Title: Invasion at Anzio.


Cool down Steve, AMPH can't load MECH unit.
Unless you're playing without AMPH, and that AMPH are treated like normal TRS units.
Also, MECH can't invade.
Plus, invading from the 1 box is pretty much a suicide, especially on Anzio where you setup a strong German ARM with a second unit.

Rats, I meant to move the 8-3 but forgot.

Section 1 was because I set up the BB in section 2 and I wanted less than 10 units in the sea box section.

There is a small coastal hex available for the invasion just west of the German armor - The 'A' of Anzio not the 'nzio'.

Is this better?




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 823
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 12:55:28 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Anzio is page 3. Here is page 1. [Look familiar Patrice?].




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 824
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 12:57:39 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here is page 2. Yeah, the supply status indicators for the Japanese air units are wrong, but the buyers won't know that.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 825
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 12:59:31 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Page #11 for the web site. Also inspired by Patrice (rampant plagarism on my part).




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 826
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 3:52:31 AM   
brian brian

 

Posts: 3191
Joined: 11/16/2005
Status: offline
I really like seeing the '5' defense factors on the TRS/AMPH; quite helpful!

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 827
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 6:29:38 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
My first pass on the summary form for reviewing all of a major power's task forces. There will be a complementary form for show a single task force. this one is simply to provide a player with an overview. Location will either be a port or a sea area section box. A task force has to all be within a single section of a sea area.

Now is the best time for comments and suggestions. There is no code behind this. As you can see there is plenty of room for other stuff. The blank space at the bottom is for a scroll bar so there can be more than 7 task forces in existence. I need to keep the columns fairly wide to show the name and location.

Cargo units do not include carrier air units on carriers.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to brian brian)
Post #: 828
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 6:43:40 AM   
Zorachus99


Posts: 1066
Joined: 9/15/2000
From: Palo Alto, CA
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is page 2. Yeah, the supply status indicators for the Japanese air units are wrong, but the buyers won't know that.





I might be wrong but shouldn't the japanes 6 1 0 0 ftr be shinden, rather than shiden?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 829
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 8:21:36 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Names were taken from the counter sheets:
315,54,49,J7W1 Shinden,,1945,0,9,0,0,1,0,4,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
343,54,49,N1K1-J Shiden (George),,1943,0,6,0,0,1,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
344,54,49,N1K1-J Shiden (George),,1943,0,7,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
345,54,49,N1K2-J Shiden-kai,,1944,0,7,0,0,3,1,10,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
430,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1945,0,8,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1946,4,1947,3,2,
431,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1945,0,8,0,0,0,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1946,4,1947,3,2,
432,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1946,0,8,1,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1947,4,1948,3,2,
433,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1946,0,9,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
434,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,9,1,0,1,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
435,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,10,0,0,0,0,9,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
436,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,8,2,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
437,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,9,2,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
438,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,8,3,0,2,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
439,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,11,0,0,0,0,9,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1950,4,1951,3,2,


_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 830
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 9:38:57 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
I might be wrong but shouldn't the japanes 6 1 0 0 ftr be shinden, rather than shiden?

Shiden is correct :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_N1K-J
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABsh%C5%AB_J7W

(in reply to Zorachus99)
Post #: 831
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 10:12:04 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

My first pass on the summary form for reviewing all of a major power's task forces. There will be a complementary form for show a single task force. this one is simply to provide a player with an overview. Location will either be a port or a sea area section box. A task force has to all be within a single section of a sea area.

Now is the best time for comments and suggestions. There is no code behind this. As you can see there is plenty of room for other stuff. The blank space at the bottom is for a scroll bar so there can be more than 7 task forces in existence. I need to keep the columns fairly wide to show the name and location.

Cargo units do not include carrier air units on carriers.

About the name, it would be cool to indicate somewhere a list of historical Task Force Names for each country for the player to pick from that. Forum members could gather that. You could propose these in drop down boxes in the form for creating Task Forces. Obviously, you should not remove the possibility for a player to type his own name.

About the Location, it should be abbreviated (most are extra long), with a tooltips appearing on it when the mouse hover for a second showing the full name. Those abbreviations can be added to one of the datafiles (SEA). I can add them if you want, but we would need to list them and ask the people about those abreviations.

Also, maybe "# of Submarines" is can be deleted, as a Task Force can't have both Submarines and Surface naval units. I mean that if 1 SUB and 1 BB move from the same port to the same sea area section box, this costs 2 naval moves, so there is no need to group them into Task Force, as they won't ever be able to be moved in one single Naval Move.
Quote from RAW
****************************
11.4.1 Definition of ‘naval move’
Each group of units you move is called a task force. A task force can contain any number of surface naval units or any number of SUBs. You can’t have surface naval units and SUBs in the same task force.
****************************

"# of Transports should be "# of Transports / Amphibious" (abbreviated to "# of TRS / AMPH") and both numbers separated by a slash.

"# of Convoy" should be "# of Convoy / Tankers" and both numbers separated by a slash.

"# of cargo units" may be broken down into 3 figures separated by slashes, in the same cell : "# of cargo units that can invade", "# of cargo land units", "# of cargo air units".

You can add a row showing "Max FTR force" which would be the Max air to air rating of the CVP carried by this TF, if all above average (in air to air factor) CVP are assigned to fighter role in case of an air to air combat. I do this on the tabletop game. For instance, I know right now that my May 1943 TF58 has a 8 Air to Air rating. This is a very useful bit of information for you to have, to assess your chances of surviving a fight in a given sea area where you intend to project your power through your carrier force.
For example, if I have 10 carrier planes 1 x 5 air to air CVP, plus 4 x 4 Air to air CVP, plus 5 other with 2 or below factors, I know that I have 6.6 (5+1.6) that is 7 air to air combat rating.
I realise that it is there already, it is the "Air-to-air" row . I did not see it.

What do you intend to write in the "Defense" row ? Average Defense ? Max Defense ? Min Defense ? Average can be interesting, but min or max have poor interest IMO. Average can give a rough idea of the kind of ships in the TF. The lower, the tougher.

All factors sum-up figures should also include the results of low sea box sections penalties (Shore Bombardments) and weather effects (Naval air power and sea box penalties increase).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 832
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 10:12:39 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Names were taken from the counter sheets:
315,54,49,J7W1 Shinden,,1945,0,9,0,0,1,0,4,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
343,54,49,N1K1-J Shiden (George),,1943,0,6,0,0,1,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
344,54,49,N1K1-J Shiden (George),,1943,0,7,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
345,54,49,N1K2-J Shiden-kai,,1944,0,7,0,0,3,1,10,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
430,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1945,0,8,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1946,4,1947,3,2,
431,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1945,0,8,0,0,0,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1946,4,1947,3,2,
432,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1946,0,8,1,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1947,4,1948,3,2,
433,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1946,0,9,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
434,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,9,1,0,1,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
435,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,10,0,0,0,0,9,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
436,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,8,2,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
437,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,9,2,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
438,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,8,3,0,2,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
439,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,11,0,0,0,0,9,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1950,4,1951,3,2,


Shiden (violet lightning) is correct. This is a J7W1 Shinden (Magnificent Lightning) below. The J7W2 was to be a turbojet variant.

Cheers, Neilster




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 833
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 10:18:46 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
Steve, are the unit shadows working in the images you've just posted?

Cheers, Neilster

Edit: My 1000th post!

< Message edited by Neilster -- 10/24/2007 6:10:57 AM >

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 834
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 10:38:01 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Steve, are the unit shadows working in the images you've just posted?

Cheers, Neilster


Yes. I toned them back and standardized on a single size regardless of the number of units in the hex. This was to leave enough room for the status indicators - they are smack dab right up against each other now with no room for bigger sahdows.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 835
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 10:41:05 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here is page 1. [Look familiar Patrice?].

Yes, I do recognise the situation, but you re-made the screenshot from scratch didn't you ?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 836
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 10:42:04 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
There is a small coastal hex available for the invasion just west of the German armor - The 'A' of Anzio not the 'nzio'.

Oh yes, you're right, Anzio is right there.
Seems that the allies are ready to be repelled to the sea in this version as well .

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 837
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 10:52:12 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

My first pass on the summary form for reviewing all of a major power's task forces. There will be a complementary form for show a single task force. this one is simply to provide a player with an overview. Location will either be a port or a sea area section box. A task force has to all be within a single section of a sea area.

Now is the best time for comments and suggestions. There is no code behind this. As you can see there is plenty of room for other stuff. The blank space at the bottom is for a scroll bar so there can be more than 7 task forces in existence. I need to keep the columns fairly wide to show the name and location.

Cargo units do not include carrier air units on carriers.

About the name, it would be cool to indicate somewhere a list of historical Task Force Names for each country for the player to pick from that. Forum members could gather that. You could propose these in drop down boxes in the form for creating Task Forces. Obviously, you should not remove the possibility for a player to type his own name.

About the Location, it should be abbreviated (most are extra long), with a tooltips appearing on it when the mouse hover for a second showing the full name. Those abbreviations can be added to one of the datafiles (SEA). I can add them if you want, but we would need to list them and ask the people about those abreviations.

Also, maybe "# of Submarines" is can be deleted, as a Task Force can't have both Submarines and Surface naval units. I mean that if 1 SUB and 1 BB move from the same port to the same sea area section box, this costs 2 naval moves, so there is no need to group them into Task Force, as they won't ever be able to be moved in one single Naval Move.
Quote from RAW
****************************
11.4.1 Definition of ‘naval move’
Each group of units you move is called a task force. A task force can contain any number of surface naval units or any number of SUBs. You can’t have surface naval units and SUBs in the same task force.
****************************

"# of Transports should be "# of Transports / Amphibious" (abbreviated to "# of TRS / AMPH") and both numbers separated by a slash.

"# of Convoy" should be "# of Convoy / Tankers" and both numbers separated by a slash.

"# of cargo units" may be broken down into 3 figures separated by slashes, in the same cell : "# of cargo units that can invade", "# of cargo land units", "# of cargo air units".

You can add a row showing "Max FTR force" which would be the Max air to air rating of the CVP carried by this TF, if all above average (in air to air factor) CVP are assigned to fighter role in case of an air to air combat. I do this on the tabletop game. For instance, I know right now that my May 1943 TF58 has a 8 Air to Air rating. This is a very useful bit of information for you to have, to assess your chances of surviving a fight in a given sea area where you intend to project your power through your carrier force.
For example, if I have 10 carrier planes 1 x 5 air to air CVP, plus 4 x 4 Air to air CVP, plus 5 other with 2 or below factors, I know that I have 6.6 (5+1.6) that is 7 air to air combat rating.
I realise that it is there already, it is the "Air-to-air" row . I did not see it.

What do you intend to write in the "Defense" row ? Average Defense ? Max Defense ? Min Defense ? Average can be interesting, but min or max have poor interest IMO. Average can give a rough idea of the kind of ships in the TF. The lower, the tougher.

All factors sum-up figures should also include the results of low sea box sections penalties (Shore Bombardments) and weather effects (Naval air power and sea box penalties increase).


Ok. I'll remove submarines.

Abbreviations of all the ports I want to avoid - too much trouble. Abbreviating the 83 sea areas might not be too hard though. That could be done like I did for the air/naval unit names. I would just add an extra field for the abbreviation and if it is blank, then the full name is used. That would make the task something that can be done off-line by editing the CSV file. You just go through the sea area names and either add a comma (blank field) or a shorter name and a comma.

Separating TRS from AMPH seems unnecessary, there is unlikely to be more than 2 since the task force will want to return to port where stacking limits on land units will be in effect.

I'll split the convoys and tankers though - I keep forgetting about the tankers (please keep reminding me).

Defense is the average with 1 decimal point (e.g., 7.2).

I could do separate rows for the cargo (there is plenty of room) and then use a better name: e.g., Invasion Force.

I'll make sure to include the modifcation(s) for sea box section for units at sea.

I am thinking of adding flags for all the countries at the bottom so a player can review/switch to each major power's task forces by clicking on a flag.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 838
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 10:57:44 AM   
Froonp


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Abbreviations of all the ports I want to avoid - too much trouble. Abbreviating the 83 sea areas might not be too hard though. That could be done like I did for the air/naval unit names. I would just add an extra field for the abbreviation and if it is blank, then the full name is used. That would make the task something that can be done off-line by editing the CSV file. You just go through the sea area names and either add a comma (blank field) or a shorter name and a comma.

I did not thought about abbreviating ports, I too think that this is not necessary

quote:

Separating TRS from AMPH seems unnecessary, there is unlikely to be more than 2 since the task force will want to return to port where stacking limits on land units will be in effect.

I disagree. If you sail out 6 TRS & 2 AMPH from 4 different ports and join them in the same TF, and then invade / unload during the turn, you're perfectly in right to return to base all the 6 TRS and 2 AMPH to the same port for future operations.

quote:

I could do separate rows for the cargo (there is plenty of room) and then use a better name: e.g., Invasion Force.

Good thing.

quote:

I am thinking of adding flags for all the countries at the bottom so a player can review/switch to each major power's task forces by clicking on a flag.

Good thing too ! Reviewing the enemy's Task Force is crutial too to good play in the Pacific.
This said, Task Forces in ports are subject to change without notice, so this is touchy too.
Maybe you should only be show task forces that are at sea, and for the ships in ports, only show them port per port ? Don't know.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 839
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 10/23/2007 11:00:22 AM   
Froonp


Posts: 7995
Joined: 10/21/2003
From: Marseilles, France
Status: offline
I'd add that separating AMPH from TRS is very important, for assessing the enemies invasion capabilities. Remember that these ships may be empty in Section 4, drop down to section 3 and fill up with invasion troops and immediately invade, during a well timed combined action.

Knowing where the enemies AMPH are is very important in the game, it helps guessing his intentions. Knowing where yours are is also important, but normaly you should always know that by heart without external help.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 840
Page:   <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design Page: <<   < prev  26 27 [28] 29 30   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

2.578