Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
Some comments:
When a ship has 2 cargo units, the ship could be shown once, but the cargo could be shown beneath each other.

Like this:

S C1
  C2

quote:

Btw, I think more filters would be needed. Instead of the mine/axis/allied, I would want to select specific country (checking off germany + italy, for instance), or CW + US. In addition, there should be a transport mode/filter This would show ALL transports, as well as SCS actually loaded with divs. For both devensive and offensive puroses, it would be nice to be able to view only units in reach of a given sea zone, with a subfilter allowing to specify section. That way, you could easily check how many surface points or airt to sea points you or an opponent could bring to, for instance, the 2-box in south china sea.

Or, the player could want to know what would be hte max invasion strength that could reach the 3 box of the western med. (or 4 box, if it is raining).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
6 - I am not sure whether the port symbols should be above or below the port columns. I am thinking that below is bettter. Using the port symbols is a little bit of inspiration this morning. If the port is captured or iced in that will be shown. It is possible for Leningrad to be iced in, which is why its symbol is different. This will also differentiate major ports from minor ports at a glance.

quote:

9 - The Defense row is spurious. Right now it duplicate the # of Ships entry. Something else to write code for.

quote:

10 - I am unhappy with the label Cargo. What this number represents is a count of air and land units aboard naval units. Carrier air units assigned to carriers are counted in the total. I am thinking of using 'Aboard', 'Transported', or 'Carried' instead - though none of those is especailly pleasing to me.

quote:

11 - The Save/Restore button will be split into Save and Restore buttons. The purpose of these is to save a configuration of port and sea area columns so you can bring up the latest information on them whenever you want, without having to reselect each column.

Comments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

Some comments:
When a ship has 2 cargo units, the ship could be shown once, but the cargo could be shown beneath each other.

Like this:

S C1
  C2

Where S is the ship, and C1 and C2 are the cargo units. This would apply both to cv planes and divs on transports. Showing the actual ship twice would lead to confusion.

As for how to display cargo, I would suggest splitting it up. When evaluating strength of navies, I feel that at least the following info is vital:
- Number of CV planes
- Total air-to sea for CV planes
- Best air-to-air value
- Total tac factors

For transports, this could be split as follows:
- Number of corps
- Number of divs
- Max invasion strength (Calculate the best 2 corps + 1 div strength, only counting marines, divs and inf class attacking from amph, if playing with amphs).

In particular the cv information will be more important than for instance max move/max range, imo, except for checking max range for enemy subs. In any case, irrelevant entries should be removed, so that if you are just looking at subs, you will not not see the No of BB/CA/CL/CV entries, etc.

Btw, I think more filters would be needed. Instead of the mine/axis/allied, I would want to select specific country (checking off germany + italy, for instance), or CW + US. In addition, there should be a transport mode/filter This would show ALL transports, as well as SCS actually loaded with divs. For both devensive and offensive puroses, it would be nice to be able to view only units in reach of a given sea zone, with a subfilter allowing to specify section. That way, you could easily check how many surface points or airt to sea points you or an opponent could bring to, for instance, the 2-box in south china sea.

Or, the player could want to know what would be hte max invasion strength that could reach the 3 box of the western med. (or 4 box, if it is raining).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
6 - I am not sure whether the port symbols should be above or below the port columns. I am thinking that below is bettter. Using the port symbols is a little bit of inspiration this morning. If the port is captured or iced in that will be shown. It is possible for Leningrad to be iced in, which is why its symbol is different. This will also differentiate major ports from minor ports at a glance.

Putting the ports symbol is a good idea.
I like them where they are on this picture, but I would prefer them smaller and withoug the white background, with a transparent background preferably. But that's not a biggie.

quote:

9 - The Defense row is spurious. Right now it duplicate the # of Ships entry. Something else to write code for.

See my comment below.

quote:

10 - I am unhappy with the label Cargo. What this number represents is a count of air and land units aboard naval units. Carrier air units assigned to carriers are counted in the total. I am thinking of using 'Aboard', 'Transported', or 'Carried' instead - though none of those is especailly pleasing to me.

I think that Carrier Planes should not even appear here. This would simplify. They are part of the Carrier after all, so they are normal here and their number is quite irrelevant. The number in the air to air or air to sea rows will show if there are a lot of airpower with this assembly of ships, the number of CVP is not important.
For the other cargo, I would split it into only 2 categories : Invasion capable, debark only capable (not invasion capable). Don't care if they are planes or troops, what matters is the number of troops that can invade. High number in the "invasion capable" column means danger for the enemy, and critical importance for the owner. High number in the "debark only" column only mean more targets for the enemy.

quote:

11 - The Save/Restore button will be split into Save and Restore buttons. The purpose of these is to save a configuration of port and sea area columns so you can bring up the latest information on them whenever you want, without having to reselect each column.

Comments?

I love these Forms.

Some comments so that I can love them more.

On the Naval Review Summary Form :

I would personaly prefer if the number of ships (and also all the other "number of", number of carriers, number of battleships, etc...) be displayed on the top rows. Then their statistics would be displayed in the lower rows. If possible, drawing a line between the "numbers of", and the statistics would be good to better separate them. Idealy (for me) the movement & range would be the bottom rows, as they are important so putting them in the end row make them easy to see immediately.

About the Sea Area part of the Naval Review Summary, wouldn't it be good if it was not only broken down by Sea Area, but also by Sea Box Section ?


Now, specificaly for some Rows :

The Defense row should not be a sum of the defenses of the ships. An average would be better. But not very informative either I suspect. Maybe have it deleted entirely. What is the importance of knowing the overall "defense factor" of an assemby of ships after all ? Given the fact that ships are usually mixed, it will always be a number in the 4-6 range, and that's all.

How is calculated the Air to air row ? If it is the air to air "power" of the Port, it should not include CVP. If it is the air to air "power" of the fleet in beeing that could be assembled from all the ships in the port, it should not include land-based fighters based on this port. For a task force at sea, the air to air row of the Naval Review Summary should include both land based fighters that are on an air to sea mission currently plus the CVPs of the fleet.

quote:

4 - Similarly, the defense # is an average now, based on the number of ships. Not real useful, but not completely useless.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

On a related topic:
What happened to the discussion about task forces? Is that discussion closed?

It seems to me, that in practice, most naval movment will be done by using task forces, and that most of the time spent performing naval movement will in fact actually be spent moving task force markers instead of individual ships. Assuming that the user is not limited in the number of task forces that he can create, and assuming that he can name them freely, I would for instance want to set up an escort system as follows:

Consider the escort situation in the Mid Atlantic. I would starty by defining 3 task forces, as follows:
Mid Atl 1
Mid Atl 2
Mid Atl 3

To each of these I would assign 1-3 (1 ship in a task force should be ok) cruisers capable of reaching the 4 box of the sea zone. . Initially, I would send 1 task force to each of the 0, 1 and 4 boxes. At the start of every turn, I would send the one that had to return to base out to the 4 section again, while sliding the 3 section down to the 1 section.

Now, while moving, it would be great if I could right-click on a section of a sea zone, and get a menu option called "Move ships here". If selecting this command, I would get a list of task forces and ships that can reach the section I am right clicking. (Task forces on top, if sorting alphabetically). This would speed things up quite a bit, especially for people with relatively small screens. For even faster play, it should be possible in the task force management screen, to define at least one, possibly several sea areas where the task force responsibility lies. The units with responsibility for a sea zone would always show up first when using the command "Move ships here".

When right clicking on a ship or task force in port, one should get a "Move to sea zone" command if the ship is in port, or "Move to port" and "Slide down" commands when already at sea. "Move to sea zone" should also give the possiblity to specify section. "Slide down" should have a keyboard shortcut, too, I guess. Other context sensitive commands, could be "Remove from task force", "Move to task force X", "Reorganize unit".

When manipulating task forces, I wonder if it wouldn't be more appropriate to organize units side by side in rows, instead of in columns. For instance, a report could read someting like this:

-- Western Medetteranian, section 3 (friendly)----------------
Ships No 28  LBA No 3  Surf 72  ATS 12  AA 51  SB 31
CV 5 BB 7 CA 12 CL 2 TRS 2 Corps 1 Divs 3
-- Task forces ---------------------------------------------
MED CV fleet, Med BB battle group (use icons)
-- Land Based Air ------------------------------------------
LBA1, LBA2, LBA3
-- Transports ---------------------------------------------
AMPH1 INF 1 TRS1 DIV1 DIV2 SCS 1 DIV3
-- Carriers ------------------------------------------------
CV1 cvp1 cvp2, CV2 cvp3, and so on (The ones in task forces should be partly transparant, to show this)
-- Battleships ---------------------------------------------
BB1, BB2 and so on
-- Heavy Cruisers ------------------------------------------
CA1, CA2, CA3,....
-- Light Cruisers ------------------------------------------
CL1, CL2 .....

Doing it horisontally like this, would allow for lots more information, at the cost of having to use a scroll bar to scroll down a bit once in a while. Howering over task forces would display aggregate information, while double clicking on them would expand the task force as separate lines in the report. It would also make it easy to move ships between task forces, either by drag and drop, or by right clicking and selecting the "Move to task force X" command.

Cheers
Hakon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

quote:

4 - Similarly, the defense # is an average now, based on the number of ships. Not real useful, but not completely useless.

I can't think of any situation or calculation where knowing the average or total defence factors of a fleet stack would be useful. By definition it is a value that is only ever used on a per individual unit basis, it is never added, subtracted, or multiplied by any other value.

Can probably save yourself some (albeit small) bit of space on the form and delete this value entirely, since at best it will just be a confusing value (to neophytes) to show.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
Now, while moving, it would be great if I could right-click on a section of a sea zone, and get a menu option called "Move ships here". If selecting this command, I would get a list of task forces and ships that can reach the section I am right clicking. (Task forces on top, if sorting alphabetically). This would speed things up quite a bit, especially for people with relatively small screens. For even faster play, it should be possible in the task force management screen, to define at least one, possibly several sea areas where the task force responsibility lies. The units with responsibility for a sea zone would always show up first when using the command "Move ships here".

quote:

When right clicking on a ship or task force in port, one should get a "Move to sea zone" command if the ship is in port, or "Move to port" and "Slide down" commands when already at sea. "Move to sea zone" should also give the possiblity to specify section. "Slide down" should have a keyboard shortcut, too, I guess. Other context sensitive commands, could be "Remove from task force", "Move to task force X", "Reorganize unit".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I changed the Cargo label to # Carried. What I can do here is put 2 numbers in the cell. I don't think there is room for 3, especially since one of them could be 2 digits. There are 3 candidates: # of carrier air units, # of units that can invade, and # of units that are neither of the first 2. I think I'll go with # of carrier air units and merge the last two (non-carrier air units). If you are thinking about being invaded, you should go to the NRD form and not be making decisions using the NRS form. So, for example, 5/2 would mean 5 carrier air units and 2 other units aboard TRS, AMPH, or SCS units. You like?

quote:

Differentiating within sea box sections should be done by bringing up the detailed map for the sea area and then passing the cursor over each sea box section while the NRD form is visible. The NRD form then shows just those units in the sea box section.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
When you look at the map or review a port/sea area/sea area section, each task force will appear as a single counter - there is a separate bitmapped image for task force 'units'.

quote:

Then the player can "pick up" a task force and move it about the map. Task force definitions will remain in effect until the player disbands them, or unit losses reduce it to a single unit. They last from impulse to impulse and from turn to turn. That way moving TFs out to patrol and back to port should be easy.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

Shannon:

You are the game designer and chief developer, and as such, you are the boss. It seems that we have ad simmilar discussiona before, usually with me having proposals for tools/screens/functionality that I think would speed up play for the player, reducing time spent on CW/US/Japanese naval impulses, checking for air cover, trying different setups to see what hex you can get the strongest land attack against, etc. I think you've rejected every one of these proposals based on the "I dont want the computer to play the game for the player" argument. (Which I clearly don't agree with).

Since it seems that our disagreements are philosophical in nature, it's probably quite pointless for me to participate in these UI threads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
Now, while moving, it would be great if I could right-click on a section of a sea zone, and get a menu option called "Move ships here". If selecting this command, I would get a list of task forces and ships that can reach the section I am right clicking. (Task forces on top, if sorting alphabetically). This would speed things up quite a bit, especially for people with relatively small screens. For even faster play, it should be possible in the task force management screen, to define at least one, possibly several sea areas where the task force responsibility lies. The units with responsibility for a sea zone would always show up first when using the command "Move ships here".

Wow, great idea !

quote:

When right clicking on a ship or task force in port, one should get a "Move to sea zone" command if the ship is in port, or "Move to port" and "Slide down" commands when already at sea. "Move to sea zone" should also give the possiblity to specify section. "Slide down" should have a keyboard shortcut, too, I guess. Other context sensitive commands, could be "Remove from task force", "Move to task force X", "Reorganize unit".

Great ideas again.
About the "Slide down", maybe it is not usefull as this is the default for ships & TF staying at sea.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I changed the Cargo label to # Carried. What I can do here is put 2 numbers in the cell. I don't think there is room for 3, especially since one of them could be 2 digits. There are 3 candidates: # of carrier air units, # of units that can invade, and # of units that are neither of the first 2. I think I'll go with # of carrier air units and merge the last two (non-carrier air units). If you are thinking about being invaded, you should go to the NRD form and not be making decisions using the NRS form. So, for example, 5/2 would mean 5 carrier air units and 2 other units aboard TRS, AMPH, or SCS units. You like?

No, I don't, because the number of carrier air unit is totaly useless.
You have the air to air and the air to sea rows to have an indication of the air power of that assembly of ships, the number of CVP is totaly irrelevant. If 2 numbers can be written, best is to write "cannot invade" / "can invade". Otherwise stay with 1 number only.

quote:

Differentiating within sea box sections should be done by bringing up the detailed map for the sea area and then passing the cursor over each sea box section while the NRD form is visible. The NRD form then shows just those units in the sea box section.

Why not also have a right click in the sea area bring a menu where you can choose any of the 10 sea boxes to appear in the NRD ? Example : Rignt click in the Solomons Sea Area, and choose Axis 4, and I see only units from that Sea Box section in the NRD.
I ask this because it can beclumsy to look for the Sea Area's Sea Box Sections.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

Shannon:

You are the game designer and chief developer, and as such, you are the boss. It seems that we have ad simmilar discussiona before, usually with me having proposals for tools/screens/functionality that I think would speed up play for the player, reducing time spent on CW/US/Japanese naval impulses, checking for air cover, trying different setups to see what hex you can get the strongest land attack against, etc. I think you've rejected every one of these proposals based on the "I dont want the computer to play the game for the player" argument. (Which I clearly don't agree with).

Since it seems that our disagreements are philosophical in nature, it's probably quite pointless for me to participate in these UI threads.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
When you look at the map or review a port/sea area/sea area section, each task force will appear as a single counter - there is a separate bitmapped image for task force 'units'.

With the Task Force name written on it, it would be better.

quote:

Then the player can "pick up" a task force and move it about the map. Task force definitions will remain in effect until the player disbands them, or unit losses reduce it to a single unit. They last from impulse to impulse and from turn to turn. That way moving TFs out to patrol and back to port should be easy.

Fine. I hoped we could keep Task Force even when in ports.

Would be good also in the NRD if the total oil cost of the units were shown. Replacing the Defense factor thing with that could be a real plus to the naval side of the game. Knowing the oil price of a TF is as almost important as knowing its range & speed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon
Now, while moving, it would be great if I could right-click on a section of a sea zone, and get a menu option called "Move ships here". If selecting this command, I would get a list of task forces and ships that can reach the section I am right clicking. (Task forces on top, if sorting alphabetically). This would speed things up quite a bit, especially for people with relatively small screens. For even faster play, it should be possible in the task force management screen, to define at least one, possibly several sea areas where the task force responsibility lies. The units with responsibility for a sea zone would always show up first when using the command "Move ships here".

Wow, great idea !

quote:

When right clicking on a ship or task force in port, one should get a "Move to sea zone" command if the ship is in port, or "Move to port" and "Slide down" commands when already at sea. "Move to sea zone" should also give the possiblity to specify section. "Slide down" should have a keyboard shortcut, too, I guess. Other context sensitive commands, could be "Remove from task force", "Move to task force X", "Reorganize unit".

Great ideas again.
About the "Slide down", maybe it is not usefull as this is the default for ships & TF staying at sea.

Thanks for the feedback. It's probably not in, though, since Shannon didnt seem to like it. As for the "slide down" shortcut, it's used for moving escorts that stayed at sea from the 3 box to the 1 or 0 box at the start of each turn. (Aside from the obvious but not so common situation where you need to creep to a lower box to reach the protection of battle ships or LBA). It could probably be done almost as well with the mouse, though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
When you look at the map or review a port/sea area/sea area section, each task force will appear as a single counter - there is a separate bitmapped image for task force 'units'.

With the Task Force name written on it, it would be better.

quote:

Then the player can "pick up" a task force and move it about the map. Task force definitions will remain in effect until the player disbands them, or unit losses reduce it to a single unit. They last from impulse to impulse and from turn to turn. That way moving TFs out to patrol and back to port should be easy.

Fine. I hoped we could keep Task Force even when in ports.

Would be good also in the NRD if the total oil cost of the units were shown. Replacing the Defense factor thing with that could be a real plus to the naval side of the game. Knowing the oil price of a TF is as almost important as knowing its range & speed.

Yes, to all.

I have room to add one more row to the form and oil point usage is the clear winner (so far). I'll put it at the bottom and only have it appear if that optional rule is in use.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In general 'shortcut' and 'automatic' are words that make the hair on the back of my neck rise. They immediately imply that there is a way to do this already in the player interface, so we are just talking about convenience.

Now, I actually use the player interface more than all the beta testers combined, so if there is something that is tedious to do, I learn about it very quickly. And I spend time brooding about possible ways to make it easier. For instance, I just went through several forms and repositioned the buttons so they are grouped together, to minimize the distance you have to move the mouse when making a series of decisions on the form.

But both shortcut and automatic means taking control out of the hands of the player and having the computer go off on its own and do things. That makes me nervous, for it requires that I figure out in advance all the possible situations where these actions might occur and guaranteeing that the way I program for them is perfect - always making the correct decision on behalf of the player. I have learned from experience that my ability to make perfect decisions is always doubtful.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In general 'shortcut' and 'automatic' are words that make the hair on the back of my neck rise. They immediately imply that there is a way to do this already in the player interface, so we are just talking about convenience.

Now, I actually use the player interface more than all the beta testers combined, so if there is something that is tedious to do, I learn about it very quickly. And I spend time brooding about possible ways to make it easier. For instance, I just went through several forms and repositioned the buttons so they are grouped together, to minimize the distance you have to move the mouse when making a series of decisions on the form.

But both shortcut and automatic means taking control out of the hands of the player and having the computer go off on its own and do things. That makes me nervous, for it requires that I figure out in advance all the possible situations where these actions might occur and guaranteeing that the way I program for them is perfect - always making the correct decision on behalf of the player. I have learned from experience that my ability to make perfect decisions is always doubtful.

Steve

I understand project constraints, risks of feature creep and the need to keep to a simple design for cost and risk reasons. I also understand psycological reasons such as fatigue at as a project nears it's end. (I have worked in the software industry for the last 10 years, most of this time as either a developer, architect or consultant.) If one agrees that an idea is good, but too complex to be in scope in the first release, it usually gets recorded as candidate functionality for future releases. Clearly, I realize that many of my more involved suggestions are unlikely to be included in the first release, given the current scope definition (ie a computerized WIF FE), and release plan.

But the rather consistent rejections of my proposals seem to go beyond that, and they have from the start. From statements like the above, it seems that the real difference lies in differences of taste. It's hard to argue agains that, and the seeming consistency of it indicates that I am simply wasting everyone's time coming up with these kinds of suggestions.

Btw, I am not really suggestin any real automation. (I've been thinking of suggesting it, but not really taken it that far). By real automation, I mean that the the game would actually execute actions for the player. Rather, what I have suggested falls more in the domain of information gathering. (This comes natural for me, since my work lies in the intersection between statistical analysis/business intelligence and more classic programming, for which I am currently emplyed as an architect) By placing the information "at the fingertips" of the player (excuse the cliché), I seek to speed up play. I do NOT want the game to make any kind of prioritisation on behalf of the player. This is purely the domain of the player, in my opinion.

I realize that some of the things that I've suggested would require some more or less involved code, and having to run that code every time I right-click, could also require some optimization of that code. Except for the actual UI, though, I would think that most of or all of this code has to be written as support algorithms for the AIO sooner or later, anyway.

But I still feel that thehre is a considerable difference of philosophy and taste, that will at least require the game to be released before I start coming up with suggested features.

That being said, the game does seem to shape up rather well, and I really look forward to it's realease. I must say that I'm quite impressed by the dedication you have been showing to the product and the willingness to go on with minimal income and very long hours to see it through, without compromising on quality. I get the impression that you alone do the work that most software companies require at least 4 people to get done.

I hope that you will be rewarded for this when the game comes out. Have you put any thought into what price level you should sell it at? I have the feeling that this kind of niche game is not going to be terribly price sensitive when it comes to sales volume, so you may be able to sell it at $100-200 even online. Alternatively, it may be a good idea to charge some kind of monthly fee ($5-10/month, for instance, for online play, if you are going to provide a playing lobby, etc.

Simmilar to, for instance, MS flight simmulator, the game is not going to face much in terms of newer, more technically advanced, competition. This means that it's not likely to be faced with much price preassure very soon.

For further revenue, you may want to create a deluxe version. Ideally, this would be compatible with the standard version for multiplayer purposes, etc, but could include player help systems, maybe a full hardcopy of the MWIF maps (at WIF FEW scale), etc. Maybe even some of my suggestions could find it's way into such a product.

Cheers
Hakon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Hakon,

Marketing and pricing is purely the domain of Matrix Games. They want to maximize profits as much as I do (I'll get a royalty based on a percentage of sales). They also have a lot more experience with this than I do. My take on this is I'll let them decide - not that I have much choice.

I am 99+% focused on product 1. Once that is done and been in the hands of players for a while, I'll start a discussion in the forum on what should be in product 2. That should be a lively discussion.

I believe very few people can even begin to appreciate the size of this game in terms of code. The more code there is, the more interactions there are between modules/routines/components/whatever-you-want-to-call-them. When features grow linearly, the complexity grows exponentially.

quote:

ORIGINAL: hakon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Hakon,

Marketing and pricing is purely the domain of Matrix Games. They want to maximize profits as much as I do (I'll get a royalty based on a percentage of sales). They also have a lot more experience with this than I do. My take on this is I'll let them decide - not that I have much choice.

I am 99+% focused on product 1. Once that is done and been in the hands of players for a while, I'll start a discussion in the forum on what should be in product 2. That should be a lively discussion.

I believe very few people can even begin to appreciate the size of this game in terms of code. The more code there is, the more interactions there are between modules/routines/components/whatever-you-want-to-call-them. When features grow linearly, the complexity grows exponentially.

Oh, I do think I have a clue about the state of the code, being partly a programmer myself. And I realize the complexity growth, though I tend to think it only grows geomtrically (probably proportional to the square) with respect initer-dependant feature growth.

This is one of the reasons that it's so hard to change features in the middle of a development cycle, and also the main reason why the guys that came up with extreme programming place so much so much emphasis on refactoring. Refactoring, often lets you separate parts of the code that has grown inter-dependant, in such a way that overall complexity can be kept closer to linear with respect to feature count. Some times, it may actually be cheaper to write all parts of the code several times, rather than to try to fix problems created by unexpected interdependency.

Cheers
Hakon

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Comments?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Comments?

- I prefered the ports symbols at the top of the columns, sounded more logical. I still prefer them smaller, even if resolution loss. They are secondary here. The background of the column's name in deep blue with white writing would have sufficed to indicate major port. But the icon instead is fine.

- I think that all the "0" should be either deleted or replaced by dashes. The reading of the actual numbers would be improved.

- What is the "Section(s)" row ?