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 34 35 [36] 37 38 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/25/2008 1:47:37 PM

Peter Stauffenberg

Posts: 403
Joined: 2/24/2006
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

I think the NRD and NRS look very nice now, especially after the improvements. I wonder the selection process of which ports or sea areas you decide to show together.

E. g. you had at at one example ports in the following sequence: Leningrad, Belfast, Liverpool, Plymouth, Sevastopol, Halifax, La Spezia and Vladivostok. I fail to see any logic in how the ports are shown. It seems to not be sorted by name, it's not sorted by country or minor port vs major port. So could you please tell a little about how we select which ports we show together?

The Commonwealth has lots of ports around the world and I would expect to group the ports shown together according to country, sea zone or region (Med, Atlantic, Baltic, Pacific etc.), alphabetically or something similar.

Will we decide how the ports and sea zones are grouped together ala map views? That means we manually setup which port or sea zone will be shown in each column and then save the view as a NRS view with a name we recognize? If this method is used then I wonder if predefined views will be made so we don't have to do it ourselves if the predefined ones are fine.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1051

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/25/2008 4:15:48 PM

Norman42

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
- 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.

Agreed on both of these. The port symbols at the top was much more intuitive.

One suggestion I'd make is to have the numbers in the "section" row be reversed so they are laid out in the same way as the seabox sections on the map.

ie 01234 instead of 43210.

< Message edited by Norman42 -- 3/25/2008 4:17:42 PM >

_____________________________

-------------

C.L.Norman

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 1052

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/25/2008 6:35:57 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42
One suggestion I'd make is to have the numbers in the "section" row be reversed so they are laid out in the same way as the seabox sections on the map.

Yes, if possible, this seems to make more sense.

(in reply to Norman42)

Post #: 1053

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/25/2008 8:50:49 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
- 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.

Agreed on both of these. The port symbols at the top was much more intuitive.

One suggestion I'd make is to have the numbers in the "section" row be reversed so they are laid out in the same way as the seabox sections on the map.

ie 01234 instead of 43210.

Ok for the section #s.

Would you prefer the label to be Sea Boxes instead of Section(s)? I can't decide.

Can I get other people's opinions on the port symbols? Top or Bottom of columns? Right now I am outvoted 2 to 1, but I expect more than 3 people to play this game.

< Message edited by Shannon V. OKeets -- 3/25/2008 8:57:06 PM >

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Norman42)

Post #: 1054

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/25/2008 8:54:33 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

I think the NRD and NRS look very nice now, especially after the improvements. I wonder the selection process of�which ports or sea areas you decide to show together.

E. g. you had at at one example ports in the following sequence: Leningrad, Belfast, Liverpool, Plymouth, Sevastopol, Halifax, La Spezia and Vladivostok.� I fail to see any logic in how the ports are shown. It seems to not be sorted by name, it's not sorted by country or minor port vs major port.� So could you please tell a little about how we select which ports we show together?

The Commonwealth has lots of ports around the world and I would expect to group the ports shown together according to country, sea zone or region (Med, Atlantic, Baltic, Pacific etc.), alphabetically or something similar.

Will we decide how the ports and sea zones are grouped together ala map views? That means we manually setup which port or sea zone will be shown in each column and then save the view as a NRS view with a name we recognize?� If this method is used then I wonder if�predefined views will be made so we don't have to do it ourselves if the predefined ones are fine.

Thanks.

I have a few more enhancements I expect to do today. I have also written the content for the Help button on the NRD form which I'll post later today.

Yeah, I expect the beta testers to figure out the more useful NRS column configurations, and give them meaningful names. Right now, I am just showing "easiest columns to dump on the screen" without much consideration of how they should be selected or arranged.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 1055

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/25/2008 9:10:58 PM

bredsjomagnus

Posts: 141
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline

quote:

Can I get other people's opinions on the port symbols? Top or Bottom of columns? Right now I am outvoted 2 to 1, but I expect more than 3 people to play this game.

Top of columns if you ask me.

Magnus

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1056

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/25/2008 9:22:12 PM

Norman42

Posts: 244
Joined: 2/9/2008
From: Canada
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Would you prefer the label to be Sea Boxes instead of Section(s)? I can't decide.

I think "Sea Box" would be better. I (and it seems Patrice as well) didn't know what "Sections" row meant at first until you explained. "Seabox" I would have understood immediatly.

_____________________________

-------------

C.L.Norman

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1057

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/25/2008 10:00:05 PM

warspite1

Posts: 41353
Joined: 2/2/2008
From: England
Status: offline

[/quote]
Ok for the section #s.

Would you prefer the label to be Sea Boxes instead of Section(s)? I can't decide.

Can I get other people's opinions on the port symbols? Top or Bottom of columns? Right now I am outvoted 2 to 1, but I expect more than 3 people to play this game.

[/quote]

My view would be:

a) Sea boxes rather than sections, and
b) Port symbols definately on top please.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1058

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/25/2008 10:06:39 PM

Peter Stauffenberg

Posts: 403
Joined: 2/24/2006
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

I like the port symbols at the top. Smaller icons as Patrice suggested would be even better. I think the port texture should be transparent outside the texture so we don't see the white square.

(in reply to warspite1)

Post #: 1059

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/25/2008 10:56:38 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

The port symbols at the top was much more intuitive.

Agreed.

Especially for someone who has no idea how this game plays...

Ray (alias Lava)

(in reply to Norman42)

Post #: 1060

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/25/2008 11:36:51 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Norman42

The port symbols at the top was much more intuitive.

Agreed.

Especially for someone who has no idea how this game plays...

Ray (alias Lava)

Rats.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 1061

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 12:14:24 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Here is this morning's version. I used a different screen layout. The monitor shown is 1280 by 1024.

1 - I have added port and sea area counts to both forms. To qualify, the sea area just has to have at least 1 unit in it, while a port has to have at least 1 naval unit.

2 - I made the port symbols smaller (25 by 25 instead of 30 by 30). I also moved them to the top of the columns (sigh).

3 - I removed most of the zero entries. I'll blank out the 0,0 entries for # Carried too. By the way those are "# of carrier air units, # of other loaded units".

4 - I added Find Port and Find Sea Area buttons so you can click on a column, click on Find Port and choose from an alphabetically sorted list by port name. The same applies for sea areas.

5 - The center map command now has code behind it, which is how Singapore was located and displayed on the detailed map.

6 - I disabled 'selecting' with a cell on the NRS, so they now are always black on white or blue on white (selected column)

7 - Reversed the Sea Boxes entries and gave them a new label.

8 - Some day I'll work on getting the column entries to left justify. That will require writing some tedious code.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1062

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 12:16:42 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Here is what I have for the context sensitive help for the Naval Review Details form:
=============
Use of Naval Review and Task Force Forms
(as of March 25, 2008)

Introduction
There are four closely related forms for working with naval units: Naval Review Details, Naval Review Summary, Task Force Details, and Task Force Summary. These are referred to as NRD, NRS, TFD, and TFS respectively. The NRD and TFD forms have very similar visual designs; and the same is true for the NRS and TFS forms. Also, each of the forms only uses half of the minimum screen area, so that two of these forms can be shown side by side.

However, it is important to understand that each of the four forms is used to accomplish different tasks while playing. You might start by showing the NRD form to see all the units in a port, and then bring up the NRS form alongside of it, to see a summary of naval units in other ports and sea areas. From there you can use the NRS form to select a port or sea area, and refresh the NRD to see the units in the selected port/sea area.

Or, you might start with the NRD form for a sea area and bring up the TFD form for a task force that is in that sea area. You could then replace the NRD form with the TFS form to locate all the task forces under your command. Just like using the NRS and NRD forms together, you can use the TFS and TFD forms together, clicking on a task force in the TFS to refresh the TFD form with the information on the selected task force. The combination of TFS and TFD lets you review all your (or your enemy�s) task forces quickly and in great detail.

Another common use for these forms is to bring up the NRD for a port or sea area section box and then create a task force from the units in the selected port/sea area section box. It�s not possible to create a task force using units from different sections of a sea area, since the rules forbid them from moving as a group. The setup form has a button to initiate this task where the NRD form contains the units in the setup tray�s current location (e.g., US West Coast) and the TFD is placed alongside the NRD so you can create a new task force from the units to be setup. The advantage here is that once you have defined your task force, you merely place the single TF unit on the map, instead of having to place all the individual units.

By giving your task forces meaningful names and attaching Notes to them, you can identify the task/purpose for each of them. Though I would advise against naming them Invade Calais Task Force, unless you really meant to use them to invade Normandy.

A common activity when the NRD and TFD are shown side-by-side is to exchange units between them, modifying the composition of your task forces. Since task forces are purely MWIF administrative units, they have no interaction with the WIF rules. Creating, disbanding, and modifying task forces can be freely done at any time during game play, completely ignoring all rules concerning game play.

Naval Review Details
The NRD form depicts the units in a port, sea area section box, or sea area (i.e., all section boxes). Because there can be dozens of units in any of these locations, the units are split into four main columns: carriers, battleships, cruisers, and transports + submarines.

The carrier column has 3 sub-columns, which show the carrier in the leftmost column and up to two carrier air units aboard the carrier. Likewise, the transport column has two sub-columns with the transport on the left and the unit it is transporting on the right. If a surface combat ship (SCS), such as a cruiser, is transporting a division, then it is shown in the transport column instead of the cruiser column. If a naval transport is carrying two divisions, then two rows are used in the transport column to show all three units: the transport and the first division are in the top row and the second division is alone in the second row.

When displaying a port, there can be land and air units that are not currently aboard a transport, but that have the potential for being picked up during naval movement. Therefore, the transport column also shows these units, but they appear in the left sub-column and are at the bottom of the column.

Controlling which units are shown in the NRD are check boxes. For the most part these are cumulative filters. Checking Mine means that units belonging to the current major power are shown. Allied and Axis check boxes include those units respectively. Submarines are excluded unless the box for them has been checked. Lastly, the Available check box is unusual because checking it means that some units are not shown. When the Available box is checked, units that are disorganized are not shown.

There are two sets of navigational buttons which lets you cycle through all the ports, and all the sea areas. When you are cycling through either ports or sea areas, the program skips those that have no units satisfying the current filter settings. As you modify the filters to include more units, you are very likely to increase the number of ports and sea areas to be cycled through. The numbers adjacent to the Ports and Sea Areas labels, show how many of each currently contain at least 1 unit that satisfies the filters.

The Transfer Units button moves the currently selected units to the TFD. If the TFD is not currently visible, it creates the TFD form, creates a new task force, and transfers the selected units to the newly created TF.

Naval Summary button brings up the NRS form alongside the NRD form. The Map button centers the current detailed map on the current port/sea area being shown. Done closes the NRD form.

=============

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1063

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 12:36:44 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - I made the port symbols smaller (25 by 25 instead of 30 by 30). I also moved them to the top of the columns (sigh).

Maybe put them above the names ?
Also, for the sea area, why not have a (black) line linking the column with the title name of that column, when that title name is the farest away from the column, to help linking the column with its name ? (do you see what I mean ?)

quote:

3 - I removed most of the zero entries. I'll blank out the 0,0 entries for # Carried too. By the way those are "# of carrier air units, # of other loaded units".

Why not have them like that : "# of carrier air units / # of other loaded units". The comma gives an impression of decimal number for us European people who use a comma. We write 1 250,35 when you americans write 1,250.35.

quote:

7 - Reversed the Sea Boxes entries and gave them a new label.

Reversing them makes is better. 3210 could pass for a number, 0123 has less chances of being confused for a number.

Also, I'm unsure of the calculation made for air to air when I see that an assembly of ships has 85.
Also, how can you come up with an average defense of 13, given that defense factors go from 0 to 10 ?
There must have been some kind of line offsetting here.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1064

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 1:30:59 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
2 - I made the port symbols smaller (25 by 25 instead of 30 by 30). I also moved them to the top of the columns (sigh).

Maybe put them above the names ?
Also, for the sea area, why not have a (black) line linking the column with the title name of that column, when that title name is the farest away from the column, to help linking the column with its name ? (do you see what I mean ?)

quote:

3 - I removed most of the zero entries. I'll blank out the 0,0 entries for # Carried too. By the way those are "# of carrier air units, # of other loaded units".

Why not have them like that : "# of carrier air units / # of other loaded units". The comma gives an impression of decimal number for us European people who use a comma. We write 1 250,35 when you americans write 1,250.35.

quote:

7 - Reversed the Sea Boxes entries and gave them a new label.

Reversing them makes is better. 3210 could pass for a number, 0123 has less chances of being confused for a number.

Also, I'm unsure of the calculation made for air to air when I see that an assembly of ships has 85.
Also, how can you come up with an average defense of 13, given that defense factors go from 0 to 10 ?
There must have been some kind of line offsetting here.

Hah! The port symbols belong at the bottom of the columns, but no one listen, ...

I don't think connecting lines will help. We are very tight on space here and adding four vertical lines will look a little weird.

I used the comma instead of the slash because I am concerned about having to fit '99/99' into the available space. 99,99 isn' as wide and is more likely to fit. But I see your point. Maybe a dash or an apostrophe? Possibly a plus sign? [Flailing around in a confused manner.]

Yeah, I must have messed up the order of Surface and Defens Avg when I put in the check for non-zero entries.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 1065

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 1:46:44 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I used the comma instead of the slash because I am concerned about having to fit '99/99' into the available space. 99,99 isn' as wide and is more likely to fit. But I see your point. Maybe a dash or an apostrophe? Possibly a plus sign? [Flailing around in a confused manner.]

If a slash is not possible, then a dash will do the job. apostrophe, or plus signs are not good IMO.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1066

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 1:55:13 AM

Peter Stauffenberg

Posts: 403
Joined: 2/24/2006
From: Oslo, Norway
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I used the comma instead of the slash because I am concerned about having to fit '99/99' into the available space. 99,99 isn' as wide and is more likely to fit. But I see your point. Maybe a dash or an apostrophe? Possibly a plus sign? [Flailing around in a confused manner.]

If a slash is not possible, then a dash will do the job. apostrophe, or plus signs are not good IMO.

What about using a colon : E. g. 99:99

(in reply to Froonp)

Post #: 1067

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 1:58:50 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Borger Borgersen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I used the comma instead of the slash because I am concerned about having to fit '99/99' into the available space. 99,99 isn' as wide and is more likely to fit. But I see your point. Maybe a dash or an apostrophe? Possibly a plus sign? [Flailing around in a confused manner.]

If a slash is not possible, then a dash will do the job. apostrophe, or plus signs are not good IMO.

What about using a colon : E. g. 99:99

Yes, good too.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 1068

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 2:13:34 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

I'll use a colon then. (Here is what an apostrophe looks like.)

The row for Range was missing from the sea area columns in the previous screen shot - I've fixed that.

I tightened up the spacing between the port symbols, port names, and columns, which I think helps tie them together visually.

That let me move the Find and Center Map buttons where they are easier to find

.

This screen shot is from Waking Giant, which starts just before the attack on Pearl Harbor. Note the Vichy units in Toulon and Marseilles.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Peter Stauffenberg)

Post #: 1069

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 9:29:01 AM

Stabilo

Posts: 140
Joined: 2/3/2008
Status: offline

Will there be rows for ASW-Ships, ASW-Carriers and German Hilfskreuzer if one chooses these options?

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1070

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 10:00:58 AM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stabilo

Will there be rows for ASW-Ships, ASW-Carriers and German Hilfskreuzer if one chooses these options?

I suppose raiders will be put in the light cruisers row (NRS) and cruiser columns (NRD).
The ASW on the other hand, I suppose they wil be shown in the cruisers column (NRD), but I don't know in the NRS. Maybe the Convoy row ? anyway their factor will be displayed in the ASW row.

(in reply to Stabilo)

Post #: 1071

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 10:52:42 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stabilo

Will there be rows for ASW-Ships, ASW-Carriers and German Hilfskreuzer if one chooses these options?

ASW carriers are in with carriers. ASW escorts are in with Cruisers. The auxiliary cruisers (CX) are in with cruisers. This is true for both the NRD and NRS forms.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Stabilo)

Post #: 1072

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 1:16:15 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ASW carriers are in with carriers. ASW escorts are in with Cruisers. The auxiliary cruisers (CX) are in with cruisers. This is true for both the NRD and NRS forms.

Why aren't these ships in the NRS?

How do you know how many ASW escorts you have and where they are?

Ray (alias Lava)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1073

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 2:14:51 PM

Stabilo

Posts: 140
Joined: 2/3/2008
Status: offline

Is it possible to create a special report for the CONV situation including only CONV, ASW (ships, carriers, aircrafts), AUX and SUB?

Or at least highlight sea zones with any of these units? In my opinion its not very user-friendly if ASW ships are shown as CV or SCS...

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1074

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 5:14:29 PM

composer99

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

I prefer the port symbols above the columns and under the names.

Also, if I am not mistaken in RAW the "sea box" is the entire set of numbered sections where ships can patrol once they enter a sea area. The section is each numbered component of the box.

That said, colloquially my group always uses 'box' for each section (e.g. the '0' box or the '4' box), so sea box is fine by me.

_____________________________

~ Composer99

(in reply to Stabilo)

Post #: 1075

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 8:00:29 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lava

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ASW carriers are in with carriers. ASW escorts are in with Cruisers. The auxiliary cruisers (CX) are in with cruisers. This is true for both the NRD and NRS forms.

Why aren't these ships in the NRS?

How do you know how many ASW escorts you have and where they are?

Ray (alias Lava)

They are in the NRS - as said above where you quote one of my posts. All carrier 'types' are counted as carriers: regular, light, and ASW carriers. The Light Cruisers entry includes light cruisers, auxiallry cruisers, and ASW escorts.

The trade off is between "how many" versus "how much detail" is shown. There is only so much real estate available on the screen and if I separate the rows (making each row more specific), then there is less room available for other stuff.

Along those lines, I have decided on a minimum font size. There is always a temptation to just use a smaller font so more stuff can be crammed onto the page, or to use shorter abbreviations - even 1 or 2 letter codes - to achieve the same goal. I have ben disciplining myself to not do either of those things; but to adhere to standards I set up very early in the project. Many players have trouble reading small fonts. Having to decipher codes makes the game harder to play and much harder to learn. I also try to use white space on forms to make them easier on the eyes, and more aesthetically pleasing.

But all of these things need to be weighted against getting the information into the hands of the players.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to *Lava*)

Post #: 1076

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 8:11:49 PM

Froonp

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: composer99
Also, if I am not mistaken in RAW the "sea box" is the entire set of numbered sections where ships can patrol once they enter a sea area. The section is each numbered component of the box.

That said, colloquially my group always uses 'box' for each section (e.g. the '0' box or the '4' box), so sea box is fine by me.

"sea-box section" is the right term.

The sea-box is the whole.
*************************
2.1.2 Sea areas
(...)
Each sea area contains a sea-box which regulates movement and combat at sea.
*************************

(in reply to composer99)

Post #: 1077

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 8:43:35 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Stabilo

Is it possible to create a special report for the CONV situation including only CONV, ASW (ships, carriers, aircrafts), AUX and SUB?

Or at least highlight sea zones with any of these units? In my opinion its not very user-friendly if ASW ships are shown as CV or SCS...

Well, actually, putting the ASW units in with the others is the correct way to do this. When you are looking at the Naval Review Details form, the individual counters are shown, so you can readily tell the different carrier types apart, and the different SCS types apart too.

But first, a player may or may not be using the Convoys in Flames optional rules. If he isn't, then there are no ASW units in the game. Instead, each convoy has 'intrinsic' ASW capabilities. When playing with Convoys in Flames, the convoys have no intrinsic ASW defensive abilities and other units have to be sent out to accompany convoys in order to protect them from subs (and other stuff).

Which leads to my main point here: convoys can be protected/guarded by non-ASW units. Though it would be wasteful, you could send full carriers or other light carriers out to cover convoys, instead of ASW carriers. And you could send battleships, heavy cruisers, light cruisers, and auxiliary cruiser to do fulfill the same role too.

A secondary point that goes along with the first, is that each column of summary statistics is for a sea area (or port, but we are talking about convoy pipelines here). The presence of other surface units in the sea area provides the convoys with some protection, even if they are not in the same sea area section box.

It is tempting to have a Convoy-Sub only report, but I do not think it is essential. Here is what I would do to tailor the NRS report to review Convoy-versus-Subs warfare:

1 - I woudl pick a convoy pipeline that I am concerned about and choose sea areas for the bottom of the report that span the entrie pipeline. 8 column should be enough most of the time. If the pipeline I am concerned about so long (or so wide) that I want to look at more than 8 sea areas, I would cut it in two and have two reports. Those reports could have some sea areas in common - there is nothing that forces the two reports to be mutually exclusive.

2 - I would have the port columns show ports that are of interest because they are likely to base either escorts, replacement convoys (for when losses occur), or attackers (subs or surface raiders). Just like the sea areas, there might be more than 8 ports of interest, so I may need to have several different summary reports.

3 - When examining these NRS reports for convoy pipeline status, I would pay close attention to the rows for # of convoys, # of subs, # of Air to Sea (good for finding and attacking subs), and Sea Boxes. If all the units are in the zero sea box, then they any surface units are protecting the convoys. If there are units in a mix of sea box sections, then the units there are probably performing multiple roles, not just convoy protection.

4 - I would toggle the filters to show summary statistics for units on my side, on the enemy's side, and both together. That will give me a good understanding of any holes/breaks in the pipeline, where it is vulnerable to attack because there are no (or few) protecting units, and where friendly and enemy units already are in the same sea area and naval combat is possible.

I think this works pretty well. Yes, it is not a Convoy-sub specific report, but rather a generalistic report tailored to that purpose. And in that respect, I agree with you, that a specific report would be nicer. As for information content though, I believe the above design covers all the basics. And remember, to my way of thinking, the purpose of the NRS is to let you identify where you want to bring up the NRD or go to the detailed map to gain a better understanding of more specifics.

The only gap in this presentation of information is one that has bothered me for years, and I see no decent way to fill it. That is the use of land based air units to fight naval battles. The problem is that many of those units have extreme ranges and can be based far from a sea area where they might intervene. Including all possible air units that could reach a sea area becomes rather meaningless since there can be dozens shown, with most of them very unlikely to be used in that capacity. They just become clutter in the report.

I have considered using the detailed map at zoom levels 1 or 2 and then highlighting the land based air units that can reach a selected sea area. But I am unhappy with that too because the image of each unit is so small it is illegible, and you want to know which sea box section it can reach, and whether there are air actions available to fly the naval air mission, whether the unit will have to fly around neutral territory, etc..

For now, I am leaving displaying the possible involvement of land based air units in sea areas as a open item, and simply letting the players peruse the map to figure it out. Which is how it is done when playing over the board [what a weak rationalization

].

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Stabilo)

Post #: 1078

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 10:12:34 PM

Shannon V. OKeets

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

Here is what the Help button brings up for the NRD. I trimmed the top which is a general discussion of the NRD, NRS, and the matching task force forms (TFD, and TFS).

This form all works except for the Transfer UNits button. That's because I haven't created the TFD and TFS forms yet.

I also want to add the ability to drag and drop within this form for placing units on carriers and transports (and taking them off as well). But that is a ways down the road.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1079

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 3/26/2008 10:41:33 PM

*Lava*

Posts: 1924
Joined: 2/9/2004
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

The trade off is between "how many" versus "how much detail" is shown. There is only so much real estate available on the screen and if I separate the rows (making each row more specific), then there is less room available for other stuff.

Maybe you are trying to put too much info in one screen. That is what it seems to me. Again, just an impression of someone who has never played the game and not a board gamer.

Have you thought about making two screens... one for ports and one for sea areas? You could then easily list all support ships (as well as all the different classes of ship) and quantities. Six Battleships doesn't mean anything to me unless I can associate it with support ships which can be combined to create task forces.

Ray (alias Lava)

< Message edited by Lava -- 3/26/2008 11:07:03 PM >

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)

Post #: 1080