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  46 47 [48] 49 50   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 12:19:20 AM   
jjax


Posts: 289
Joined: 2/24/2005
Status: offline
I just want to say that i noticed a help button in all of the forms. Im sure that will be much appreciated come play time.

_____________________________

--JJAX


(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1411
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 3:05:05 AM   
Neilster


Posts: 2890
Joined: 10/27/2003
From: Hobart, Tasmania, Australia
Status: offline
I agree with Patrice. Radio buttons indicate choice. It will confuse people to use them as indicators.

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to jjax)
Post #: 1412
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 3:34:05 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Note that the Odds are updated as these decisions are made, though those decisions that require a die roll are only estimates until the die roll actually occurs. When there is a difference between Assault and Blitz odds, both are shown with Assault odds shown first (e.g., hex [49, 45]).

Any chances for the actual combat factor totals figures to be also displayed somewhere in this form ?
Knowing the total def factors is a help as t means that each time you add that number of attack factors, you are at +2 on the 2d10 CRT, so it is a good help to decide what unit attacks where when you have the correct data.
Having to count on the board would be a needless pain when playing a computer game.

But maybe this form only appears when all combat hexes have already been decided, in which case you can no longuer decide that a unit is attacking a hex or another. If that is the case, which I'm nearly 100% sure now that I think about it, let's just say that the total attacking / defending factors have to be displayed somewhere when the attacking units are affected to the various combats.

The current odds are shown when you hover over the hex - during land combat declaration or the other 'phases' between that and the land combat resolution phase (e.g., ground support). As you add units, the odds changed. The form shown above only appears once all land combats have been declared.

I thought about showing all the gory details of the odds calculation, but it would be a lot of work and I don't really see a big benefit. You can see the units clearly, and the unit data panel gives you the effective values (attack/defense) for each unit. Also the form is rather congested, so adding more information would require some clever design work.

====
I reread the code and the decision about the engineer is made by the attacker when he commits the unit to the attack. This is a menu item on the unit pop up menu. It is the same way night missions are handled for air missions.

So I have deleted the engineer subphase from the list. In its place I have added converting shattered results to retreats. That occurs before selecting which units take losses.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1413
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 3:36:32 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
At the top is the sequence of the subphases within the phase land combat resolution. RAC (rules as coded) follows RAW (rules as written), for this subphase sequence. Regrettably, RAW is somewhat vague about who decides to use snow units first/second and where the decision about using the engineer occurs.

About this, I have this feeling that the way the sequence of the subphases is show looks like the user could choose one of them, when in reality it is only showing (I believe) what subphase you're in.
So why not using some other kind of graphical way of showing the progression, like this example for example (a progression of a color on a colored line where the subphases are written).





I forgot to say that I have the same bad feeling about the radio buttons that show the sequence of the subphases in the Air to air combat form.

I agree.

Once I have things working correctly, I'll go back and change the graphic presentation fo the subphases. Though I would like to handle it the same way I do the Sequence of Play form with a flag (the decision maker's) adjacent to the current subphase, I doubt that I have sufficient room.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1414
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 6:09:55 AM   
csharpmao

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 7/29/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
At the top is the sequence of the subphases within the phase land combat resolution. RAC (rules as coded) follows RAW (rules as written), for this subphase sequence. Regrettably, RAW is somewhat vague about who decides to use snow units first/second and where the decision about using the engineer occurs.

About this, I have this feeling that the way the sequence of the subphases is show looks like the user could choose one of them, when in reality it is only showing (I believe) what subphase you're in.
So why not using some other kind of graphical way of showing the progression, like this example for example (a progression of a color on a colored line where the subphases are written).





I forgot to say that I have the same bad feeling about the radio buttons that show the sequence of the subphases in the Air to air combat form.

I agree.

Once I have things working correctly, I'll go back and change the graphic presentation fo the subphases. Though I would like to handle it the same way I do the Sequence of Play form with a flag (the decision maker's) adjacent to the current subphase, I doubt that I have sufficient room.


Hello,

I found the idea of Froonp not bad, but I'd add something to explain it's a sequence.
Maybe something like the following picture.


Sharpmao




Attachment (1)

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1415
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 8:59:44 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I reread the code and the decision about the engineer is made by the attacker when he commits the unit to the attack. This is a menu item on the unit pop up menu. It is the same way night missions are handled for air missions.

So I have deleted the engineer subphase from the list. In its place I have added converting shattered results to retreats. That occurs before selecting which units take losses.

Why not have it the same with Snow Units : A menu item on the unit pop up menu, where the attacker selects "Snow units" (By the way, "Winterized units" is the term that is more commonly used, not "Snow units" -- as there is also blizzard).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1416
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 9:00:21 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: csharpmao
I found the idea of Froonp not bad, but I'd add something to explain it's a sequence.
Maybe something like the following picture.


Sharpmao




That sure is a great improvement ! I love it !

(in reply to csharpmao)
Post #: 1417
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 9:14:10 AM   
bredsjomagnus

 

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

ut this, I have this feeling that the way the sequence of the subphases is show looks like the user could choose one of them, when in reality it is only showing (I believe) what subphase you're in.
So why not using some other kind of graphical way of showing the progression, like this example for example (a progression of a color on a colored line where the subphases are written).



 


This is a great idea. I´ve also had a bad feeling about the radio buttons that is often used when you can choose one of a number of options.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1418
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 6:42:08 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I reread the code and the decision about the engineer is made by the attacker when he commits the unit to the attack. This is a menu item on the unit pop up menu. It is the same way night missions are handled for air missions.

So I have deleted the engineer subphase from the list. In its place I have added converting shattered results to retreats. That occurs before selecting which units take losses.

Why not have it the same with Snow Units : A menu item on the unit pop up menu, where the attacker selects "Snow units" (By the way, "Winterized units" is the term that is more commonly used, not "Snow units" -- as there is also blizzard).


The use of snow units (blizzards usually involve a lot of snow) is associated with the attacked hex, not the individual units. If you are benefiting from the use of snow units, then all the snow units are vulnerable to taking losses. Engineers can be committed individually, with one engineer using its bonus, while a second one in the same attack does not.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1419
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 9:36:29 PM   
Anendrue


Posts: 817
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline
Regarding buttons. Since the buttoms seem to use an inset or inalid  property, perhaps a simple property change would lift them up and cause them to appear as buttons to be pressed like a keyboard instead of buttons flush to ythe form. I haven't dine any "screen painting" since my intern days many many years ago. Still I seem to remember it causes quite a dramatic difference  in forms without the need for additional graphics work.

_____________________________

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1420
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 10:21:33 PM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

Regarding buttons. Since the buttoms seem to use an inset or inalid  property, perhaps a simple property change would lift them up and cause them to appear as buttons to be pressed like a keyboard instead of buttons flush to ythe form. I haven't dine any "screen painting" since my intern days many many years ago. Still I seem to remember it causes quite a dramatic difference  in forms without the need for additional graphics work.

At this point the cosmetic appearance of the buttons is no longer on my radar. What you see is what you'll get.

The issue discussed immediately above concerning the inappropriate use of radio buttons does need to be fixed though.

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Anendrue)
Post #: 1421
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 10:44:19 PM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Why not have it the same with Snow Units : A menu item on the unit pop up menu, where the attacker selects "Snow units" (By the way, "Winterized units" is the term that is more commonly used, not "Snow units" -- as there is also blizzard).


The use of snow units (blizzards usually involve a lot of snow) is associated with the attacked hex, not the individual units. If you are benefiting from the use of snow units, then all the snow units are vulnerable to taking losses. Engineers can be committed individually, with one engineer using its bonus, while a second one in the same attack does not.

Oh sure, you're right !

About the term, the rule is calling them "Winterized units" too (see 2d10 CRT).

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1422
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/5/2008 11:55:32 PM   
Anendrue


Posts: 817
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline
My apologies for an extreme failure to spell check and edit my last post. I was in a rush and posted the comment without due diligence. I am disgraced.

_____________________________

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1423
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/6/2008 11:49:51 AM   
Neilster


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

My apologies for an extreme failure to spell check and edit my last post. I was in a rush and posted the comment without due diligence. I am disgraced.

We'll never forgive you

Cheers, Neilster

(in reply to Anendrue)
Post #: 1424
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/6/2008 4:54:39 PM   
Anendrue


Posts: 817
Joined: 7/8/2005
Status: offline
If a failure to spell check is the worst thing I do in any day... Then it must be a good day indeed.

_____________________________

Integrity is what you do when nobody is watching.

(in reply to Neilster)
Post #: 1425
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/6/2008 6:09:11 PM   
wfzimmerman


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

quote:

ORIGINAL: abj9562

If a failure to spell check is the worst thing I do in any day... Then it must be a good day indeed.


FAILL.


_____________________________


(in reply to Anendrue)
Post #: 1426
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/7/2008 5:32:25 AM   
Neilster


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




Cheers, Neilster



Attachment (1)

(in reply to wfzimmerman)
Post #: 1427
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 2:58:22 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
Here is the land combat resolution screen as I see it when I am making design changes. I wanted to show this so you could see all the buttons, which during play appear only 1, 2, or 3 at a time. The top center column of buttons appear prior to the land combat die roll(s). The column of buttons on the lower right appear after the combat die rolls.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 1428
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 3:01:43 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
2nd in series. Here is what the player typically sees first. The current subphase is Select Combat, which has an asterisk and has a 'raised' presence in the strip of subphases. I would like to do something more forceful to indicate the current subphase, but there doesn't seem to be component that has the features that I want. I am loathe to spend time developing a custom made component just for this.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1429
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 3:03:24 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
3rd in series. Here is what the screen looks like after the German player selected Poznan as the first combat to be resolved. The CW gets to decide which CRT to use.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1430
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 3:05:33 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
4th in series. So I clicked on View Charts to see what the difference is between Blitzkrieg and Assault at +16.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1431
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 3:07:59 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
5th in series. Here I selected Blitz (the wrong choice). The program lets the CW make futile prayers to his gods before clicking on Resolve Attack, which causes the dice to be rolled.




Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1432
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 3:20:03 AM   
Shannon V. OKeets

 

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline
6th and last in the series. As you can see, the attacker loses 0 units and the defender loses his only unit.

This is as far I as have gotten in my redesign of this phase. I want to display the actual die roll too, both before and after modification. I also want the Combat Details information shown earlier (when the Resolve Attack button is shown). Combat details also shows the use of snow units, engineers, and HQ support when those have been used.

My main purpose in posting all these screens is to let you know what I have decided about who decides which units take losses. RAW says that the 'owner' decides, but leaves open the question of which player on a side decides when multiple major powers have units that mght take losses. There is a line in the rules about randomly choosing units if the major powers can agree. I didn't want to do that, since it adds a lot of complexity to something that should occur rarely.

Instead I have decided to designate one player for each side as the decision maker based on the units involved in the combat. Priority goes to:
(1) the player with the most valuable land units in the combat (i.e., build points), or in case of tie,
(2) the player with the most land units in the combat, or in case of tie,
(3) the player with the most valuable units in the combat (this includes land and naval units for the defender), or in case of tie,
(4) the player with the most combat factors in the combat (attack factors for attacker and defense factors for the defender - neither are modified whatsoever).

If things are still tied, then the order is: mcGermany, mcItaly, mcJapan, mcVichyFrance, mcChina, mcCommonwealth, mcFrance, mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1433
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 5:30:45 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd in series. Here is what the player typically sees first. The current subphase is Select Combat, which has an asterisk and has a 'raised' presence in the strip of subphases. I would like to do something more forceful to indicate the current subphase, but there doesn't seem to be component that has the features that I want. I am loathe to spend time developing a custom made component just for this.

Maybe use bold font, or another color, to do something more forceful to indicate the current subphase.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1434
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 5:40:03 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
My main purpose in posting all these screens is to let you know what I have decided about who decides which units take losses. RAW says that the 'owner' decides, but leaves open the question of which player on a side decides when multiple major powers have units that mght take losses. There is a line in the rules about randomly choosing units if the major powers can agree. I didn't want to do that, since it adds a lot of complexity to something that should occur rarely.

How do you know who chooses, I mean, from the screenshots here, do you know just by the color of the Form and the little flag in the title bar ?
Maybe a line of text sur as "[Country] choose wich unit to suffer the combat losses", where [Country] is the name of the Major Power ?

quote:

Instead I have decided to designate one player for each side as the decision maker based on the units involved in the combat. Priority goes to:
(1) the player with the most valuable land units in the combat (i.e., build points), or in case of tie,
(2) the player with the most land units in the combat, or in case of tie,
(3) the player with the most valuable units in the combat (this includes land and naval units for the defender), or in case of tie,
(4) the player with the most combat factors in the combat (attack factors for attacker and defense factors for the defender - neither are modified whatsoever).

If things are still tied, then the order is: mcGermany, mcItaly, mcJapan, mcVichyFrance, mcChina, mcCommonwealth, mcFrance, mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR

It looks good to me.
For (1), do you sum up the BP value of all the units in the combat ?

Also, for the final tie, why choose an alphabetical sorting ?

Why not :
mcGermany, mcItaly, mcJapan, mcVichyFrance, mcUnitedStates, mcUSSR, mcCommonwealth, mcChina, mcFrance

Or, for the final tie, put the countries in the same order as their previous turn total Built Points produced ? So this gets the most "powerful" country get the choice.

(in reply to Shannon V. OKeets)
Post #: 1435
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 6:41:13 AM   
lomyrin


Posts: 3741
Joined: 12/21/2005
From: San Diego
Status: offline
Where would the die roll be shown when that option is turned on ?

Lars

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1436
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 7:08:32 AM   
csharpmao

 

Posts: 83
Joined: 7/29/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd in series. Here is what the player typically sees first. The current subphase is Select Combat, which has an asterisk and has a 'raised' presence in the strip of subphases. I would like to do something more forceful to indicate the current subphase, but there doesn't seem to be component that has the features that I want. I am loathe to spend time developing a custom made component just for this.

Maybe use bold font, or another color, to do something more forceful to indicate the current subphase.


Yes, as Froonp said, I think the asterisk is not visible enough.
For me, the best choice would be a color change, but I know that choosing a second color for each major power can be tricky.
Bold is a second choice, but better than the asterisk.

(in reply to Froonp)
Post #: 1437
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 8:26:26 AM   
bredsjomagnus

 

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

I would like to do something more forceful to indicate the current subphase, but there doesn't seem to be component that has the features that I want. I am loathe to spend time developing a custom made component just for this.


Mayby just another color would do it?



Im trying to add image to show what it can look like.

(in reply to csharpmao)
Post #: 1438
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 8:28:05 AM   
bredsjomagnus

 

Posts: 141
Joined: 10/22/2006
From: Sweden
Status: offline
But that did obviously not work.

How do i add image? The image is stored on my computer.


(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 1439
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design - 11/14/2008 8:35:50 AM   
Froonp


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

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

But that did obviously not work.

How do i add image? The image is stored on my computer.



1) Click the "Embed picture in post" checkbox below the zone where you typed your text, and them click the "Click here to upload!" link that is on the left of the tick box.

2) Browse to the folder where you have saved the picture and select it. The picture will upload to the Forums, and when it is finished, an OK button will appear. Press it, and you're back to you message.

3) Publish your message.

(in reply to bredsjomagnus)
Post #: 1440
Page:   <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   next >   >>
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> RE: MWIF Game Interface Design Page: <<   < prev  46 47 [48] 49 50   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

0.781