Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
There is a 'hot' region around the border of the maps. When the mouse is placed over that region, the map scrolls in that direction. These regions are fairly small, but some players prefer to disable that function so more of the map is visible.
One of the reasons I have little interest in additional ways to scroll the map is that there are already many available.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
There is a 'hot' region around the border of the maps. When the mouse is placed over that region, the map scrolls in that direction. These regions are fairly small, but some players prefer to disable that function so more of the map is visible.
One of the reasons I have little interest in additional ways to scroll the map is that there are already many available.

This brings to mind a question I'm sure that been asked before. Are you using only one monitor when designing the game? How many playtesters are using two monitors? While I certainly don't have two hooked up to my computer, I can see how having more than one could allow for quite a few charts and other screens to be left open. As convenient as that sounds, the game's interface should feel comfortable with just one monitor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SewerStarFish

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
There is a 'hot' region around the border of the maps. When the mouse is placed over that region, the map scrolls in that direction. These regions are fairly small, but some players prefer to disable that function so more of the map is visible.
One of the reasons I have little interest in additional ways to scroll the map is that there are already many available.

This brings to mind a question I'm sure that been asked before. Are you using only one monitor when designing the game? How many playtesters are using two monitors? While I certainly don't have two hooked up to my computer, I can see how having more than one could allow for quite a few charts and other screens to be left open. As convenient as that sounds, the game's interface should feel comfortable with just one monitor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I did most of the development using two monitors (1280 by 1024) but the second monitor was only used for looking at the code while debugging. All the forms are designed to fit on a single 1024 by 768 monitor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: micheljq

I am still using an old 19" CRT monitor, quite heavy to move, the monitor is near 10 years old. It's a NEC the image is still so sharp and nice. It's an unkilleable monitor.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
EDIT: The Communist Chinese have neither air nor naval units, so I set their activity limits for those unit types to zero for clarity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is another change to an existing form. This addresses the strangeness of the rules for the activity limits imposed on the Communist Chinese. The second column is new; and I have moved the USSR column so the Communist Chinese sit between China and the USSR.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
EDIT: The Communist Chinese have neither air nor naval units, so I set their activity limits for those unit types to zero for clarity.

As soon as the PatiF counters are added to the WiF FE countermix (which is what is done when you own PatiF and are willing to use those counters in normal WiF FE games), then what you wrote above is wrong.
They have planes, and they have ships. Mostly SUBs and TRS though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Froonp

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is another change to an existing form. This addresses the strangeness of the rules for the activity limits imposed on the Communist Chinese. The second column is new; and I have moved the USSR column so the Communist Chinese sit between China and the USSR.

Good move !!!

quote:

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Suggestion:
If #2 fails, provide a highlighted, bold text, pop-up or some other form of high-visibility indication to let the player know there is a very good reason to perform a more detailed review.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am working on redesigning how Production Planning is performed. This includes:
1 - the automatic routing of resources and build points in accordance with trade agreement (players can not change these).
2 - the automatic routing of resources to destinations and their use.
3 - reviewing the routing and use of resources.
4 - modifying the routing and use of resources.

#2 is the one I have a question about. If you have an opinion on the following, please let me know.

I am thinking of letting players assign a default destination and use for each resource. The program would use this information first in routing resources. If the resource can reach the destination, then it will perform the given 'use' if it is possible to do so. Both would have to be possible for the default to be implemented. For instance, if an oil resource was to be saved in the destination hex and it could not be because of stacking (e.g., too many oil resources saved therein from previous turns), then neither the destination nor the use would be implemented.

If the default doesn't work, then the program would try to repeat what was done the previous turn. If that can''t be done either, then the resource would sit idle in its hex of origination (In Situ).

I do not intend t otry to have the program work out optimal usage of convoys and saving oil, etc. The player will be able to use the 3rd and 4th items above for doing that.

Here is a composite of screen shots for inspiration.

quote:

ORIGINAL: brian brian

I have a question. Does the form work currently? Can a reasonable person get production done? At some point can't a few otherwise desirable new player hand-holding features be left on the cutting room floor so we can play this game someday? It's a big complicated game and will remain that way regardless of how much effort is poured in trying to simplify it. It will never become as simple as Doom no matter how much work is done on the interface.

As to the question at hand, no I would rather not assign specific resources to specific factories. If there are 13 resources connected in a legal path with sufficient convoys to 17 factories, that is good enough for me. If the program helps me figure out how many factories I moved to Siberia and how much stored oil I have available to keep those running over and above the resource base I have left, that would be a help, yes. But I can do that on my own too.

I looked at this game's competition the other day. Speculating in the world's spot price of minerals to increase economic output to build a bunch of Axis-and-Allies type units to invade a country full of untapped minerals might appeal to somebody (Hitler himself comes to mind), but I just want to be given command of real military units and get on with the invasion already.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

For me it is important that I can always route a specific resource to a specific factory. And that my order to do so has, and keeps, priority over what the program think would be best.

For example. If I have one resource over and one factory over in Canada I do not necessary want to match the two together. Often I want to route the Canada resource over to UK instead and if I do so I do not want to "fight" over it. In CWIF I often had to "fight" with the program to get the resources to go where I wanted them to go. I often prefer to ship resourcesd overseas to Canada and send the Canada resources to UK.

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I agree routing resources to specific factories seems like overkill. It may be alright for the land-based powers since you might establish the default and only have to change it infrequently. But for the CW, the usual case is dependent on the number of convoys working to the UK and you don't care which oil/resource goes to which factory, except to use up resources first and oil last. A "happy time" turn for axis subs will mean reconfiguring that turn and (hopefully) the next as well.

As others have noted, since the AI will have to do an excellent job on this, one would expect the player-aid version to be almost painless. Something like: "either reduce production to save more oil or click OK".

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

quote:

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

I agree routing resources to specific factories seems like overkill. It may be alright for the land-based powers since you might establish the default and only have to change it infrequently. But for the CW, the usual case is dependent on the number of convoys working to the UK and you don't care which oil/resource goes to which factory, except to use up resources first and oil last. A "happy time" turn for axis subs will mean reconfiguring that turn and (hopefully) the next as well.

As others have noted, since the AI will have to do an excellent job on this, one would expect the player-aid version to be almost painless. Something like: "either reduce production to save more oil or click OK".

Well, it's overkill until you need that capability.

For instance, if Sealion has been partially successful and cut the UK east-west, taking out Liverpool, well then, you might want to control whether a resource goes to a factory in the north of the UK or to one in the south. There are other possibilities of the Axis occupying parts of the UK, where treating the entire UK as a single destination won't work.

---

If things are well in the realm of routing resources, then the program will route resources to specific factories without the player having to do anything. I'll use the first pass by the program at routing resources to define the 'default' factories for each resource. [The way this works is that if a resource has no default factory/destination, then I'll give it the first one that is chosen by the program.] You might want to tweak those choices slightly, but only if the convoy routes are sub-optimal. As you said, which factory is the destination doesn't matter when things are going well.

When the convoys get messed up, for any of a number of reasons, that is when the player is likely to want to change destinations. Sending oil to cities to be saved and non-oil to local factories (e.g., in Canada instead of overseas to the UK), could be done on a factory by factory basis - without changing the default factories for the resource. The program will attempt to send the resource to the default factory, and failing that, send it to the last destination. So, if there is a interim where the convoy routes are messed up, a temporary routing scheme could be put in place by the player without affecting the default factory destinations. Once the convoy lines are reestablished, the default routing would be reused.

---

I have no interest in trying to optimize convoy routes for players. I am doing it for the AIO, but I do not want to have long arguments with players about what is 'optimal'. I do know it is not a binary decision, but one of subtle trade-offs between risk and reward.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is an oddity the automated routine found that I bet no over-the-board player has ever come up with. It stymied me for a while because I have the animation routine (first working version done today) for routing resources overseas to factories just showing the source, departure port, sea areas traversed, arrival port, and destination factory. What the program found for the Commonwealth in the second impulse of the war was: Cyprus, Famagusta, Eastern Med., Alexandria, Warsaw! That probably won't hold up until the end of the turn though.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is an oddity the automated routine found that I bet no over-the-board player has ever come up with. It stymied me for a while because I have the animation routine (first working version done today) for routing resources overseas to factories just showing the source, departure port, sea areas traversed, arrival port, and destination factory. What the program found for the Commonwealth in the second impulse of the war was: Cyprus, Famagusta, Eastern Med., Alexandria, Warsaw! That probably won't hold up until the end of the turn though.

Yes, that is weird. There is no way that the cyprus resource can go overland to Famagusta.

Other than that it is an awesome way to save cp to get the Cyprus resource to a factory.