MWIF Game Interface Design

[Shannon V. OKeets]

4th in a series of 5. And what you have all been wanting to see, here is Global War, sometime after Germany has conquered the Lowlands.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

5th and last in the series. This is Lebensraum, still early in the campaign.

I think I'll change the column headers to match the currrent major power. here they are shown as if the Commonwealth were viewing the form.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is the other scenario that is limited to half of the world.

Another problem I have is the very long names for some objective hex (e.g., Rabual). I'll have to shorten those too.

Well is it really important ?
The forms you did add to the game, giving a clear picture of what you have and what remains to get, but Rabaul is understandable as is.

How came China to be given credit for Diego Suarez (Madagascar).
Isn't India closer ?

[composer99]

You could probably omit the country/territory names from the objective names.

[sajbalk]

Would it be possible to list the objectives alphbetically or by map?

Also, designer needs to be aware that for neutral objectives, the closest (unconquered) major power capital gets control. India's capital is closer to, I think, Aden, Riyahd, Teheran, and perhaps Bagdhad.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

Would it be possible to list the objectives alphbetically or by map?

Also, designer needs to be aware that for neutral objectives, the closest (unconquered) major power capital gets control. India's capital is closer to, I think, Aden, Riyahd, Teheran, and perhaps Bagdhad.

I thought about different sorting schemes but I wasn't really happy with any of them. What you see here are the objectives from north to south; except for Barbarossa where the true objective cities are listed first, followed by the USSR cities that count for victory pioints in that scenario.

One of the reasons I really wanted this information listed was to check that the calcualtions of ownership/nearest is being done correctly.
===
Here is another scenario with the form slightly improved. I will have to allocate more room for the table in the upper left for when there are multiple players (up to 6).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

One last screen shot of this form for today. I shortened the names of some places so they fit within the space available.

I need to write more code for Guadalcanal and Day of Infamy which have different victory conditions. I also want to indicate when the 'owner' is because of proximity.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

One last screen shot of this form for today. I shortened the names of some places so they fit within the space available.

I need to write more code for Guadalcanal and Day of Infamy which have different victory conditions. I also want to indicate when the 'owner' is because of proximity.

Warspite1

Nice forms [:)]

Suggestion

Could you amend the Owner name, rather than shorten the Objective description? The reason I say this is that some of the objective places will not be readily identifiable to players new to the game and/or with limited geographic knowledge e.g. Pago Pago, Diego Suarez etc. Instead why not have: CW, USA, Fr, Jap, China, USSR and Ger. Because you have added the colours (excellent idea), this makes it clear which major power you are referring to without the full name.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

One last screen shot of this form for today. I shortened the names of some places so they fit within the space available.

I need to write more code for Guadalcanal and Day of Infamy which have different victory conditions. I also want to indicate when the 'owner' is because of proximity.

Warspite1

Nice forms [:)]

Suggestion

Could you amend the Owner name, rather than shorten the Objective description? The reason I say this is that some of the objective places will not be readily identifiable to players new to the game and/or with limited geographic knowledge e.g. Pago Pago, Diego Suarez etc. Instead why not have: CW, USA, Fr, Jap, China, USSR and Ger. Because you have added the colours (excellent idea), this makes it clear which major power you are referring to without the full name.

That's the full list of objective hexes - I only had to shortened 3 names (Aleut., Neth., and Terr.). I don't think anything has bee lost by doing so.

I will use abbreviations for the major powers when there are more than 1 of them and their name is long (i.e., CW & US). That will come up very rarely.

I have added an asterisk if the objective is assigned by proximity of the capital (not shown here - maybe I'll find time to do that tomorrow).

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

One last screen shot of this form for today. I shortened the names of some places so they fit within the space available.

I need to write more code for Guadalcanal and Day of Infamy which have different victory conditions. I also want to indicate when the 'owner' is because of proximity.

Warspite1

Nice forms [:)]

Suggestion

Could you amend the Owner name, rather than shorten the Objective description? The reason I say this is that some of the objective places will not be readily identifiable to players new to the game and/or with limited geographic knowledge e.g. Pago Pago, Diego Suarez etc. Instead why not have: CW, USA, Fr, Jap, China, USSR and Ger. Because you have added the colours (excellent idea), this makes it clear which major power you are referring to without the full name.

That's the full list of objective hexes - I only had to shortened 3 names (Aleut., Neth., and Terr.). I don't think anything has bee lost by doing so.

I will use abbreviations for the major powers when there are more than 1 of them and their name is long (i.e., CW & US). That will come up very rarely.

I have added an asterisk if the objective is assigned by proximity of the capital (not shown here - maybe I'll find time to do that tomorrow).

Warspite1

Okay thanks - as I say, these are nice, well set out, user friendly forms that let a player know at-a-glance what the state of play is.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

One more screen shot with the lateset revisions. I've added the asterisks for those hexes that are not physically owned by a major power. I'm going to need one more tweak to allow 15 items in the list of player. There is only room for 14 presently.

EDIT: By the way, the order of victory cities is by latitude, with Helsinki the northernmost and Wellington the southernmost.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I decided it was moderately insane to not include a list of the objective hexes and who controls them - as part of the Victory Totals.

Here is my first pass on this. The scenario is Barbarossa. Notice that some cities appear twice because they are counted twice (e.g., Moscow).

Could you make the color a neutral white for when the victory point is split between 2 sides? Or maybe use both the nations colors?

I think that I would prefer that Helsinki in this example was in white color.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I decided it was moderately insane to not include a list of the objective hexes and who controls them - as part of the Victory Totals.

Here is my first pass on this. The scenario is Barbarossa. Notice that some cities appear twice because they are counted twice (e.g., Moscow).

Could you make the color a neutral white for when the victory point is split between 2 sides? Or maybe use both the nations colors?

I think that I would prefer that Helsinki in this example was in white color.

I think the asterisks will help with that. But I'll see how it looks with white for split ownership.

One thing I want to do for the Barbarossa victory list is to put a '2' after those that count double - and remove the duplicate entries.

[composer99]

For the asterisk identifying when a neutral objective is going to a major power based on proximity, I trust there will be a note at the bottom of the form telling the viewer what it is for?

[Plainian]

I like the colour code scheme as well. White for 'shared' ownership is a good idea. I find ownership by proximity rather than occupancy a strange game concept? If game ended would the Major power really get these Victory Points?

Layout is fine but I would have thought that a columnar approach with countries as column headings and VP sites owned underneath would have been a better approach? However Steve says that he needs 14 spaces for countries (which would be the column headers) and I've no idea what the longest row would be? So possibly the layout above is more cost effective in space. (I see France would need 3 headings...)

I think the space or row taken up with the declaration of who is winning is unecessary though. The table at top clearly shows this? But it does add a bit of flavour to all the tables. [8|]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
EDIT: By the way, the order of victory cities is by latitude, with Helsinki the northernmost and Wellington the southernmost.

I think that an alphabetical list would be better.
If you search for Rabaul for example, it is easier to search at "r" rather than between Singapore and Batavia.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Plain Ian

I like the colour code scheme as well. White for 'shared' ownership is a good idea. I find ownership by proximity rather than occupancy a strange game concept? If game ended would the Major power really get these Victory Points?

[/quote]
Yes.

All 67 objectives count, and all need to be attributed to a Major Power.
The neutral ones are considered under influence by the nearest Major Power, and that Major Power gets the credit for that Objective.

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
EDIT: By the way, the order of victory cities is by latitude, with Helsinki the northernmost and Wellington the southernmost.

I think that an alphabetical list would be better.
If you search for Rabaul for example, it is easier to search at "r" rather than between Singapore and Batavia.

I concur with Patrice.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

For the asterisk identifying when a neutral objective is going to a major power based on proximity, I trust there will be a note at the bottom of the form telling the viewer what it is for?

See post 1811 for the note about the asterisks.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
EDIT: By the way, the order of victory cities is by latitude, with Helsinki the northernmost and Wellington the southernmost.

I think that an alphabetical list would be better.
If you search for Rabaul for example, it is easier to search at "r" rather than between Singapore and Batavia.

I concur with Patrice.

Ok, I'll look into adding the ability to sort by: (1) alphabetically by name of location, (2) controlling major power, and (3) by latitude. Any others?

---
I'll add the function that if you click on a city, the detailed map centers on the city. For players with a limited background in geography that should be a big help.