MWIF Game Interface Design

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I have chosen examples of different expansions. There are more possible. For example, the naval combat sequence is shown for Stop of Fight during naval movement. it is the same for Phasing and Non-phasing combat.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The anti-aircraft sequence was shown on the previous page.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

There are a lot of places where the air combat sequence can appear: air transport, paradrops, and ground support, for instance.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

5th and last in series.

As part of game play, I will tighten the spacing and not show connections. The highlighted colors will be enough. The green/USA background shown will disappear entirely - maybe.

The colors will change depending on the major power "on move".

What I have shown in these 5 posts will evolve into the bitmaps for the tutorial on Sequence of Play.

Comments?

[Zorachus99]

En-route air interception seems to be missing.  Is the optional rule not available, changed, etc?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

En-route air interception seems to be missing.  Is the optional rule not available, changed, etc?

It is an optional rule.

I expect to gloss over some of the numerous variations as far as displaying the sequence of play on the screen during a game. For example, I would expect enroute interception to be part of bombers & escort movement.

The reason I am not being anal about what is shown is that most of the time the fine details are more clutter than informative. The whole purpose here is to enable the players (especially those new to WIF) to stay apprised of where they are in the sequence of play.

[christo]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

En-route air interception seems to be missing.  Is the optional rule not available, changed, etc?

It is an optional rule.

I expect to gloss over some of the numerous variations as far as displaying the sequence of play on the screen during a game. For example, I would expect enroute interception to be part of bombers & escort movement.

The reason I am not being anal about what is shown is that most of the time the fine details are more clutter than informative. The whole purpose here is to enable the players (especially those new to WIF) to stay apprised of where they are in the sequence of play.

I may have missed the original introduction to this topic but how exactly is the sequence of play flow chart supposed to work? Is it solely in the introduction tutorials or can the players access this during the course of play? Is it a time machine to allow players to execute the attack that all the counters were moved for but forgot to push the correct button to attack?
They are great in that they make very clear the sequence of play though.

Christo

[Neilster]

Nice. Maybe a cream background? The green is a bit garish.

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Nice. Maybe a cream background? The green is a bit garish.

Cheers, Neilster

Colors change with the player on move.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: christo

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
En-route air interception seems to be missing.  Is the optional rule not available, changed, etc?

It is an optional rule.

I expect to gloss over some of the numerous variations as far as displaying the sequence of play on the screen during a game. For example, I would expect enroute interception to be part of bombers & escort movement.

The reason I am not being anal about what is shown is that most of the time the fine details are more clutter than informative. The whole purpose here is to enable the players (especially those new to WIF) to stay apprised of where they are in the sequence of play.

I may have missed the original introduction to this topic but how exactly is the sequence of play flow chart supposed to work? Is it solely in the introduction tutorials or can the players access this during the course of play? Is it a time machine to allow players to execute the attack that all the counters were moved for but forgot to push the correct button to attack?
They are great in that they make very clear the sequence of play though.

Christo

The tutorials will have structured/fixed presentation with accompanying text, like the other Introductory Tutorials.

When playing the Seq. Of Play will be a small form that can be toggled on/off and rolled up/down with different degrees of expansion. For example, a minimized version might show:
Land/Land Movement/Air Transport, or
Land/Land Combat/Resolve Attacks/Advances

A full (comparable to the above screen shots) but compressed version would use highlighting to identify which stage/phase/subphase is active but there would be no space between columns and the top items in each column would all be aligned (at the top) to reduce the footprint on the screen. The details still have to be worked out. I like to do visuals first and then ponder how they can best be used to accomplish various goals (information presentation/communication is pretty much the only objective here).

Each item on the Seq. Of Play would be clickable to pull up context sensitive help.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Each item on the Seq. Of Play would be clickable to pull up context sensitive help.

Excellent [:)]

It would be more intuitive for me to have (if possible) a +/- sign next to the items in the sequence of play so I could expand or collapse a part of the sequence of play.

Category: Nice to have

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Each item on the Seq. Of Play would be clickable to pull up context sensitive help.

Excellent [:)]

It would be more intuitive for me to have (if possible) a +/- sign next to the items in the sequence of play so I could expand or collapse a part of the sequence of play.

Category: Nice to have

+/- is a possibility I hadn't thought of, thanks. Of course it has pluses and minuses.[:D]

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Each item on the Seq. Of Play would be clickable to pull up context sensitive help.

Excellent [:)]

It would be more intuitive for me to have (if possible) a +/- sign next to the items in the sequence of play so I could expand or collapse a part of the sequence of play.

Category: Nice to have

+/- is a possibility I hadn't thought of, thanks. Of course it has pluses and minuses.[:D]

A nice addition but we don't want to subtract from the game's simplicity or we'll multiply problems and divide the target audience.

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I recoded how the Unit Data panel displays information on air units. This meant making the panel slightly wider (410 pixels, up from 389).

Those shown here stress the design by requiring space for double digits following Defense, the different values for Special, and Beaufighter Mk.21 is one of the longer names for air units.

I changed the abbreviations Nt, Tw, Rrg, Cst, and Trns to Night, Twin-E, Reorg, Cost, and Turns. Though Tw Nt only improved to Tw Night.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is what the Unit Data panel for carrier air units, naval air, and bomber look like.

The Cost/Turns/Class (previously Cst/Trns/Clss/Rrg) I kept together, but I separated Reorg from the group, placing it under Oil.

I like the attack, defense, tactical, and strategic on the left-hand side. Those are the important #s for me when playing. Range, ASW, and Air-Sea grouped in the second column reflects their near-equal importance.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I forgot to mention on the last post that the extended range for the bomber is shown as 23/46, which also stressed the design.

Here are some unusual values for fields: Cannot Intercept, No Attack, and Lrg T + P.

The Spanish Republic unit stressed the available room for the country name and the year value as well (NB means that the unit is not built/"placed on the map" if the minor country is attacked; instead it goes into the force pool.

[amwild]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I noticed a few problems with the A-Bomb text:

Spelling Error: ... the resulting Manhattan Project... (A not E)

Capitalisation - All element names should becapitalised: Uranium-235, Plutonium

Terminology error: The third atomic device, nicknamed 'Fat Man', reverted to the Plutonium fission model...

No atomic weapons developed used fusion reactions until the early 1950s (1952 for the USA, 1953 for the Russians). Little Boy had an approximately 15 kT yield, Fat Man had a 21 kT yield, and the first fusion test device, 'Mike' had a 10.4 MT yield. Mike weighed in at 64 tons, and so was not a deliverable weapon. The first deliverable fusion weapon, 'Shrimp' was tested in 1954, and had a yield of 15 MT, far in excess of the expected 4-8 MT.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: amwild
I noticed a few problems with the A-Bomb text:

Spelling Error: ... the resulting Manhattan Project... (A not E)

Capitalisation - All element names should becapitalised: Uranium-235, Plutonium

Terminology error: The third atomic device, nicknamed 'Fat Man', reverted to the Plutonium fission model...

No atomic weapons developed used fusion reactions until the early 1950s (1952 for the USA, 1953 for the Russians). Little Boy had an approximately 15 kT yield, Fat Man had a 21 kT yield, and the first fusion test device, 'Mike' had a 10.4 MT yield. Mike weighed in at 64 tons, and so was not a deliverable weapon. The first deliverable fusion weapon, 'Shrimp' was tested in 1954, and had a yield of 15 MT, far in excess of the expected 4-8 MT.

All suggestions and corrections gratefully received. I will recheck my data on this one...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is the revised layout for the Unit Data panel for naval units.

Fitting in the Sunk date was a problem. I wanted to put it after the Year, but the year sometimes has extra information. For example, 1943 (Rpl) means that the ship is a replacement that becomes available in 1943.

The Saratoga was a problem too because it showed the room required for displaying numbers for damaged ships.

Note that Capacity is the same as the carrier's class. I like using the word capacity when talking about the carriers and class when talking about carrier air units. I would prefer using the word size for the carrier air units - then the documentation could refer to the size of the carrier air units that fit within the capactiy of the carrier - but I do not want to have to withstand the firestorm of criticism from Wiffers.[;)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

2nd and last in the series. Here's what battleships and convoys look like. All the other unit types are similar.

I still have to refine this form for new unit types from Convoys in Flames (e.g., ASW escorts and carriers, different sub types).

Note that Bombard replaces Capacity for non-carrier naval units.