MWIF Game Interface Design

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Removing submarines from task forces gives me more room. Here is the raw form. The box at the top will contain summary statistics for the task force.

[Hah! the summary form is missing a total anti-air #].

The 5 columns are for:
carriers: cv, cvl, carrier escorts (includes carrier air units)
battleships (includes transported divisions)
cruisers: ca, cl, cx, asw escorts (includes transported divisons)
subs: to be eliminated
transports: TRS, AMPH, conovys, tankers (includes transported units)

Right now 10 units will be visible per column (scrollable) at zoom level 5.

I could:
1 - split one of the remaining 4 columns (e.g., ca from cl + cx + asw escorts)
2 - increase the size to zoom 6, though that would reduce the # of units per column to 8

Opinions?

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Steve, are the unit shadows working in the images you've just posted?

Cheers, Neilster

Yes. I toned them back and standardized on a single size regardless of the number of units in the hex. This was to leave enough room for the status indicators - they are smack dab right up against each other now with no room for bigger sahdows.

It's just that they're quite thick, so perhaps it would be a good visual cue to reduce their thickness for only 1 or 2 units. Why was this ditched? Something to do with zoom levels? OK, so maybe we lose this differentiation at certain zoom levels. At least it's an aid at other times.

Cheers, Neilster

[wosung]

Will it be possible to click the named "location" or "TF" to switch to the corresponding part of the main map?

Don't know how difficult it would be to write such a code, but I always find it very useful to have such lists linked to the main maps.

Regards

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I'd add that separating AMPH from TRS is very important, for assessing the enemies invasion capabilities. Remember that these ships may be empty in Section 4, drop down to section 3 and fill up with invasion troops and immediately invade, during a well timed combined action.

Knowing where the enemies AMPH are is very important in the game, it helps guessing his intentions. Knowing where yours are is also important, but normaly you should always know that by heart without external help.

I mentioned (somewhere) that I expect this form to perform a dual purpose:

Primary - Display task forces. These are groups of naval units that the player wants to have hang out together, binge drink together in port, and wage war together while at sea.

Secondary - Review all the naval units in a hex when there are more than the Flyout can handle (> 9).

I am still feeling my way as to what exactly the Secondary purpose will be.

Presently I am more concerned with getting the Primary right. I want to simplify moving naval forces in the game. Ideally, Task Forces will make it as easy as moving the land and air units. What I envision is large groups of naval units in a hex replaced by a single Task Force unit/counter. There might be multiple TFs in a port or sea area section box and there might be unattached units as well (e.g. submarines). The player will click on the TF unit and move it out to sea or back to port. That will be the same as having picked up 20 or 30 units - without having to select them individaully each time (twice per turn usually). If I get this right, the major powers with large naval forces (CW, USA, Japan) may be able to complete their naval moves each turn by only moving a half dozen counters or so. That's my goal. Of course there will be a lot of reworking which units are in which task force during play and the moving of stray naval units hither and yon, but that's ok. If I can drastically reduced the repeated movement of masses of ships, I'll be very happy.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Steve, are the unit shadows working in the images you've just posted?

Cheers, Neilster

Yes. I toned them back and standardized on a single size regardless of the number of units in the hex. This was to leave enough room for the status indicators - they are smack dab right up against each other now with no room for bigger sahdows.

It's just that they're quite thick, so perhaps it would be a good visual cue to reduce their thickness for only 1 or 2 units. Why was this ditched? Something to do with zoom levels? OK, so maybe we lose this differentiation at certain zoom levels. At least it's an aid at other times.

Cheers, Neilster

Space was the driver. The units are "so big" and they have to fit in a hex. Between the units are status indicators (very important). More room for shadows can't be had without making the units or status indicators smaller or the hexes bigger.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: wosung

Will it be possible to click the named "location" or "TF" to switch to the corresponding part of the main map?

Don't know how difficult it would be to write such a code, but I always find it very useful to have such lists linked to the main maps.

Regards

Yes. A good idea - thanks.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Removing submarines from task forces gives me more room. Here is the raw form. The box at the top will contain summary statistics for the task force.

[Hah! the summary form is missing a total anti-air #].

The 5 columns are for:
carriers: cv, cvl, carrier escorts (includes carrier air units)
battleships (includes transported divisions)
cruisers: ca, cl, cx, asw escorts (includes transported divisons)
subs: to be eliminated
transports: TRS, AMPH, conovys, tankers (includes transported units)

Right now 10 units will be visible per column (scrollable) at zoom level 5.

I could:
1 - split one of the remaining 4 columns (e.g., ca from cl + cx + asw escorts)
2 - increase the size to zoom 6, though that would reduce the # of units per column to 8

Opinions?

Splitting the Cruisers column is a good idea IMO.
Maybe have the CA in one column and the rest in another column ? CA are real useful first line combat units most of the time, contrarily to CL, CX and ASW.

About increasing the size of the units, maybe let them as they are, we'll see if it is enough ?

I think that 10 units is good, it is a very big number. It will be rare when this will be exceeded.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Space was the driver. The units are "so big" and they have to fit in a hex. Between the units are status indicators (very important). More room for shadows can't be had without making the units or status indicators smaller or the hexes bigger.

Or maybe accept to have some overlap.
If the status indicators are overlapping the above unit's shadow (by being drawn on top of it), I think that this is not a problem.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Removing submarines from task forces gives me more room. Here is the raw form. The box at the top will contain summary statistics for the task force.

[Hah! the summary form is missing a total anti-air #].

The 5 columns are for:
carriers: cv, cvl, carrier escorts (includes carrier air units)
battleships (includes transported divisions)
cruisers: ca, cl, cx, asw escorts (includes transported divisons)
subs: to be eliminated
transports: TRS, AMPH, conovys, tankers (includes transported units)

Right now 10 units will be visible per column (scrollable) at zoom level 5.

I could:
1 - split one of the remaining 4 columns (e.g., ca from cl + cx + asw escorts)
2 - increase the size to zoom 6, though that would reduce the # of units per column to 8

Opinions?

Splitting the Cruisers column is a good idea IMO.
Maybe have the CA in one column and the rest in another column ? CA are real useful first line combat units most of the time, contrarily to CL, CX and ASW.

About increasing the size of the units, maybe let them as they are, we'll see if it is enough ?

I think that 10 units is good, it is a very big number. It will be rare when this will be exceeded.

Well - just to play devil's advocate - if you are not using the optional rules for cl, cx, or asw escorts, that column will always be empty.

I think there will be plenty of times that there will be more than 10 cruisers in a TF. If we use the same form for reviewing units in a port, all the columns might have more than 10 units.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Space was the driver. The units are "so big" and they have to fit in a hex. Between the units are status indicators (very important). More room for shadows can't be had without making the units or status indicators smaller or the hexes bigger.

Or maybe accept to have some overlap.
If the status indicators are overlapping the above unit's shadow (by being drawn on top of it), I think that this is not a problem.

Units are not always drawn from top to bottom on the map.

Trust me on this - there isn't room for more shadows.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Well - just to play devil's advocate - if you are not using the optional rules for cl, cx, or asw escorts, that column will always be empty.

I think there will be plenty of times that there will be more than 10 cruisers in a TF. If we use the same form for reviewing units in a port, all the columns might have more than 10 units.

This is right. Then, why not a double width "Cruisers" column ?
Anyway, the ships will be sorted out by class & name won't they ?

[Arron69]

We have never played with tankers, are they a seperate build type, and do they cost more?

Andi.

[Arron69]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Good thing too ! Reviewing the enemy's Task Force is crutial too to good play in the Pacific.
This said, Task Forces in ports are subject to change without notice, so this is touchy too.
Maybe you should only be show task forces that are at sea, and for the ships in ports, only show them port per port ? Don't know.

I think patrice is right here only show the TF on sea, not in ports.
Andi.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



Yes. I toned them back and standardized on a single size regardless of the number of units in the hex. This was to leave enough room for the status indicators - they are smack dab right up against each other now with no room for bigger sahdows.

It's just that they're quite thick, so perhaps it would be a good visual cue to reduce their thickness for only 1 or 2 units. Why was this ditched? Something to do with zoom levels? OK, so maybe we lose this differentiation at certain zoom levels. At least it's an aid at other times.

Cheers, Neilster

Space was the driver. The units are "so big" and they have to fit in a hex. Between the units are status indicators (very important). More room for shadows can't be had without making the units or status indicators smaller or the hexes bigger.

I don't understand your answer. I didn't suggest making the shadows bigger. I suggested reducing their thickness for hexes with only 1 or 2 units (at the appropriate zoom levels).

Cheers, Neilster

[haromar]

Also consider following points (ignore them if already discussed):
 
- While in port, a ship or Task Force could be OOS or stacked with another Major Power ships thus decreasing its movement. Indicate this so the player is not confused as to why you are substracting him 1 or 2 mp. For OOS he can remedy the problem within the impulse, the - 1 MP for other Major Power ships is there for the whole impulse.
- Ships are sometimes dropped off in sea zones from a task force. Allow for that.
- An "average" defense factor is imo pretty useless, better indicate the best defense factor of a single ship, usually a 2, 1 or 0.
- Air to Air has to be max air to air considering dual role of CVP, e.g. use all CVPs as fighter.
- Same for naval air, also max. e.g. use all CVPs as naval bombers (assumes they have a respective value).
- With shore bombardment display max value at -0. (assumes 4 box in fair). Display a second column value assuming all have -1. Maybe even a third value all with -2. Or use a button (-0, -1 or -2). Its up to the player to figure out in which modified shore bombardment box he will be when conducting his operation. You can't know that since the SB mod is affected by wheather, with one sea area possible bordering more than 1 wheather zone.
- Definetely differentiate between amph and trs.
- Definetely throw out subs, by the rules you cannot have them in the same task force anyways. Indicate the presence of a separate sub task force.
- Not sure about loaded cargo, the way I play it is that you "load" cargo in the port at will when leaving the port. So imo only "possible" cargo makes sense.
- Include mod search box due to CVP with 4 or 7 range.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin

We have never played with tankers, are they a seperate build type, and do they cost more?

Andi.

Here's the full rule about Tankers :
****************************
22.4.19 Convoys in Flames (CoiF option 76)
(...)
Tankers
Oil-carrying tankers are a special kind of convoy. They are treated as convoy points for all purposes unless otherwise indicated below.
Only tankers can transport oil resources overseas and only convoys may transport non-oil resources or build points overseas.
Each tanker costs 1 build point and takes 5 turns to build.
At the start of any friendly impulse, a player may freely convert any of their face-up convoy points in port into tanker points, or vice versa. When doing so, it takes 2 convoy points to convert into 1 tanker point, or 2 tanker points to convert into 1 convoy point.
If not playing with this option, tankers are just considered more convoy points.
****************************

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: haromar
- Not sure about loaded cargo, the way I play it is that you "load" cargo in the port at will when leaving the port. So imo only "possible" cargo makes sense.

Cargo can be loaded at other places than ports.

- Include mod search box due to CVP with 4 or 7 range.

Very good idea !

[haromar]

Pertaining to the screenshot about Belgium, while that set up with the Belgian CAV in Liege to ZOC out the PZRs, Brussels empty, the 2 Infantry in Antwerpen and the Belgian Fighter in Belgian Congo is a standard WiF set-up, its probably not very historical. So for a more "historical" screenshot, you might want to put the Belgian Infantry in Brussels and include the Belgian Fighter. 

[Froonp]

About the name, it would be cool to indicate somewhere a list of historical Task Force Names for each country for the player to pick from that. Forum members could gather that. You could propose these in drop down boxes in the form for creating Task Forces. Obviously, you should not remove the possibility for a player to type his own name.

I thought that it would be a piece of cake to find lists of historical Task Forces names, and it is not !!!

I've found the complete Japanese Fleets list, but nearly nothing more :
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Maritime Escort Fleet (1943/11/15 - 1945/08/25)
Combined Fleet (1894/07/18 - 1945/10/10)
1st Fleet (1903/12/28 - 1944/02/25)
2nd Fleet (1903/10/27 - 1945/04/20)
3rd Fleet (1903/12/28 - 1944/11/15)
4th Fleet (1937/10/20 - 1945/09/02)
5th Fleet (1938/02/01 - 1945/02/05)
6th Fleet (1940/11/15 - 1945/09/15)
7th Fleet (1945/04/15 - 1945/09/15)
8th Fleet (1942/07/14 - 1945/09/03)
9th Fleet (1943/11/15 - 1944/07/10)
China Area Fleet (1937/10/20 - 1945/09)
Northeastern Area Fleet (1943/08/05 - 1944/12/05)
Southeastern Area Fleet (1942/12/24 - 1945/09/06)
Southwestern Area Fleet (1942/04/10 - 1945/09)
Central Pacific Area Fleet (1944/03/04 - 1944/07/18)
10th Area Fleet (1945/02/05 - 1945/09)
Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1941/07/31 - 1942/01/03)
1st Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/01/03 - 1945/09)
2nd Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/03/10 - 1945/09)
3rd Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/01/03 - 1945/09)
4th Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1943/11/30 - 1945/03/10)
1st China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1943/08/20)
2nd China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1945/09)
3rd China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1942/04/10)
1st Escort Fleet (1944/12/10 - 1945/08/25)
1st Task Fleet (1944/03/01 - 1944/11/15)
-------------------------

The Task Forces proposed in WiF FE for Japan are :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Advance
Mobile
Strike
Combined
-------------------------


For the USA :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Atlantic Fleet
Pacific Fleet
TF-11
TF-16
TF-17
TF-58
-------------------------

-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Atlantic Fleet
Pacific Fleet
Asiatic Fleet

TF-11
TF-16
TF-17
TF-31
TF-34
TF-38
TF-58
TF-61
TF-80
TF-88
-------------------------
I'm sure some are missing.


For the CW :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Force H
Mediterranean Fleet
ABDA
Force Z
Home Fleet
-------------------------

-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Eastern Fleet (East Indies Fleet / Far East Fleet)
Force A
Force B
Force Z
Home Fleet
Mediterranean Fleet
Force H
Pacific Fleet
-------------------------


For Russia
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Advance
Strike
-------------------------

-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Baltic Fleet
Black Sea Fleet
Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet
Pacific Ocean Fleet
-------------------------


For Italy
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Primo
Secondo
Rapido
Forza
-------------------------
No historical names found.


For Germany
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
AKT-Kräfte
Ost
Nord
-------------------------
No historical names found.


For France
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Première
Deuxième
Avancée
Méditeranée
-------------------------
No historical names found.

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Good thing too ! Reviewing the enemy's Task Force is crutial too to good play in the Pacific.
This said, Task Forces in ports are subject to change without notice, so this is touchy too.
Maybe you should only be show task forces that are at sea, and for the ships in ports, only show them port per port ? Don't know.

I think patrice is right here only show the TF on sea, not in ports.
Andi.

I would myself prefer to have task forces in port as well. In WIF:FE I usually keep all the ships in a single port in a single task force (so the marker is on the map & the ships are on the Task Force chart).