MWIF Game Interface Design

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Shannon, I have a suggestion:

Instead of showing
CVs:CVPs

Show
CVs: CVs without CVPs
5:0 Would mean 5 CVs all loaded with CVPs
10:3 Would mean 10 CVs, 7 loaded with CVPs and 3 without.
I'd bet that, that's really the information that the players want; and you would have a lot fewer situations of two double digit numbers.

You also avoid a potential misunderstanding when using the optional rule allowing for more than one CVP on a CV. That is seeing 6:6, when in reality it is really 6 CVs, 2 loaded with one CVP, 2 loaded with two CVPs and 2 without any CVPs.

To avoid confusion CVP are now called carrier air units.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


Here is where I am currently.

The Focus box is new and lets the player choose from one of the 3 layouts. I'll finish Both first and then do the other 2.

Note that the carriers row now shows the # of carrier air units too, following the colon.

I have added a Clear Column button, so the player can insert a blank column if he wants.

The filters are now working (except for Empty), which is why the # of ports with units is 12 but only 6 occupied ports are listed. That's because the CW only has units in those 6 ports. The same is true for the sea areas.

Displays is how I am going to handle Saved Display/configurations of columns. What is being saved are the 8 ports, 8 sea areas, and the Focus setting. If the focus is on the ports, then no sea areas will be saved. When a saved display/configuration is restored, I'll use whatever the current filter settings are and instantiate the columns according to which ports and sea areas have been saved. Oh, and the focus setting will be restored too.

Under the word Display there is room for the names of about a dozen different Saved Displays. There are none listed in this screen shot - more code needs to be written first. Left clicking on the name of a Saved Display will restore it. Right clicking on the word Displays will let you bring one in from disk, and save the current one. Right clicking on one of the Saved Display names will let you Rename, Delete, or Redefine it. For the last, the current setting will override whatever had been saved before under the given name.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Shannon, I have a suggestion:

Instead of showing  
CVs:CVPs

Show
CVs: CVs without CVPs
5:0    Would mean 5 CVs all loaded with CVPs
10:3   Would mean 10 CVs, 7 loaded with CVPs and 3 without.
I'd bet that, that's really the information that the players want; and you would have a lot fewer situations of two double digit numbers.

You also avoid a potential misunderstanding when using the optional rule allowing for more than one CVP on a CV.  That is seeing 6:6, when in reality it is really 6 CVs, 2 loaded with one CVP, 2 loaded with two CVPs and 2 without any CVPs.

Yeah, the multiple air units per carrier makes for a mess when trying to give a single statistic.

I am trying to keep the numbers to be 'positive', by which I mean they indicate the presence of units. Your suggestion would have the number indicate the absence of units. A subtle difference, but it's the type of thing I worry about when trying to achieve a 'standard' for how information is presented.

I thought about giving some kind of capacity number, equal to the number of additional air units that could be added to the carriers (i.e., open 'slots'). But then you really want to know what carrier air units are available/unassigned and their class number.

In the end I figured I'd just go with the # of carrier air units, since that is an easy to understand number, and it lets you know how many units you can put in the air for naval air operations.

Which is not to say that the problem you mention is minor or somehow miraculously goes away. My guess is that players will know when they are double loading their carriers so that 6:6 means there is room available, regardless of whether the 6 carriers air units are assigned two to a carrier (with 3 empty carriers) or one per carrier (so 6 carriers are half full).

Here I will bail out with what is becoming an all too common refrain: for more detailed information the player is going to have to look at the NRD or the map. The NRS can only do so much towards presenting the finer details. For this question, the NRD gives immediate and definitive information; you will know which carriers have which air units and whether there is additional capacity avaialble.

[Taxman66]

It was just an idea.  As I said I think the biggest issue is seeing 6:6 and not realizing that some the CV's are empty.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

It was just an idea.  As I said I think the biggest issue is seeing 6:6 and not realizing that some the CV's are empty.

I need ideas from other people. Just bouncing things around in my own head often misses stuff.

Even if I only use 10% of the things offered up by the forum members, those 10% really improve the quality of the game.

For proof of the above statements, you only need to look at the first version of the naval review summary form in this thread.

EDIT: See post 1021 for a version from last week.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

It was just an idea. As I said I think the biggest issue is seeing 6:6 and not realizing that some the CV's are empty.

I need ideas from other people. Just bouncing things around in my own head often misses stuff.

I don't see it as an issue really.

In the Naval Review Summary you are seeing brute numbers. But right alongside it you will be seeing the Naval Review Details which will show how the carriers are loaded out, and carriers without air units will stick out like a sore thumb.

The biggest problem you have, IMO, is that if you feel that it is possible to have 10 or more carriers in a port or region than you must have enough room in the NRS to accommodate double digit numbers for air units as well... meaning you need 5 spaces (i.e., "10:20"). Due to the font, I don't think that will fit in the box.

Or will it?

Ray (alias Lava)

[hakon]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

But why would so many be in 1 port or sea area? Yes, you can achieve that, but it does seem to be a lot in one place. To start with, wouldn't some of them be in the Atlantic? And if you have that many, wouldn't you try to go after more than 1 objective?

But people play the game different ways.

My impression is that it is very common to concentrate the US carrier force. Yes, maybe a few carriers will be in the Atlantic or the Med, but usually that is limited to just a couple, with the number of slow BB often being much greater there. (Naval air is much easier to cover with land based air in the atlantic and the med.)

In the pacific, there is not so much reason to spread out the carriers. Specifically, spreading out reduces the capability to heavily contest once sea zone in a combined. And, if there is a big naval battle, you really want ALL your carriers to be there, since air to air battles favour the side with more aircraft so heavily. So, generally, it is very common to see all American CV in a single major port after return to base. (Some turns, they may go after different objectives, of course, but spreading them out too thin can make you quite exposed to a Japanse attack.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

Shannon, I have a suggestion:

Instead of showing  
CVs:CVPs

Show
CVs: CVs without CVPs
5:0    Would mean 5 CVs all loaded with CVPs
10:3   Would mean 10 CVs, 7 loaded with CVPs and 3 without.
I'd bet that, that's really the information that the players want; and you would have a lot fewer situations of two double digit numbers.

You also avoid a potential misunderstanding when using the optional rule allowing for more than one CVP on a CV.  That is seeing 6:6, when in reality it is really 6 CVs, 2 loaded with one CVP, 2 loaded with two CVPs and 2 without any CVPs.

I don't like that.
I think that the original idea of Steve is better. It is simpler, that's why it is better.
Showing empty carriers don't show you carrier of class 4 loaded with class 2 unit anyway, so seeing the empty carriers don't help either.
So, showing the actual number of CVP is a better help, as when you have 6 CV, you know that you'll have them filled if you have 6-12 CVP. If you have about 6, you'll look at the detailled status to see the actual units. If you have 12, you know you can't do better.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

It was just an idea. As I said I think the biggest issue is seeing 6:6 and not realizing that some the CV's are empty.

I need ideas from other people. Just bouncing things around in my own head often misses stuff.

I don't see it as an issue really.

In the Naval Review Summary you are seeing brute numbers. But right alongside it you will be seeing the Naval Review Details which will show how the carriers are loaded out, and carriers without air units will stick out like a sore thumb.

The biggest problem you have, IMO, is that if you feel that it is possible to have 10 or more carriers in a port or region than you must have enough room in the NRS to accommodate double digit numbers for air units as well... meaning you need 5 spaces (i.e., "10:20"). Due to the font, I don't think that will fit in the box.

Or will it?

Ray (alias Lava)

I'll just reduce the font size so it fits (but is harder to read).

[hakon]

What I often do in this kind of situation, is to dynamically change the font size to make the text fit. While a bit ad hoc, it usually works quite well to have double digit number appear in a slightly smaller font than single digit numbers.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: hakon

So, generally, it is very common to see all American CV in a single major port after return to base.

Not a big Pacific War historian, and don't mean to hijack the thread, but I thought the US Carrier Force was at sea throughout most of the war. Thus, while you might have a few in Ports the majority will be at sea.

I think...

Ray (alias Lava)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: hakon

So, generally, it is very common to see all American CV in a single major port after return to base.

Not a big Pacific War historian, and don't mean to hijack the thread, but I thought the US Carrier Force was at sea throughout most of the war. Thus, while you might have a few in Ports the majority will be at sea.

I think...

Ray (alias Lava)

All carriers, except ASW Carriers, usually return to base at the end of each turn. So, they start the turn in a port and then go to sea. At the end of the turn they go back to port.

[*Lava*]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

All carriers, except ASW Carriers, usually return to base at the end of each turn. So, they start the turn in a port and then go to sea. At the end of the turn they go back to port.

Oh...

Then you are going to need a prompt which says "Are you sure you don't want to move your carriers?" at the end of movement.

[;)]

Ray (alias Lava)

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Lava

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

All carriers, except ASW Carriers, usually return to base at the end of each turn. So, they start the turn in a port and then go to sea. At the end of the turn they go back to port.

Oh...

Then you are going to need a prompt which says "Are you sure you don't want to move your carriers?" at the end of movement.

[;)]

Ray (alias Lava)

Not really.

Each turn has mulitple impulses and the player can choose which naval units to move in each impulse. Once the units are moved to sea, they are effectively 'stuck' in the the sea area where they end their movement until the "return to base phase".

An important part of the tactics for moving your naval fores is deciding which ones you want to send out at the start of the turn (first impulse) and which ones you want to hold back to send out later, in response to what the enemy does.

There are a lot of other things to take into consideration too.

My main point is that it is rare for a player to move all of his naval units during an impulse, so prompting him about unmoved units would be annoying. He has the ability to cycle through unmoved units (this is true for all unit types all the time) if he wants to make sure he hasn't forgotten to move some.

[Sewerlobster]

My main point is that it is rare for a player to move all of his naval units during an impulse, so prompting him about unmoved units would be annoying. He has the ability to cycle through unmoved units (this is true for all unit types all the time) if he wants to make sure he hasn't forgotten to move some.

I have to agree it would be annoying. At some point the player is going to have to be responsible for his units, and for me at least, the natural course of playing WiF is to move the naval units as Shannon has programed it. Realism aside, the game's mechanics require units to return to port even if this is an abstraction of what carriers really did.

[composer99]

Strictly speaking naval units, unless they are in the 0-box (convoys/ASW excepted), can stay out at sea at the end of the turn.
 
That said, unless they are convoy escort units, usually they don't because there are advantages to being in high boxes (required to pull off invasions more easily, better for naval searches incl. port strikes, better for shore bombardment).
 
So to port they go at the end of the turn and back out they go later.

[*Lava*]

[:)]

It's okay dudes!

I'm kewl with abstractions and the "prompt" about the carriers was actually a joke.

Let's not get sidetracked.

Ray (alias Lava)

[composer99]

I could use a prompt asking me "Are you sure you want to do this?" right before I launch an attack of questionable value....

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: composer99

I could use a prompt asking me "Are you sure you want to do this?" right before I launch an attack of questionable value....

Or make any decision in the game?

I would prefer a voice-over: "What! Really? Well, if that's what you want to do..." Or perhaps just a low, drawn out groan, like Lurch use to make in the Adams Family: "Uhhhhh". Though I am sure you would prefer slow, ominous music in a minor key and low register.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I am revamping the air-to-air combat form. Here is my current version.

This form does a lot, so it is rather crowded, but I believe it works pretty well.

1 - The top 4 panels show lists of units (zoom 5) with the current leading unit in each section at zoom 8 - facing off against each other.

2 - Under each side is a unit data panel for the unit last under the cursor for that side.

3 - Here the Axis is on the left and the Allies on the right, which means that the Axis is the phasing/attacking side. If the Allies were the phasing side, they would be on the left. This is strategic bombardment, by the way.

4 - The center horizontal bar shows the progress through the air-to-air combat sub-phase. I think of these as sub-sub-phases. Right now the setting is on Choose Combat. That isn't quite right, since there is only 1 combat location (Changsha), but I haven't written the code to automatically skip subsubphases yet.

5 - The map shows the selected combat location. If there were more than 1, the player could click on different locations and have the map change. At the same time the unit lists at the top would change, and the information on the Results from Current Combat would refresh too. The idea is for the player to be able to review the different air-to-air combats before selecting one. The side with the most bombers in the air gets to choose the combat; and the major power within that side with the most bombers in the air is the decision maker.

6 - The prompt message is missing. It is below the subsubphase bar and should say " Choose which air-to-air combat to fight next." When the player has selected which one he wnats, he clicks on the button Combat Chosen.

7 - Once a combat is chosen, the players get to rearrange their units in the panels at the top, using drag and drop. This subsubphase should also be skipped since there is 1 unit or less in each panel.

8 - After the players have rearanged their units they click on "Axis Ready" or "Allies Ready". The program relabels the Combat Chosen button according to which sied you are on. Then the program can roll the dice and complete one row of the Results table: Die and Result.

9 - The next subsubphase is for choose which unit to abort/destroy/clear through depending on the Result. Then the 2nd die roll is made and the Results table is completed for the second row/ combat round. Note that the Axis row may be done after the Allied row. that would be the case here where the Allies are defending and roll their dice first.

10 - Once a round of combat is completed the unit panel at teh bottom is filled in with the units that have been affected so far: Destroyed/Aborted/Cleared through. That panel is also zoom 5 but it is a little larger to be able to show the result text underneath each unit.

11 Then the subsubphase advances to Atacker aborts or stays followed by Defender Aborts or Stays. if both stay and combat is still possible, another tound is fought, starting with the rearrange units subphases.

Whew! There is a reason this has taken me 4 days and I'm not done yet.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
4 - The center horizontal bar shows the progress through the air-to-air combat sub-phase. I think of these as sub-sub-phases. Right now the setting is on Choose Combat. That isn't quite right, since there is only 1 combat location (Changsha), but I haven't written the code to automatically skip subsubphases yet.

"Choose location" would be better, as "Choose combat" makes me think that you can choose the combat nature, as you choose in Naval Combat.

5 - The map shows the selected combat location. If there were more than 1, the player could click on different locations and have the map change. At the same time the unit lists at the top would change, and the information on the Results from Current Combat would refresh too. The idea is for the player to be able to review the different air-to-air combats before selecting one. The side with the most bombers in the air gets to choose the combat; and the major power within that side with the most bombers in the air is the decision maker.

I don't understand the choices.
Normaly, it is the active side that chooses the order in which to fight air to air combats, not the side with the most bombers in the air.
Also it seems to me, that the "decision maker" should be the owner of the front fighter (or bomber if there is no front fighter), as this is this air unit that is "fighting".
But maybe I have not understood what the "decision maker" or the "choose the order" meant.

Edit : Hey, I only put kind of criticism comments, but let me also say that this Form is a REAL improvement. Knowing the results from current combat in a tale like form, and the affected units is a real improvement.