MWIF Game Interface Design

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is the revised form with the factory target shown. For some reason the text under the factory is not being shown, it should say Blue for the first and Red for the second. I figure it out this afternoon.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The corrected form.

[Taxman66]

How hard would it be to overlay a red tint onto the factory stack picture?  Or perhaps use a blue/red border?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

How hard would it be to overlay a red tint onto the factory stack picture?  Or perhaps use a blue/red border?

I do not see any need. The information is clear. Time is precious.

I do want to select the right base color though. Here it is gray (Germany) and it should be brown (USSR). I hadn't noticed that until you make this comment.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is a revised layout for reporting the results of Ground Strikes. I'll also use it for strategic bombing, carpet bombing, and ground support.

This is a surprise impulse so each of the attacking units is getting an extra die roll. Because the Stuka disorganized the infantry unit, the 150 mm didn't even roll for that unit.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

2nd and last in series.

Here is another ground strike from the same turn. Because the target is in the woods, the tactical/bombardment factors are halved. but a couple nice die rolls made the 800 mm unnecessary.

Note that the status indicators for the units in the stack viewers are the wrong size, they are zoom 4 instead of zoom 6. I need to increase them by 50%.

[Zorachus99]

The statement:
 
Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 2
 
is painful to see and interpret.  Is there a CSV we can modify so that it says at the very least 2nd Arm instead of simply 2?  Many different units have the designation 2, it makes sense to be just slightly more verbose.  I'm sure we can abbreviate without thrashing the land units statistics (something that was much harder for air units).
So many units are named appropriately, it hurts to see 2nd Mot or 2nd Arm not being mentioned properly.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

The statement:

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 2

is painful to see and interpret.  Is there a CSV we can modify so that it says at the very least 2nd Arm instead of simply 2?  Many different units have the designation 2, it makes sense to be just slightly more verbose.  I'm sure we can abbreviate without thrashing the land units statistics (something that was much harder for air units).
So many units are named appropriately, it hurts to see 2nd Mot or 2nd Arm not being mentioned properly.

I am nervous about making the statements longer (e.g., by adding Armor/Infantry/Division/AntiTank/etc.). The space available does not have a lot of extra width. I have provided a lot of height for multiple lines, since there could be a lot of units in a hex and numerous attackers.

Changing the name of the unit in the data file is a possiblity. What you see here is taken straight from the WIF FE counters. I guess they assume that since the NATO symbol for infantry and the XXXX denoting army are part of the counter there is no need to say anything more than '2'.

[lomyrin]

Could you make the status dot on the target units show disorganized status ?
 
Lars

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

The statement:

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 2

is painful to see and interpret.  Is there a CSV we can modify so that it says at the very least 2nd Arm instead of simply 2?  Many different units have the designation 2, it makes sense to be just slightly more verbose.  I'm sure we can abbreviate without thrashing the land units statistics (something that was much harder for air units).
So many units are named appropriately, it hurts to see 2nd Mot or 2nd Arm not being mentioned properly.

I am nervous about making the statements longer (e.g., by adding Armor/Infantry/Division/AntiTank/etc.). The space available does not have a lot of extra width. I have provided a lot of height for multiple lines, since there could be a lot of units in a hex and numerous attackers.

Changing the name of the unit in the data file is a possiblity. What you see here is taken straight from the WIF FE counters. I guess they assume that since the NATO symbol for infantry and the XXXX denoting army are part of the counter there is no need to say anything more than '2'.

Exactly. When look at the 2 on the unit, it's obvious what it is, but when typed out it is much less clear. Imagine hexes with 2 units with the same number. It makes the ground strike much less informative.

Instead of Just using the number 2 I'd propose standard naming conventions for generic unit types, such as: Inf, Mot, Arm, Para, and so forth; all of which are the standard abbreviations. No need to mess with anything but the generic land units either.

That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para

instead of

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)

My guess is it would only take a some few hours to clean up the abbreviations for the land unit names. If nobody volunteers I would give it a try, particularly if the data was presented in CSV fashion.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

Could you make the status dot on the target units show disorganized status ?

Lars

It does - the orange dot (it should be larger and positioned slightly more to the right).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

The statement:

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 2

is painful to see and interpret.  Is there a CSV we can modify so that it says at the very least 2nd Arm instead of simply 2?  Many different units have the designation 2, it makes sense to be just slightly more verbose.  I'm sure we can abbreviate without thrashing the land units statistics (something that was much harder for air units).
So many units are named appropriately, it hurts to see 2nd Mot or 2nd Arm not being mentioned properly.

I am nervous about making the statements longer (e.g., by adding Armor/Infantry/Division/AntiTank/etc.). The space available does not have a lot of extra width. I have provided a lot of height for multiple lines, since there could be a lot of units in a hex and numerous attackers.

Changing the name of the unit in the data file is a possiblity. What you see here is taken straight from the WIF FE counters. I guess they assume that since the NATO symbol for infantry and the XXXX denoting army are part of the counter there is no need to say anything more than '2'.

Exactly. When look at the 2 on the unit, it's obvious what it is, but when typed out it is much less clear. Imagine hexes with 2 units with the same number. It makes the ground strike much less informative.

Instead of Just using the number 2 I'd propose standard naming conventions for generic unit types, such as: Inf, Mot, Arm, Para, and so forth; all of which are the standard abbreviations. No need to mess with anything but the generic land units either.

That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para

instead of

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)

My guess is it would only take a some few hours to clean up the abbreviations for the land unit names. If nobody volunteers I would give it a try, particularly if the data was presented in CSV fashion.

As a beta tester, you already have the CSV file for this: "Standard Units LND.CSV". If you want to modify the names, that's fine by me. All land units (except HQs) are selected randomly, not by name, so changing the names of non-HQs is ok.

In fact, the players have this ability during game play. But I agree that your offer to make the names more complete in the starting data file would be an improvement.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para

instead of

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)

Or simpler :

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 PARA

This way you'd just need to add the type of unit beside the ID, not needing to calculate the "st", "nd", or "rd" or "th".

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
My guess is it would only take a some few hours to clean up the abbreviations for the land unit names. If nobody volunteers I would give it a try, particularly if the data was presented in CSV fashion.

Yes, but if you rename the "2" INF unit as "2nd Inf", then when using the name & type you'll have "2nd Inf INF".
I thin this is better & simpler to just add the type in the result form for air strikes.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd and last in series.

Here is another ground strike from the same turn. Because the target is in the woods, the tactical/bombardment factors are halved. but a couple nice die rolls made the 800 mm unnecessary.

Note that the status indicators for the units in the stack viewers are the wrong size, they are zoom 4 instead of zoom 6. I need to increase them by 50%.

Good job at improving this form. It is now much clearer than it was before.
Maybe you can also add in the first line that the target hex is a forest, and that the TAC factors are halved.
Maybe also you should not write the full sentences in bold. Too much bold kills the bold effect. Maybe you should just put the number rolled, and the ID of the unit ground striking and the ID unit targeted in bold.
Maybe also the "disorganized" word in green, and the "failed to disorganize" in red, so that success & failures are immediately identified by colors.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

2nd and last in series.

Here is another ground strike from the same turn. Because the target is in the woods, the tactical/bombardment factors are halved. but a couple nice die rolls made the 800 mm unnecessary.

Note that the status indicators for the units in the stack viewers are the wrong size, they are zoom 4 instead of zoom 6. I need to increase them by 50%.

Good job at improving this form. It is now much clearer than it was before.
Maybe you can also add in the first line that the target hex is a forest, and that the TAC factors are halved.
Maybe also you should not write the full sentences in bold. Too much bold kills the bold effect. Maybe you should just put the number rolled, and the ID of the unit ground striking and the ID unit targeted in bold.
Maybe also the "disorganized" word in green, and the "failed to disorganize" in red, so that success & failures are immediately identified by colors.

The use of bold is because the font 'floats' on the textured background. When the font is too thin, it loses legibility against the mottled background(s).

Changing colors of the text in mid-sentence would be a lot of work. But more importantly, the gray background is only for German. The uS would have a textured green background and Japan a textured red one. Green on green would not provide much contrast and green on red would be a disaster.

I'm not keen on using the results text as a place to explain the rules. The player will either know them already or can look them up. For example, the help button will bring up the particualrs you mentioned.

[YohanTM2]

I like this approach

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para

instead of

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)

Or simpler :

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 PARA

This way you'd just need to add the type of unit beside the ID, not needing to calculate the "st", "nd", or "rd" or "th".

[Sewerlobster]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
My guess is it would only take a some few hours to clean up the abbreviations for the land unit names. If nobody volunteers I would give it a try, particularly if the data was presented in CSV fashion.

Yes, but if you rename the "2" INF unit as "2nd Inf", then when using the name & type you'll have "2nd Inf INF".
I thin this is better & simpler to just add the type in the result form for air strikes.

Would it be easier, if limited to just a number, to have disorganized 2 to mean the second unit on the display? Once a player is used to Mwif convention it won't be such a big deal.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
That way when you ground strike the 5th Para, it would say.

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5th Para

instead of

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 (which is misleading/confusing when read literally)

Or simpler :

Ju88A1 Die roll 1 disorganized 5 PARA

This way you'd just need to add the type of unit beside the ID, not needing to calculate the "st", "nd", or "rd" or "th".

Which do you prefer Steve? I can update the land units names pretty easily with some CSV tricks I know and send it to you, but would prefer not to waste time if you like Patrice's idea more.

I do like my idea more, but wouldn't want to cause trouble in any other forms by being more descriptive with the land units. It seemed like an idea to take something off your task list.

Thanks! [8D]

[Froonp]

Frankly, modifying the names of the units in the CSV files seems like opening a can of worms to me, because there are names that are already quite long (XXVII, XXVI, XXXIX, LXXXVII... there are scores of them), and those names are displayed on the counters themselves. So changing the names in the CSV and adding them 5-6 letters will cause display problems on the counters.

Those names might be used elsewhere inthe games, and I don't think that increasing their length of 5-6 letters is a good idea.