MWIF Game Interface Design

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I have a design decision to make - and it doesn't seem to have an easy answer. Perhaps you can help.

The task is to visually change the appearance of the fighter bomber counters so it is clear whether they are flying as fighters or bombers.

For the temporary carrier air units, which are created by the program when a carrier flies air units into combat, I am using a simple silhouette, which leaves plenty of room for the addition of the word Fighter, or Bomber, underneath the air-to-air combat factor in the upper left corner. Two examples of this are the Akagi and Lexington units shown here.

But I do not know how to do anything comparable for land based fighter-bombers. The screen shots show 28 variations on names, numbers, and the use of color for both the air-to-air and tactical (lower left corner) factors. Note that sometimes fighter-bombers will be using their strategic value (lower right corner).

I thought about just trying to squeeze the letter F or B in somewhere, but I don't see where. Another possibility is to just try to indicate when these units are flying as bombers - with the default being that they are flying as fighters. That simplifies the task to just squeezing in a B somewhere.

Ideas?

[Taxman66]

How about putting the B next the yellow range?  If I recall correctly a fighter's ranged is halved when flying as a bomber.  If it's possible to actually show the reduced range (which I doubt at this point) that would be extra great.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

How about putting the B next the yellow range?  If I recall correctly a fighter's ranged is halved when flying as a bomber.  If it's possible to actually show the reduced range (which I doubt at this point) that would be extra great.

If you designate a fighter to fly as a bomber its range is indeed halved. The reduced range is then shown in the yellow circle.

[sajbalk]

The fighters may also fly as naval bombers at sea. This does not reduce their range.

One idea would be to highlight the bombing factor in use, i.e. have it look like the red factor German TAC.

Another would be to place a "B" next to the range.

[Orm]

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

The fighters may also fly as naval bombers at sea. This does not reduce their range.

One idea would be to highlight the bombing factor in use, i.e. have it look like the red factor German TAC.

Another would be to place a "B" next to the range.

You do not decide if a fighter in a sea area is a fighter or a bomber untill the start of each naval combat round. And you can change its role at the start of each new naval combat round as long as it remains in the sea box.

[brian brian]

with the cardboard, you can just tell by what column the counter is placed in....could the bomber and fighter column just be separated visually and labelled, quite simply, without needing a change to the actual counter?

note that defining fighter or bomber at the start of each round introduces yet another dreaded player decision point. one way to speed up email games would be to make that designation stick for a whole combat, as a pre-game preference chosen by the players. sorry to stray off-topic here I guess.

[Ullern]

B down below only suggestion so far... It would have been better higher on the counter.

What about simply to put a "Fighter" or "Bomber" string where you put it on those generic counters and let the text string have a background color equal counter color and just not care if other text or graphics gets hidden?

What about doing something with the fonts?
Do we need to see those numbers that are not relevant for this combat? So that no bombing factor seen means it's a fighter? Or opposite: Can you bold the bombing factor if it is used?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Several good ideas.

The addition to the range of the letter B is a possibility. The only place where I see that as maybe not working is for the Twin Mustang (see the unit pictures above), where drawing a circle around 18B might make it so large that is overlaps the word Mustang.

I thought of adding a silhouette of a falling bomb somewhere (instead of a B). Placement next to the bombing factor in use would be best, but there might not always be enough room to the left of the air-to-sea factor (e.g., I-16 (SPB)).

Another idea I had this morning is to change the color of the range to gray to indicate that it is bombing. That is the color used for field artillery (e.g., see the screen shot).


EDIT: Sorry the cursor drifted when I took the screen shot so the unit "in focus" is the Hummel instead of the 150mm.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I thought about just trying to squeeze the letter F or B in somewhere, but I don't see where. Another possibility is to just try to indicate when these units are flying as bombers - with the default being that they are flying as fighters. That simplifies the task to just squeezing in a B somewhere.

My suggestion would be to put the B to the right of the Air ot Air factor. This intuitively means that the air to air factor has been forfeteid for bombing capacities, shown by the B next to the A2A factor.

Another solution would be to draw a black square around the FTR Tactical factor, to stress the fact that this factor will be used.

CWiF drew a square around the A2A factor IIRC.

CWiF also shown the reduced range, and reduced A2A factor of FTR flying as bombers. I suppose that MWiF will do too.

Did someone told you already that these counters were splendid ? [:D]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I thought of adding a silhouette of a falling bomb somewhere (instead of a B). Placement next to the bombing factor in use would be best, but there might not always be enough room to the left of the air-to-sea factor (e.g., I-16 (SPB)).

Good idea, but isn't it a lot of extra work ?

Another idea I had this morning is to change the color of the range to gray to indicate that it is bombing.

Good idea. Simpler than the one before.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I thought of adding a silhouette of a falling bomb somewhere (instead of a B). Placement next to the bombing factor in use would be best, but there might not always be enough room to the left of the air-to-sea factor (e.g., I-16 (SPB)).

Good idea, but isn't it a lot of extra work ?

Another idea I had this morning is to change the color of the range to gray to indicate that it is bombing.

Good idea. Simpler than the one before.

I think I'll go with making the range gray. I already have code that does that for the artillery. And this solution is the least intrusive on an already heavily congested counter.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I thought of adding a silhouette of a falling bomb somewhere (instead of a B). Placement next to the bombing factor in use would be best, but there might not always be enough room to the left of the air-to-sea factor (e.g., I-16 (SPB)).

Good idea, but isn't it a lot of extra work ?

Another idea I had this morning is to change the color of the range to gray to indicate that it is bombing.

Good idea. Simpler than the one before.

I think I'll go with making the range gray. I already have code that does that for the artillery. And this solution is the least intrusive on an already heavily congested counter.

Here is what it looks like using the range colored gray. I think it is easy to see which are bombers & fighters, without having to read the text (though that can be a help if you don't remember what the colors indicate). Notice the US units at the bottom.

[Mad Russian]

One thing we did was to allow the creation of 3 airbases per nationality.

That allowed places, like Malta, which wasn't a city or a port, to then base air units as was done historically. You had to buy them and it took a turn to build them. That might be something to consider in the game as well.

This is probably not the place to put this. Sorry for not posting in the right spot.

Good Hunting.

MR

[bredsjomagnus]

This is mayby a stupid question but what does the 2(-1), 1(-2) etc mean under the units?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

This is mayby a stupid question but what does the 2(-1), 1(-2) etc mean under the units?

Look like : Sea Box section (Shore bombardment penalty)

Sea Box section : from 0 to 4
Shore bombardment penalty : from 0 to NA, passing by -1 & -2.

Sea box section 4 / shore bombardment 0
Sea box section 3 / shore bombardment 0
Sea box section 2 / shore bombardment -1
Sea box section 1 / shore bombardment -2
Sea box section 0 / shore bombardment NA

[bredsjomagnus]

Ok. Thanks.

[chacal83000]

Steve,
For me your solution seems perfectly clear and easy. The grey cicles arent' used elsewhere for air units if i remember well WiF so it's a good idea. The small text will just remember it at the beggining for those not yet used with the game. IMO it's good this way.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: bredsjomagnus

This is mayby a stupid question but what does the 2(-1), 1(-2) etc mean under the units?

Look like : Sea Box section (Shore bombardment penalty)

Sea Box section : from 0 to 4
Shore bombardment penalty : from 0 to NA, passing by -1 & -2.

Sea box section 4 / shore bombardment 0
Sea box section 3 / shore bombardment 0
Sea box section 2 / shore bombardment -1
Sea box section 1 / shore bombardment -2
Sea box section 0 / shore bombardment NA

Yes.

Perhaps only the 0 through 4 are essentail, (if I made that change I could add the word Sect in front of the number), but I think players will quickly learn that these are section box numbers and bombardment 'penalties'. If you loook at all the surface ships shown in the screen shot, you'll see that knowing the effect on the bombardment number is useful information: it isn't too hard to add up the total bombardment factors (lower right corner). Japan has 6 bombardment points available (before the air-to-air combat and naval air attack). The US has 7.

[macgregor]

I just want to say thank you Steve. It's obvious that this game is going to be to PC games what the boardgame was to boardgames -only much better because now married guys can play too. If I've insinuated that I thought it was an embellished version of CWiF, the stunning screenshots I've seen have shattered that notion. This is your baby now. I've been impatient and perhaps even a bit impetuous (moi?)but I'm as exited as anyone now. The non-perils and cashews are a bit stale but I can always get some more. Our man in Philly is pumped as well.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I just want to say thank you Steve. It's obvious that this game is going to be to PC games what the boardgame was to boardgames -only much better because now married guys can play too. If I've insinuated that I thought it was an embellished version of CWiF, the stunning screenshots I've seen have shattered that notion. This is your baby now. I've been impatient and perhaps even a bit impetuous (moi?)but I'm as exited as anyone now. The non-perils and cashews are a bit stale but I can always get some more. Our man in Philly is pumped as well.

Our man in Philly? The guitarist?[&:] Sadly I can not recall his name.[:(] You are still in contact?