MWIF Game Interface Design

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: caine

Why forts are unlimited under the column available for US screenshot? They should not.

In GE screenshot there are no fort to be built !

Santi

The Germans have more unit types available to build than will fit on the screen. The scroll bar will get you to the forts.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: caine

Why forts are unlimited under the column available for US screenshot? They should not.

In GE screenshot there are no fort to be built !

Santi

For generic unit types, MWIF does not have any limits imposed by available counters: convoys, pilots, factories, forts, ...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: gridley

Again, very nice form.

From your german screen, lets say I were to click build for a random mech unit. Then I were to change my mind and click unbuild. Then...change my mind again and decide I actually want a Mech Unit. The second time I click Build is it random again or do I get the same unit that was built initially?

'cause, you know, I don't trust anyone...especially my Buddies[;)]

The actual unit is not selected until you click on OK - Done. You can mess around with build and Undo as much as you like.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: gridley

Again, very nice form.

From your german screen, lets say I were to click build for a random mech unit. Then I were to change my mind and click unbuild. Then...change my mind again and decide I actually want a Mech Unit. The second time I click Build is it random again or do I get the same unit that was built initially?

'cause, you know, I don't trust anyone...especially my Buddies[;)]

When you build units, you don't see the details about this unit, and the remaining units become blank, so you can't know what you built, until you have finished building.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: caine
Why forts are unlimited under the column available for US screenshot? They should not.

For generic unit types, MWIF does not have any limits imposed by available counters: convoys, pilots, factories, forts, ...

The Forts were limited in WiF because of the countermix limitations. Would you have bought a countersheets with infinite forts ? There is no reason for a computer game to keep the limitation, why would you limit the ability of any country to build forts ? They are not free after all, so if Germany wants to build forts all year long, so much so good.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: gridley

Again, very nice form.

From your german screen, lets say I were to click build for a random mech unit. Then I were to change my mind and click unbuild. Then...change my mind again and decide I actually want a Mech Unit. The second time I click Build is it random again or do I get the same unit that was built initially?

'cause, you know, I don't trust anyone...especially my Buddies[;)]

The actual unit is not selected until you click on OK - Done. You can mess around with build and Undo as much as you like.

Hey, I just got an idea.

Would it be possible to have 2 "OK - Done" buttons.
One that validate all the choices and actually select units, AND exit the form. It could be labelled : "OK, DONE".
One that validate all the choices and actually select units, AND DOES NOT exit the form. It could be labelled : "OK, I'm done, show me what I built".

Because it is a pain to be forced to go into the various pools after you have selected OK in the production form to actually see what you built (also, you can't go into the production form directly from the menu when you have exited it).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: gridley

Again, very nice form.

From your german screen, lets say I were to click build for a random mech unit. Then I were to change my mind and click unbuild. Then...change my mind again and decide I actually want a Mech Unit. The second time I click Build is it random again or do I get the same unit that was built initially?

'cause, you know, I don't trust anyone...especially my Buddies[;)]

The actual unit is not selected until you click on OK - Done. You can mess around with build and Undo as much as you like.

Hey, I just got an idea.

Would it be possible to have 2 "OK - Done" buttons.
One that validate all the choices and actually select units, AND exit the form. It could be labelled : "OK, DONE".
One that validate all the choices and actually select units, AND DOES NOT exit the form. It could be labelled : "OK, I'm done, show me what I built".

Because it is a pain to be forced to go into the various pools after you have selected OK in the production form to actually see what you built (also, you can't go into the production form directly from the menu when you have exited it).

Rather than 2 buttons, I think just following up the close of this form with a depiction of what was actually built would be a good idea (all the time).

[willycube]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what the aftermath of an air-to-air cmobat looks like.

At teh bottom are all the units that particiapted in the combat and received a result. Only one unit was destroyed, and 3 of the 4 bombers (their range numbers are in gray) that were cleared through did so because all the US fighters had been destroyed or aborted. There is a list of the odds, die rolls, and results in the little table. That's so players can bemoan their bad luck, supported by statistics.

The second screen shot shows the result of those 4 bombers trying to ground strike the Australian motorized infantry. Now I bet you are wondering why so much air power was expended, by both sides, on such an insignificant task/goal. Well, I had asked the beta testers to hammer away at ground strikes, in particular testing how well the code worked for carrier air units performing those missions.

In the above illustration in round 3 it said the pilot was killed I would imagine the plane was lost to, but there are no destroyed axis planes just abort and cleared, now maybe the above is round two and round three is not shown, need some help on that one.

Willy

[Missouri Rebel]

Might I ask why so much of the text is in light grey/pale blue? I have excellent eyesight and it is difficult even for me to read. In the pic above, the field in the middle left where it says Fighter Flying as fighter is an example of what I am talking about. That same color choice appears all over this form and others and I cringe at the thought of the many instances where I will have to deal with it.

mo reb

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: willycube

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is what the aftermath of an air-to-air cmobat looks like.

At teh bottom are all the units that particiapted in the combat and received a result. Only one unit was destroyed, and 3 of the 4 bombers (their range numbers are in gray) that were cleared through did so because all the US fighters had been destroyed or aborted. There is a list of the odds, die rolls, and results in the little table. That's so players can bemoan their bad luck, supported by statistics.

The second screen shot shows the result of those 4 bombers trying to ground strike the Australian motorized infantry. Now I bet you are wondering why so much air power was expended, by both sides, on such an insignificant task/goal. Well, I had asked the beta testers to hammer away at ground strikes, in particular testing how well the code worked for carrier air units performing those missions.

In the above illustration in round 3 it said the pilot was killed I would imagine the plane was lost to, but there are no destroyed axis planes just abort and cleared, now maybe the above is round two and round three is not shown, need some help on that one.

Willy

When the Axis rolls the die, it is Allied units that 'suffer' the consequences. And vice-a-versa.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

Might I ask why so much of the text is in light grey/pale blue? I have excellent eyesight and it is difficult even for me to read. In the pic above, the field in the middle left where it says Fighter Flying as fighter is an example of what I am talking about. That same color choice appears all over this form and others and I cringe at the thought of the many instances where I will have to deal with it.

mo reb

When you say "all over this form", am I to interpret that as referring to just the two Unit Data Panels? Or did you mean elsewhere too?

[Missouri Rebel]

I am speaking of the Unit Data Panels. Any form that shows these have this hard to read text. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

mo reb

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

I am speaking of the Unit Data Panels. Any form that shows these have this hard to read text. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

mo reb

I'll look at the color choices in the Unit Data panels. Those are all from CWIF - I don't think I have changed them very much, if at all.

Bold is always easier to read but it takes more room (which it has been pared down to the individual pixel in those forms). The other problem is that there are 6 different layouts for those forms, by branch of service and for showing summary statistics. I have reworked the layouts multiple times, so I won't be doing that again.

But I might be able to do something with the colors, ...

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For instance, during a land combat resolution phase, the attacking player (phasing side) advances after combat and overruns some naval units. The "player to decide" changes to the player who controls the naval units and he excutes an overrun digression to rebase his naval units. While moving his naval units they enter a sea area where the phasing side can intercept them. The interception succeeds and a naval combat ensues. A naval air combat is chosen and one of the subphases of that is an air-to-air combat. The question is: which side is the attacking side in the air-to-air combat? The program figures this out, but when I was writing the code to build the table, I foulnd it much simlper to just always put the Axis die rolls in the odd rows and the Allies in the even rows.

By the way, I simplified my example enormously and left out a half dozen other places in that little sequence of play where the person who decides can change (e.g., naval air support, surprise points, choosing sea box sections included, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Page 1 of 2.

I spent some time this afternoon spiffing up the Production form.

Here is the US at the start of the war. They have 10 build points available and their gearing limit is 1 per type - because they are still neutral.

If it's the first turn of the scenario, there are no gearing limits for anybody. After that, the gearing is as per the previous turn plus 1, unless DoW'd.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Page 1 of 2.

I spent some time this afternoon spiffing up the Production form.

Here is the US at the start of the war. They have 10 build points available and their gearing limit is 1 per type - because they are still neutral.

Why would you want to view the Scrap Pool unless you were thinking of scrapping units. Should that button have a different label?

Maybe "Scrap Units?"

[paulderynck]

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).

[paulderynck]

Also the gearing types should be clustered together - or can you click the headings to sort by that column?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For instance, during a land combat resolution phase, the attacking player (phasing side) advances after combat and overruns some naval units. The "player to decide" changes to the player who controls the naval units and he excutes an overrun digression to rebase his naval units. While moving his naval units they enter a sea area where the phasing side can intercept them. The interception succeeds and a naval combat ensues. A naval air combat is chosen and one of the subphases of that is an air-to-air combat. The question is: which side is the attacking side in the air-to-air combat? The program figures this out, but when I was writing the code to build the table, I foulnd it much simlper to just always put the Axis die rolls in the odd rows and the Allies in the even rows.

By the way, I simplified my example enormously and left out a half dozen other places in that little sequence of play where the person who decides can change (e.g., naval air support, surprise points, choosing sea box sections included, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

For MWIF I have redefined the 'attacker' in naval interception combat to be the side that provokes the combat; that is, the side that moved ships into the sea area.

This seems more logical to me given that naval interception combat can occur in some pretty strange places during the end-of-turn phases (e.g., naval units forced to rebase because of conquest).

I was also unhappy with the phasing side always being the 'attacker' when naval units from both sides might abort from a naval combat and have moving ships that 'provoke' a naval interception combat. For example, according to WIF FE, Ax and Al both abort from a naval combat and both are intercepted on their way back to port (in different sea areas), but the 'attacker' is always the phasing side, regardless of which side is moving and which side is intercepting. This is particularly difficult for me to swallow during a land movement phase where the naval interception sequence of events was initiated by an overrun.

I have documented this fully in Section 7 of the Players Manual.
---
This is all fairly minor stuff and extremely unlikely to occur.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For instance, during a land combat resolution phase, the attacking player (phasing side) advances after combat and overruns some naval units. The "player to decide" changes to the player who controls the naval units and he excutes an overrun digression to rebase his naval units. While moving his naval units they enter a sea area where the phasing side can intercept them. The interception succeeds and a naval combat ensues. A naval air combat is chosen and one of the subphases of that is an air-to-air combat. The question is: which side is the attacking side in the air-to-air combat? The program figures this out, but when I was writing the code to build the table, I foulnd it much simlper to just always put the Axis die rolls in the odd rows and the Allies in the even rows.

By the way, I simplified my example enormously and left out a half dozen other places in that little sequence of play where the person who decides can change (e.g., naval air support, surprise points, choosing sea box sections included, ...).

I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.

For MWIF I have redefined the 'attacker' in naval interception combat to be the side that provokes the combat; that is, the side that moved ships into the sea area.

This seems more logical to me given that naval interception combat can occur in some pretty strange places during the end-of-turn phases (e.g., naval units forced to rebase because of conquest).

I was also unhappy with the phasing side always being the 'attacker' when naval units from both sides might abort from a naval combat and have moving ships that 'provoke' a naval interception combat. For example, according to WIF FE, Ax and Al both abort from a naval combat and both are intercepted on their way back to port (in different sea areas), but the 'attacker' is always the phasing side, regardless of which side is moving and which side is intercepting. This is particularly difficult for me to swallow during a land movement phase where the naval interception sequence of events was initiated by an overrun.

I have documented this fully in Section 7 of the Players Manual.
---
This is all fairly minor stuff and extremely unlikely to occur.

Not major then, but the order of the appearance of the die rolls issue that Patrice mentioned needs documentation too (if not already). So that grognards aren't confused.