Stack depiction

[IKerensky_alt]

Looking at the AAR I noticed that with the new mapboard, wich is really nice, the number for the stack height become quite hard to read and doesnt stick out that much, making it a bit hard to see what is a multi unit stack and what is not in the front line.

Is there some provision to have the multi-unit stacks show a larger shadow than single unit one ?

[Joseignacio]

Is there a larger shadow?  No, seriously, I didn't see any the first time, and only carefully searching it could see it now.

[Anendrue]

Looking at this post from the Barbarossa AAR, I see the white number on black at the top of each stack quite well. Is this what you are talking about or is there a different change?

[IKerensky_alt]

You can see it, when you are looking for it. The trouble is that when you use a larger picture of the front all thoses symbols blur a bit and your mind have trouble visualising wich stack is smaller. By using the old trick of the enforced shadow it will be far more easy tolocate the single unit stack from the multiple unit ones. Such as to see when you have a single plane in the hex and when you have a FTR on top a 3 unit stack.

[Anendrue]

I know what you are getting at. Could you post a picture of what you are seeing at the different zoom level?

[Joseignacio]

Ok, I didn't know about the number. Now that I know it's evident.

Anyway, in the images of the AAR the units are focused very close, because very small portions of the map are shown. In a farther distance, which will be the usual, the numbers may not be seen.

As for the shadows, now I can see the greenish shadow is some kind of selection of units (like in the first image in http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2033408&mpage=2&key= , but I though initially it was a different way to show that they had other units stacked.

Nevertheless, I think it would be a good idea to show graphically a stack, with enough size for the "shadow" so that it can be appreciated from the a more distant zoom.

[Anendrue]

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Ok, I didn't know about the number. Now that I know it's evident.

Anyway, in the images of the AAR the units are focused very close, because very small portions of the map are shown. In a farther distance, which will be the usual, the numbers may not be seen.

As for the shadows, now I can see the greenish shadow is some kind of selection of units (like in the first image in http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2033408&mpage=2&key= , but I though initially it was a different way to show that they had other units stacked.

Nevertheless, I think it would be a good idea to show graphically a stack, with enough size for the "shadow" so that it can be appreciated from the a more distant zoom.

I agree an offset of the counters to show the stack would be nice. However, this was thouroughly discussed early on in the development process years ago. Someone correct me if I am wrong here but I believe the decision was "there is not enough room in the hexes and counters to get enough pixels available to do an offset". Unfortunately it would require a rewrite of the maps and probably the counters as well. I do not think at this late date it will happen. So hopefully MWiF is successful and "Product X" down the road will do so.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: abj9562

ORIGINAL: Joseignacio

Ok, I didn't know about the number. Now that I know it's evident.

Anyway, in the images of the AAR the units are focused very close, because very small portions of the map are shown. In a farther distance, which will be the usual, the numbers may not be seen.

As for the shadows, now I can see the greenish shadow is some kind of selection of units (like in the first image in http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2033408&mpage=2&key= , but I though initially it was a different way to show that they had other units stacked.

Nevertheless, I think it would be a good idea to show graphically a stack, with enough size for the "shadow" so that it can be appreciated from the a more distant zoom.

I agree an offset of the counters to show the stack would be nice. However, this was thouroughly discussed early on in the development process years ago. Someone correct me if I am wrong here but I believe the decision was "there is not enough room in the hexes and counters to get enough pixels available to do an offset". Unfortunately it would require a rewrite of the maps and probably the counters as well. I do not think at this late date it will happen. So hopefully MWiF is successful and "Product X" down the road will do so.

Yes.

More shadow means either: smaller units or larger hexes (fewer hexes visible on the screen). Neither of those sacrifices are justified just to increase the shadow. The status indicators take up the space that use to be allocated for increasing the shadow.

A single unit in a hex does not have the stack count top center above the unit, which makes it rather easy to see which hexes have only 1 unit.

[Joseignacio]

Ok, boys, if you have gone throgh this, I'll believe your conclusions. [:)][8D]

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
More shadow means either: smaller units or larger hexes (fewer hexes visible on the screen). Neither of those sacrifices are justified just to increase the shadow. The status indicators take up the space that use to be allocated for increasing the shadow.

I stumbled upon that old screenshot from June 2006, when the shadows of the stacks were projected on the top left, and were of different sizes for stacks of 1 counter, 2 counters or 3 and more counters.

I know that there is no room for a larger shadow currently, but why have it larger anyway for 3+ counters and have the shadow overflow in the next hex if it is too large, going under the stacks or counters that might be present in that next hex ?

It's just a suggestion, if it is too hard to implement or too dumb please ignore.

[Mike Parker]

What is the largest number of counters that could be in a hex (not counting ships).  two corps, a division and three planes?  I am not super up on the rules, but that seems to be 6.  So if you doubled the size of the 3 unit shadow it would be pretty big!

[IKerensky_alt]

And why not simply have 3 size shadow : 1 unit ( no shadow),  2 units ( small shadow ), 3+ units (large shadows) ?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

What is the largest number of counters that could be in a hex (not counting ships).  two corps, a division and three planes?  I am not super up on the rules, but that seems to be 6.  So if you doubled the size of the 3 unit shadow it would be pretty big!

My proposal was for 3 shasow sizes :
Size 1 : 1 unit
Size 2 : 2 units
Size 3 : 3+ units

So 6 units or 3 units would be the same.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

And why not simply have 3 size shadow : 1 unit ( no shadow),  2 units ( small shadow ), 3+ units (large shadows) ?

Single units need to have a shadow. This is much beautiful with a shadow than without.
This single unit shadow can be half the current one for example, but it need to be kept IMO.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
More shadow means either: smaller units or larger hexes (fewer hexes visible on the screen). Neither of those sacrifices are justified just to increase the shadow. The status indicators take up the space that use to be allocated for increasing the shadow.

I stumbled upon that old screenshot from June 2006, when the shadows of the stacks were projected on the top left, and were of different sizes for stacks of 1 counter, 2 counters or 3 and more counters.

I know that there is no room for a larger shadow currently, but why have it larger anyway for 3+ counters and have the shadow overflow in the next hex if it is too large, going under the stacks or counters that might be present in that next hex ?

It's just a suggestion, if it is too hard to implement or too dumb please ignore.

You apparently don't recall the dozens of posts complaining about having the shadows "in the wrong place".[8|] The consensus of the forum members was that the shadows 'had' to be on the right and below the counter image or else they would be 'wrong'.[:-] Any logic that I used to move them to top and left was considered irrelevant.[:@]

So I went with the flow.

[Mike Parker]

irrelevent or irreverent
 
but once Froonp said it was 1 2 or 3+ it makes a little sense..

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Mike Parker

irrelevent or irreverent

but once Froonp said it was 1 2 or 3+ it makes a little sense..

No spell checker available for forum posts.[;)]

Right now, the shadows are always the same, regardless of the number of units in the stack. I do not have room for even the 1, 2, 3+ variations.

Bear in mind that these would have to be worked out for all 8 levels of zoom (which I had done for the upper left, once upon a time, long, long ago).

[Orm]

I actually prefer it as it is now. With the shadow always the same regardless on how many units there are in the hex.

[Grapeshot Bob]

Personally, I like it the way it currently is.
 
 
GSB

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Grapeshot Bob

Personally, I like it the way it currently is.

I also like it the way it is now [:D], but was posting the idea that the shadow could overflow underneath the units of the next hex, so that room for it was made (in the next hex underneath any unit that would be there).

I also prefer the shadow on the lower right.