Units, Scenarios, Options, and Add-ons

[Mziln]

[:D] I ripped them from Patrice's (Froonp) site [:D]

Polif is referenced in 22.4.1 Divisions (AsA/MiF/PoliF option 2) and...

19.12 The Ukraine (option 62)

PoliF: Rumania goes 4 levels (modified by barriers as necessary) towards the other side.

[boneyman1769]

I like the idea of first level fow.

As for second level fow, I must agree with a previous reply, invisible units? YUCK! no, thanks.

[Froonp]

Hello,

Which reminds me. On the topic of artistic rendering of the units, CWIF was very faithful to WiF. They look good to me. Does anyone want to see changes made to the units, or are the WiF unit depictions ok?

I disagree, because CWiF counters generaly were good looking except for Planes & Ships.
One thing which is the most beautiful in WiF FE is the counters, especialy the planes & ships, and I would have prefered if the CWiF counters had look the same as the real ones. With a pretty tiny plane, but very recognisable, silhouette

Regards

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Hello,

Which reminds me. On the topic of artistic rendering of the units, CWIF was very faithful to WiF. They look good to me. Does anyone want to see changes made to the units, or are the WiF unit depictions ok?

I disagree, because CWiF counters generaly were good looking except for Planes & Ships.
One thing which is the most beautiful in WiF FE is the counters, especialy the planes & ships, and I would have prefered if the CWiF counters had look the same as the real ones. With a pretty tiny plane, but very recognisable, silhouette

Regards

You're right, I hadn't noticed but CWIF uses the counters as they appear in the earlier editions of WiF, not the PiF counters. I will look into making them match the PiF and SiF. It might not be doable given the limited number of pixels available, but it would sure be nice.

[Froonp]

It might not be doable given the limited number of pixels available, but it would sure be nice.

Chris said at the time of CWiF testing that he couldn't put the high definition PiF & SiF counters into CWiF because of the limited number of pixels used by the counters.
I always hoped this would change, as Chris was saying that graphics should be improved in the final CWiF version.

[macgregor]

I kinda agree with Froonp Steve. Though there may be more than one way to attack it. When a unit is examined, perhaps a nice plate drawing could be visible. If I had my way I'd like plate drawings showing planes,ships and even uniforms and tanks in the WiFFE-style artwork. Though I don't see why the counter should have to drag all those graphics around with it. I'm sure if there was a way to add this on wif fans would eventually do this work for you -as I wouldn't want it to bog down the release.

At the very least, you coud make the units larger when examined. CWif allows you to zoom the map but not the examined units.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I kinda agree with Froonp Steve. Though there may be more than one way to attack it. When a unit is examined, perhaps a nice plate drawing could be visible. If I had my way I'd like plate drawings showing planes,ships and even uniforms and tanks in the WiFFE-style artwork. Though I don't see why the counter should have to drag all those graphics around with it. I'm sure if there was a way to add this on wif fans would eventually do this work for you -as I wouldn't want it to bog down the release.

At the very least, you coud make the units larger when examined. CWif allows you to zoom the map but not the examined units.

Good point. I am looking for advice from this group on not only counter depiction but also the other stuff related to uniforms, armored vehicles, and the like. This is not a commitment to include them in the game, but I would like to have everyone's opinion on adding the extra splash. One possiblity would be to let players insert their own graphics as bitmaps.

Doing a better rendering using more pixels when a unit is selected is also a good idea. I don't know how much labor would be required by the artist - this is outside my area of expertise. If enough people think it a great idea, then I can investigate it further.

[Froonp]

If enough people think it a great idea, then I can investigate it further.

I think it is a good idea, but I would hate it if it postponed the game by months [;)]

[Caranorn]

Okay a lot of replies as I'm trying to catch up.

I'm mostly looking at this from the point of view of Modding the game.

CSV files should work very well to that effect for unit ID, type and values.

It would be nice if place names (preferably all strings) could similarily use separate CSV or text files. Hardcoding these can lead to unexpected results in modding.

Likewise any other map data should preferably be handled in a form easy to modify by the players. That is for instance factories and resources, enabling players to add or remove them etc.

The map itself I feel should be moddable via standard graphic programs, definitelly no need to include a specific map editor (or game editor). If the main part of the map is not moddable then what I'd call map features (factories, resources, railroads, cities, ports...) should preferably be treated separately (essentially as a layer). That way one could alter a CSV or text file to add/remove such features (as is often possible in Paradox's games).

Counter art should be moddable, possibly giving each unit type (armour, mechanised, infantry, motorised, etc.) its own unique ID with separate graphic files (some standard format again). Possibly enable small sprites (I wouldn't use them, but some might) to be used instead of the usual counter graphics. It would be good of course if a few additional unit type slots could be left for those among us who would wish to add new ones (though this might be impossible due to the force pool system, or much more complex then needed).

So as much moddable material and as little hardcoded ones as possible is what I'd prefer to see. Though I could easily live with what you have proposed so far.

Marc aka Caran...

P.S.: A simple fog of war option might work, but the second more complex one you listed woudl probably go well beyond the scope of WiF and would not really be compatible with the game as it exists now.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
On the topic of artistic rendering of the units, CWIF was very faithful to WiF. They look good to me. Does anyone want to see changes made to the units, or are the WiF unit depictions ok?

I disagree strongly. Every screenshot you post with original CWiF counters will work against sales. Like it or not we live in an eye-candy universe and there is a minimum bar for graphics for which IMHO CWiF doesn't make the grade. If you do decide to stay with the old graphics then put in a Help key which displays a pop-up screen with better graphic and a brief actual history of the selected air/naval unit.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Caranorn

Counter art should be moddable, possibly giving each unit type (armour, mechanised, infantry, motorised, etc.) its own unique ID with separate graphic files (some standard format again). Possibly enable small sprites (I wouldn't use them, but some might) to be used instead of the usual counter graphics. It would be good of course if a few additional unit type slots could be left for those among us who would wish to add new ones (though this might be impossible due to the force pool system, or much more complex then needed).

CWIF uses sprites for terrain and I have an idea how players could replace the underlying terrain with their own if they want to. This would not apply to the shape of coastlines which I hope to have uniquely tailored for each coastal hex. What I might be able to provide for modifying coastal hexes is the ability to replace the land portion of the image - leaving the ocean portion untouched.

The unit graphics are more complicated. There are a lot of numbers to display and very little real estate on which to do it (i.e., very few pixels). The background colors could be easily made available for modification as could the center icon (x for infantry, / for cavalry). I don't want this to bog down development though. I believe most players have little, if any, interest in changing the artistic renderings since it would require so much work on their part. What I will probably try to achieve is a clean design that is open to modifications in the future. More capability for modifications might have to wait for version 2 (I don't want to think about that - it hurts my head - let's just get this puppy done).

[Froonp]

The unit graphics are more complicated. There are a lot of numbers to display and very little real estate on which to do it (i.e., very few pixels). The background colors could be easily made available for modification as could the center icon (x for infantry, / for cavalry). I don't want this to bog down development though. I believe most players have little, if any, interest in changing the artistic renderings since it would require so much work on their part. What I will probably try to achieve is a clean design that is open to modifications in the future. More capability for modifications might have to wait for version 2 (I don't want to think about that - it hurts my head - let's just get this puppy done).

Please, no bizarre icons for units in MWiF, no man with a rifle, no tank, please give us the normal OTAN symbols we all like and know.

However, I'm seduced by the idea of seeing a bigger image of a counter under some circumstances, and by nice graphics when you select it or else.

I'm also seduced by a feature that would show the real life history of the unit if any, and also would show the WiF history of the unit [:)] Like "The XXX armored corps participated in the rush to the Rhine in 1944", or, the "XLVII panzerkorps participated to the breakthrough in France 40, then to the rush into Ukraine in 1942, in the Siege of Rostov in 1942 and in the Rush to Baku in 1943" sort of thing.

I'd also like the game to log everything that happen in the game, in an interface that you could filter to see only naval events, air events, land events, political events, etc... This would be good to give game reports to friends.

Well, dreaming....

Patrice

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greyshaft

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
On the topic of artistic rendering of the units, CWIF was very faithful to WiF. They look good to me. Does anyone want to see changes made to the units, or are the WiF unit depictions ok?

I disagree strongly. Every screenshot you post with original CWiF counters will work against sales. Like it or not we live in an eye-candy universe and there is a minimum bar for graphics for which IMHO CWiF doesn't make the grade. If you do decide to stay with the old graphics then put in a Help key which displays a pop-up screen with better graphic and a brief actual history of the selected air/naval unit.

Now this is serious. After all this long wait for MWIF I don't want to release something that gets immediately dumped on by the critics. In the past I learned that reviewers are weird people. They tend to fixate on some small part of a game and ignore the other 98%. What you get is some of them hate a game for all the wrong reasons and some of them love a game for all the wrong reasons. I found it to be a mind rape to read reviews - "what game are they writing about?"

So, I don't want ugly graphics, where ugly is in the eye of the beholder. To that end I think we have a reasonable plan for making the map very nice. But the units? If we produce unit art that this group likes, then I am willing to go with that.

What we might have to do is have two versions of unit rendering. A small one would be for seeing 4 units in a hex (I wrote about that in an earlier post). The small one could be comparable to what was used in CWIF. A large one could have more pixels available to make it look nice. It would only be viewable as the top unit in a stack of units in a hex, and then only at higher resolution. This would be more work but not a lot. Remember that unit rendering does not affect game play at all, so it has almost no interaction with all the rest of the program.

[Froonp]

To that end I think we have a reasonable plan for making the map very nice. But the units? If we produce unit art that this group likes, then I am willing to go with that.

Man, if you want good looking counters, just take the WiF FE counters, they are the prettiest of all the counters of all the wargame world [:D]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

To that end I think we have a reasonable plan for making the map very nice. But the units? If we produce unit art that this group likes, then I am willing to go with that.

Man, if you want good looking counters, just take the WiF FE counters, they are the prettiest of all the counters of all the wargame world [:D]

Good, I think so too, based on my limited knowledge. So, I give the artist the WiF Final Edition counters as the design specification for what the units should look like on the screen.

There are 8 levels of map resolution in CWIF, from 25% through 200% in increments of 25%. I am thinking of using the CWIF unit depictions at resolutions 25% trhrough 125%. At the three higher resolutions the player could choose between: (1) 4 units visible in a hex using the small unit graphic or (2) one unit visible (the top one in the stack) using a large unit graphic. This large unit graphic would give the artist 50% more pixels to work with to make the units look nice. As in CWIF, the player could quickly leaf through all the units in a stack, getting the nice large graphic displayed.

In addition, I like Rob Crandall's idea of a popup panel that gives more detail on a unit. This could include historical information and other glitz that is immaterial to game play.

I am drifting into the realm of interface design and I want to leave that for a future thread, so I'll stop here.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

I'd also like the game to log everything that happen in the game, in an interface that you could filter to see only naval events, air events, land events, political events, etc... This would be good to give game reports to friends.

Well, dreaming....

Patrice

Even back in 1985, when I wrote my last computer wargame, I maintained a history of all the moves in the game so the players could replay the game. Rob Crandall had prepared a detailed methodology for how to implement one for MWIF. I expect to include something along those lines in MWIF for a whole host of reasons; one of which is to test any changes to the program to make sure they don't destroy previous functionality. This is a future thread though.

[Caranorn]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

To that end I think we have a reasonable plan for making the map very nice. But the units? If we produce unit art that this group likes, then I am willing to go with that.

Man, if you want good looking counters, just take the WiF FE counters, they are the prettiest of all the counters of all the wargame world [:D]

Agreed Patrice, the WiF FE graphics should at least be the basis for MWiF's graphics. That is to say NATO style (no game uses exact NATO symbology, few among us would understand it) for land units, a very limited number of ship silhouettes for naval units and a large number of aircraft images for air units...

Though I think an alternative should also exist for people with other tastes, but obviously such alternatives should come after gameplay.

Marc aka Caran...

[macgregor]

To chime in on the 'fog of war' issue, I would offer two options. Based on how you decide to handle this PBEM, one would be for units behind the front to undergo a check. Provided there was going to be some sort of air superiority calculation, this could be factored in as well as weather,maybe even aircraft range. The game 'Operational Art of War' seems to handle this well, allowing varying degrees of reconaissance from simply knowing there's a unit to unit type, and ultimately exact unit info. The other option would be for units behind the lines to be visible only by type, or even by existence alone. This is new territory for WiF, but if done right could be a tremendous asset.

[boneyman1769]

I am throwing in for the WIF FE counters as the minimum basis for the counters.

For display purposes could you use a slanted stack? This would show the counter on top and then the edge of each additional counter. Run the mouse pointer down the side and as each edge is touched a new counter shows on top.

Maybe another option would be that when the mouse pointer is over a hex a popup appears showing what is in the hex.

Is counter stacking going to be Air, Land, Sea or will another approach be used?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: boneyman1769
For display purposes could you use a slanted stack? This would show the counter on top and then the edge of each additional counter. Run the mouse pointer down the side and as each edge is touched a new counter shows on top.

Maybe another option would be that when the mouse pointer is over a hex a popup appears showing what is in the hex.

Is counter stacking going to be Air, Land, Sea or will another approach be used?

Again, to bring you (and others who haven't seen the CWIF beta version) up to speed on what already exists.

In CWIF
When more than one unit is in a hex, they are stacked with the top unit visible and the others underneath it; the others are visible as almost a shadow effect taken at 1:00 PM. You cannot click on the shadow for it is way too small. Also, for naval units in a major port, there might be 20 units in a stack. At the top of the stack is a number indicating how many units are in the stack. At the bottom of the screen is a panel containing a complete list of the units in the hex underneath the cursor. That panel is updated as the cursor moves.

If you right click on the top unit of a stack, a popup menu appears, (under the cursor!), with whatever are the current options for that unit. The cleverness is that the first item on the popup menu is to place the top unit on the bottom of the stack thereby moving the next unit to the top of the stack (and therefore visible). Because it is the first menu choice, all you have to do is left click to select it and the next unit is visible. In practice this means that you right click then left click to leaf through the units in a stack. It works a lot faster and cleaner than I can explain it with text.

You always have the complete list of units in the hex at the bottom of the screen and you can use that panel to pick one out rather than leafing through them all. I actually like this design but would rather leave a fuller discussion to a future thread on interface design.