Unit Depictions on Screen

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The USA looks good.

I might lighten the interior color of the corps sized units - no, I guess not.

[Froonp]

The dark interior of the corps sized units need to be lightened a little.

Compared to the countersheets scans, I fell that the MAR & PARA need to be more green / blue respectively.
Here, they do not stand enough one from the other, and from the rest.
Compared to the scanned CS6, they are too pale.
And I always find that the red are not red enough.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The white lettering for the 7-3 is too hard to read. Note the outlining of the 7-3 to make it legible against the light background color

Frankly, I think that the color of the XXX and of the designation should be black all the time.
Who cares if it is not readable on dark counters ?
Just make it another color, red or white, for the black counters (Afghanistan, Belgium & SS units), as in the paper game. Who cares if the XXX & designation of those is written red on black ? Red on black is still readable.
But I would prefer if all the designatins & XXX of the same country were the same color, I find it ugly in the Chinese case that the white print has his designation & XXX white instead of black.

The outlining around the 7-3 is just great. Do not change that !!! [:D]

You were just looking at the Chinese unit size designation (XXX).

If you look at the other major powers you will see that using white lettering for the unit strength, movement, name, and size looks real good. The Chinese are a problem because of the light background. I would rather fix just that problem, than make a larger change that affects the other major powers. For example, the outlining you like is used for the Chinese, Italians, and French (I added the last to the list that Chris had) because of their light backgrounds. I could key off of that and use black print for the names and unit sizes (outlining won't work because the font is too small). Still pondering different ways to do this.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
In general, the USSR looks good.
There are the leaders with the long names to figure out a solution for.
Perhaps the center of the divisional units is too orange?

Definitely.

Perhaps the basic background color is too dark?

Should be more orange, and cleared for me (still comparing to the scans of the WiF FE countersheets). Difficult to say, but maybe the center of the div units can be tried for the background of the units ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

The dark interior of the corps sized units need to be lightened a little.

Compared to the countersheets scans, I fell that the MAR & PARA need to be more green / blue respectively.
Here, they do not stand enough one from the other, and from the rest.
Compared to the scanned CS6, they are too pale.
And I always find that the red are not red enough.

The scanned images you showed don't look quite like the counter sheets. On the counter sheets I am holding in my hand, the cavalry has a darker interior, and the marine units are more green and less yellow.

In the system of 24 bit color using RGB, red is set to 255 and G and B are set to 0. That's as red as the system gets. 24 bit color has 2 to the 24 different colors, so if you have a longing for something more red, I doubt that you will ever get it sated. I don't see the computer industry changing the number of color bits for the next couple of decades.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Frankly, I think that the color of the XXX and of the designation should be black all the time.
Who cares if it is not readable on dark counters ?
Just make it another color, red or white, for the black counters (Afghanistan, Belgium & SS units), as in the paper game. Who cares if the XXX & designation of those is written red on black ? Red on black is still readable.
But I would prefer if all the designatins & XXX of the same country were the same color, I find it ugly in the Chinese case that the white print has his designation & XXX white instead of black.
The outlining around the 7-3 is just great. Do not change that !!! [:D]

You were just looking at the Chinese unit size designation (XXX).

Yes indeed. I find this less ugly on the others. But prefers the same color [:)]. Anyway, not a problem, can live with both.

If you look at the other major powers you will see that using white lettering for the unit strength, movement, name, and size looks real good. The Chinese are a problem because of the light background. I would rather fix just that problem, than make a larger change that affects the other major powers. For example, the outlining you like is used for the Chinese, Italians, and French (I added the last to the list that Chris had) because of their light backgrounds. I could key off of that and use black print for the names and unit sizes (outlining won't work because the font is too small). Still pondering different ways to do this.

Yes, the outlining you added was just great.
Why not add it to everyone ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Should be more orange, and cleared for me (still comparing to the scans of the WiF FE countersheets). Difficult to say, but maybe the center of the div units can be tried for the background of the units ?

The scans of the counter sheets are not as good as the original counter sheets. That was one of the first things I arranged for, before even signing a contract with Matrix. I insisted on virgin copies of the game and all the add-ons (even though I already owned several copies) so that I could compare apples to apples as I worked on the code.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Yes, the outlining you added was just great.
Why not add it to everyone ?

[:D] Because I find it ugly. [:D][:D][:D] I only use it because I can't find a better solution.

[Froonp]

The scanned images you showed don't look quite like the counter sheets. On the counter sheets I am holding in my hand, the cavalry has a darker interior, and the marine units are more green and less yellow.

Its right that scans (especially red, I don't know why) are not exactly the same as the original.

In the system of 24 bit color using RGB, red is set to 255 and G and B are set to 0. That's as red as the system gets. 24 bit color has 2 to the 24 different colors, so if you have a longing for something more red, I doubt that you will ever get it sated. I don't see the computer industry changing the number of color bits for the next couple of decades.

Sure. Maybe adding some brightness ? Is it possible ?
Anyway, your Japanese counters are lovely, with the division square maybe too much orange, I forgot it in the previous post. Pale pink would be better, wouldn't it ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

And here is the last in my series of Xmas presents to the followers of this thread.

The Italians have the same problem as the French and Chinese for the elite units: their lettering is too faint against the light background.

The militia's M symbol for elite units has the same difficulty.

The infantry unit in the upper left and the mecahnized on the middle right have long names.

But, other than that, they look ok.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

In the system of 24 bit color using RGB, red is set to 255 and G and B are set to 0. That's as red as the system gets. 24 bit color has 2 to the 24 different colors, so if you have a longing for something more red, I doubt that you will ever get it sated. I don't see the computer industry changing the number of color bits for the next couple of decades.

Sure. Maybe adding some brightness ? Is it possible ?
Anyway, your Japanese counters are lovely, with the division square maybe too much orange, I forgot it in the previous post. Pale pink would be better, wouldn't it ?

Pink is an excellent idea for the Japanese divisional interiors.

The only way to add brightness is to introduce more of the G and B which will dilute the red. If we were using a CYMK coloring system, the K would allow for more brightness. Bitmapped graphics under Windows uses RGB. I don't want to go outside of that design envelope, if for no other reason than it increases the likelihood of system crashes.

[Froonp]

The only way to add brightness is to introduce more of the G and B which will dilute the red. If we were using a CYMK coloring system, the K would allow for more brightness. Bitmapped graphics under Windows uses RGB. I don't want to go outside of that design envelope, if for no other reason than it increases the likelihood of system crashes.

I know little about CYMK and this "K", but you are right to stay in your design enveloppe . Japanese units are beautiful, yes they are [:D]. I was only arguing for the sake of finding if you could try more red, and you told me that more red than 255 red was not possible [:D]. I'm pleased, and can't wait to move those Japanese Units all around !!!!!!!

[Glen Felzien]

Terrific job on the units Steve. Regarding some of your questions:

Yes. The Russian interiors are too orange. The basic colour is perfect however.

The US interior colour is perfect.

Regarding the Chinese and maybe others too, for the white print combat/movement factors, maybe black or gray "shadowing" to help make the numbers more visible.

A couple questions from me:

The French blue is the same as the rivers. Is the river colour fixed? Can it be shaded a little darker? Will there be an option to view the map without the units during any point in thegame?

Is this the actual scale of the units vis-a-vie the map hexes? Should the units actually extend beyond the top hex borders?

Finally, the map looks really good with these unit colours. The decision to keep the map colours slightly muted (almost pastel) was well made. The unit colours really do standout in a crisp way. Remember my brain terrain comment? Although I think the use of greys for it on the paper map was brutal (sry but for me it really was dsitracting from a map that was already over the top) I think that maybe the mountain hexes do need some texture added to them. All the other hexes have some super texture patterns to help break up the solid block. but the mountains are too "much". Does this make sense?

Ok, looked at those mountain hexes again and yes there is indeed texture to them. I missed it the first time. Maybe it is just my eyes. I think there ought to be more just to "break it up" some more. Italy look very solid otherwise. Bah, I am sure it i just my eyes.

Frankly, the overall effect of units and map looks very good.

[scout1]

Shannon,

This isn't specific to the unit counters/color scheme, but can influence how clear they are when viewed.

One feature that I've come to relly like in SSG's Decisive Battless Series (Battles in Normandy and Battles in Italy) is a hot key that basically produces a magnifying glass that use can move across the map. This is helpful as you don't have to change the scale of the map (which you can't really do in those game engines) and still can get a clean/clear look at the map pieces.

Even though the computerized version of WiF has mutliple view factors (I think as I new to the game itself), this would be a nice feature to have. Just wanted to pass along the suggestion.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Glen Felzien
1 - Yes. The Russian interiors are too orange. The basic colour is perfect however.

2 - Regarding the Chinese and maybe others too, for the white print combat/movement factors, maybe black or gray "shadowing" to help make the numbers more visible.

3 - The French blue is the same as the rivers. Is the river colour fixed? Can it be shaded a little darker?

4 - Will there be an option to view the map without the units during any point in thegame?

5 - Is this the actual scale of the units vis-a-vie the map hexes? Should the units actually extend beyond the top hex borders?

6 - Finally, the map looks really good with these unit colours. The decision to keep the map colours slightly muted (almost pastel) was well made. The unit colours really do standout in a crisp way. Remember my brain terrain comment? Although I think the use of greys for it on the paper map was brutal (sry but for me it really was dsitracting from a map that was already over the top) I think that maybe the mountain hexes do need some texture added to them. All the other hexes have some super texture patterns to help break up the solid block. but the mountains are too "much". Does this make sense?

Ok, looked at those mountain hexes again and yes there is indeed texture to them. I missed it the first time. Maybe it is just my eyes. I think there ought to be more just to "break it up" some more. Italy look very solid otherwise. Bah, I am sure it i just my eyes.

I am glad you like the map/units. Now if I can just gather another 100,000 people who do too, things will be rosy indeed.

1 - added to my task list

2 - there aren't enough pixels available for outlining such a small font.

3 - The rivers haven't been modified from CWIF at all. They will look like the ones from the board game when we are done. Essentially, the artist is creating a separate overlay for rivers that I will draw on top of the other terrain.

4 - Removing all the units from view is done with a single mouse click - a simple toggle. I want to add the ability to filter which units are shown on the screen. For example, just the air units when looking at strategic bombing, or only the HQs, or only the armor capable units (armor, mechanized, AT, etc.). I do not have the details worked out for how to enable that. There are other things that have to be decided and implemented first.

5 - Yes. Yes. Bigger units are easier to see. What you have on the screen in front of you is much bigger than what you will see when playing - roughly double the size of the highest resolution possible in the game.

6 - Right now there is one bitmap for each terrain type. I want to expand that to 6 or more for terrain that appears frequently within the area where the land battles commonly occur (western USSR, France, China, North Africa, the Balkans). For example, a 2 hex by 3 hex pattern from which I can cut individual terrain hexes. There are technical details about doing this, which I don't want to go into here. The end result should be a map that is less boring. I also still have under review the entire issue of what each terrain type looks like. They definitely won't be finalized until after the play testers try them out playing through a game.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: scout1
Shannon,

This isn't specific to the unit counters/color scheme, but can influence how clear they are when viewed.

One feature that I've come to relly like in SSG's Decisive Battless Series (Battles in Normandy and Battles in Italy) is a hot key that basically produces a magnifying glass that use can move across the map. This is helpful as you don't have to change the scale of the map (which you can't really do in those game engines) and still can get a clean/clear look at the map pieces.

Even though the computerized version of WiF has mutliple view factors (I think as I new to the game itself), this would be a nice feature to have. Just wanted to pass along the suggestion.

There should be one of these little circle faces that makes the sign of the cross to ward off evil.

I know about the ability to create a magnifying effect and have read some code about how to implement it on 24 bit color bitmaps. So, it is definitely doable, even by me. But adding this task on top of so many current ones, isn't going to happen. The real problem with additions is not the addition in and of itself but the interaction of the addition to all the other capabilities. This applies to the game simulation and (as in this case) to the interface design. It has also come up in the past week when I added different colors for divisional units.

What MWIF will provide for viewing units on the screen is much more robust than most war games. 8 levels of zoom, 3 levels of unit resolution that can be tuned by the player to align with the zoom levels. A global map and a linked detail map that the player can use in combination to jump around from China to Eurpoe to the Eastern US coastline at a single mouse click. Multiple detailed maps viewable simultaneously on the screen.

I also intend to add the ability of the player to save detailed map settings: which portion of the map is visible on the screen at what zoom level and what unit resolution level. The intent here is that the player can have a setting for the war in Russia, in China, strategically bombing Britain, North Africa, Italy, etc.. These settings are limitless in number and the player can redefine them whenever he wants. Simply clicking on a defined map setting redraws the detailed map on the screen. You can use this feature to have multiple views of a battelfield available: (1) the whole eastern front, (2) the area around Moscow in high resolution, (3) the area around Rostov and the Caucasus in medium resolution, or (4) a half a dozen more concerning tactical bombers flying ground strikes - (5) whatever.

I am trying to replace the ability the player has over the board of seeing the entire world on a 25 foot square paper map. That isn't easy with a 17 inch monitor. I'm working at it, but magnifying only a portion of the screen with a moving cursor - no way!

[scout1]

I am trying to replace the ability the player has over the board of seeing the entire world on a 25 foot square paper map. That isn't easy with a 17 inch monitor. I'm working at it, but magnifying only a portion of the screen with a moving cursor - no way!

I'm assuming this is NOT the only way to drill down and see things. There are (presumably) others. Just that this is another method for a small given portion of the map. One thing I've learned about presenting information is it is beat to present the SAME information in many different approach as not ONE method work for everyone.
The Decisive Battle series also has a preety clean method for deisplaying the frontlines on a strategic map as well.

Do what you want, but just thought you might like to hear about "other" approaches as well. I've found in the past that the UI is BIG part of any game, and NO one approach seems to hit on all cylinders. "Different strokes for different folks".

Anyways, as your post clearly points out, you apparently aren't looking for input other than what you've already decided on, I'll just haunt the forum and look forward to a great game coming out in the future ....

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: scout1

I am trying to replace the ability the player has over the board of seeing the entire world on a 25 foot square paper map. That isn't easy with a 17 inch monitor. I'm working at it, but magnifying only a portion of the screen with a moving cursor - no way!

I'm assuming this is NOT the only way to drill down and see things. There are (presumably) others. Just that this is another method for a small given portion of the map. One thing I've learned about presenting information is it is beat to present the SAME information in many different approach as not ONE method work for everyone.
The Decisive Battle series also has a preety clean method for deisplaying the frontlines on a strategic map as well.

Do what you want, but just thought you might like to hear about "other" approaches as well. I've found in the past that the UI is BIG part of any game, and NO one approach seems to hit on all cylinders. "Different strokes for different folks".

Anyways, as your post clearly points out, you apparently aren't looking for input other than what you've already decided on, I'll just haunt the forum and look forward to a great game coming out in the future ....

I apologize if I was too vicious in my repsonse. I didn't intend to be. I have made hundreds of changes, both big and small, to the graphics and to the interface, in response to what forum members have posted. The PBEM design is over 50% from what forum members provided.

I do have an enormous task list to get this game in shape for play testing in the immediate future, and for sale next year. While I would like to provide every feature people want (and the one you described is a very nice feature), I also have a responsibility to the players of WIF that have been waiting for this game since 1996. The trade off is almost always between features and time required to implement the features.

[Glen Felzien]

4 - Removing all the units from view is done with a single mouse click - a simple toggle. I want to add the ability to filter which units are shown on the screen. For example, just the air units when looking at strategic bombing, or only the HQs, or only the armor capable units (armor, mechanized, AT, etc.). I do not have the details worked out for how to enable that. There are other things that have to be decided and implemented first.

[:D]

What you have on the screen in front of you is much bigger than what you will see when playing - roughly double the size of the highest resolution possible in the game.

Ah ok, very nice then. [:)]

6 - Right now there is one bitmap for each terrain type. I want to expand that to 6 or more for terrain that appears frequently within the area where the land battles commonly occur (western USSR, France, China, North Africa, the Balkans). For example, a 2 hex by 3 hex pattern from which I can cut individual terrain hexes. There are technical details about doing this, which I don't want to go into here. The end result should be a map that is less boring. I also still have under review the entire issue of what each terrain type looks like. They definitely won't be finalized until after the play testers try them out playing through a game.

Now that is a very good idea. I wonder, once you have decided on the various bit maps for each terrain type, will the game engine randomly select "M" (mountain) bit maps for all areas of the map marked with an "M" resulting in a dynamic map each time to start a campaign? Or will the map be static once you have decided on what looks best?

I also intend to add the ability of the player to save detailed map settings: which portion of the map is visible on the screen at what zoom level and what unit resolution level. The intent here is that the player can have a setting for the war in Russia, in China, strategically bombing Britain, North Africa, Italy, etc.. These settings are limitless in number and the player can redefine them whenever he wants. Simply clicking on a defined map setting redraws the detailed map on the screen. You can use this feature to have multiple views of a battelfield available: (1) the whole eastern front, (2) the area around Moscow in high resolution, (3) the area around Rostov and the Caucasus in medium resolution, or (4) a half a dozen more concerning tactical bombers flying ground strikes - (5) whatever.

Now this is very cool. [8D] It reminds me alot of Harpoon2 where you could have multiple screens set up at any resolution displaying whatever data types you want. Very nice indeed![:D]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I wonder, once you have decided on the various bit maps for each terrain type, will the game engine randomly select "M" (mountain) bit maps for all areas of the map marked with an "M" resulting in a dynamic map each time to start a campaign? Or will the map be static once you have decided on what looks best?

The technique is rather simple. Given a 2 hex by 2 hex template (4 hexes - calling it a square isn't quite right), let's label them A1, A2 for the top two hexes and B1, B2 for the bottom two. A1 is used for every hex that has an odd row # and an odd column #. A2 is used for hexes with odd row #s and even column #s. B1 and B2 are used similarly for even rows. This means that no two adjacent hexes have the same terrain pattern. It is trivial to code. No randomness to the map - it will always lok the same. The same scheme can be used for 2x3, 3x3, 4x7, ...; it doesn't matter what size 'rectanlge'. Instead of even and odd the program just calculates the remainder after dividing by 3, 4, or 7.