Unit Depictions on Screen

[Glen Felzien]

This is looking real good. I see the units themselves are fitting into the hex proper. Was this a result of the full hex pixel display? The Port symbol is terrific. Good use of the unit symbol. [:)] The 10-5 armour hex is in fact holding 2 units?

[Froonp]

That's great work, and I personaly love it, except for the ugly yellow lines at sea, who should disappear, from what you've said.

Some remarks about the map :

The port symbols are great. The major ports on the WiF map have a yellow circle around them, maybe you could add it too for an even greater effect (blue & yellow are good matches).

The factories now look awful, maybe you could try the WiF FE maps graphic which is far better. The resources & factories symbols are much bigger on the WiF FE maps.

The cities, capitals & ports symbols could be slightly bigger. They are bigger on the WiF FE maps too.

The font seems bold, I feel this is too much. Also the texts for the river names should be smaller than the text for the city names.


The units too are great !

I'm sure it would be a blast if the units had slightly very slightly rounded corners, and this 3-D effect I was talking about so much [:D] : bottom & right side of the counter are darker, and the top & left sides are lighter. You don't even need to add pixels to the counter graphic, I think it could work by just changing the color of the surrounding line and make it thicker.

The number showing the number of units of the stack of units could be placed on the side of the stack instead of the top, this would allow for higher stacks being displayed, and maybe to some room for the 3-D effect ? [;)]

Cheers, and thank you for the update & the good work !

Patrice

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp
That's great work, and I personaly love it, except for the ugly yellow lines at sea, who should disappear, from what you've said.

Some remarks about the map :

The port symbols are great. The major ports on the WiF map have a yellow circle around them, maybe you could add it too for an even greater effect (blue & yellow are good matches).

The factories now look awful, maybe you could try the WiF FE maps graphic which is far better. The resources & factories symbols are much bigger on the WiF FE maps.

The cities, capitals & ports symbols could be slightly bigger. They are bigger on the WiF FE maps too.

The font seems bold, I feel this is too much. Also the texts for the river names should be smaller than the text for the city names.

The units too are great !

I'm sure it would be a blast if the units had slightly very slightly rounded corners, and this 3-D effect I was talking about so much [:D] : bottom & right side of the counter are darker, and the top & left sides are lighter. You don't even need to add pixels to the counter graphic, I think it could work by just changing the color of the surrounding line and make it thicker.

The number showing the number of units of the stack of units could be placed on the side of the stack instead of the top, this would allow for higher stacks being displayed, and maybe to some room for the 3-D effect ? [;)]

Cheers, and thank you for the update & the good work !

Patrice

Here is another screen shot (individual bitmaps for the coastal hexes have not been done) which I want to refer to when replying to your post. It was taken at level 5 zoom (the previous was at level 8).

The labels for the cities et al haven't been repositioned, so some of them are on top of the icons. Here the labels are not as dominant a visual presence because there are far fewer of them, and the units occupy many of the cities/ports. The reason the labels seemed so overwhelming in the British Isles screen shot was that (1) the British Isles are full of cities and (2) I carefully positioning all the units so none of the names were covered whatsoever. The only one that looks big here is Washington and that is how it should be.

Adding a yellow outer circle around the major port symbol is a good idea. You have a keen eye to have even noticed it - I had to look at the paper map closely to even find it.

I'll make the major port icon slightly larger than its companion for minor ports. I am reluctant to make the resource icons as large as they appear on the paper map for they are very large there. Once the graphics guy redoes them, I'll check how they appear relative to everything else. They are important to game play so care has to be taken that they do not get lost in the background. The other city icons are about the same size as on the paper maps. Their bright yellow makes them jump out from everything else in the hex. Even the small one for Pittsburgh is very noticable, despite being partially covered by the name.

By the way I am going to move the icons for resources into the center position if there are no other icons in the hex. Right now I have them at 12 o'clock - compare the one in Pittsburgh (at 1 o'clock) to the one in the hex next to it (at 12 o'clock). There is another resource 3 hexes below Pirttsburgh which does not stand out. Moving it to the center position will help.

---

The units in this screen shot are all eligible for being repositioned (this is the setup phase). Because of that, they each are outlined in a bright green which is a tremendous help when you need to identify which units can be moved in each phase (many different phases in WIF).

Attempting to add a 3-D effect will interfere with this outline. Either the outline has to eliminated, or be somehow modified to produce both a 3-D effect and an outline simultaneously, or use two different styles for rendering units that can be selected (no 3-D) and those that cannot (3-D). I don't see the gain worth the pain.

The rounded corners also interferes with the status boxes at the top of the units. Rounding just the bottom of the counters will make them look like those Russian dolls that hae another one smaller inside.

The number of units in the hex is slightly off-center. I haven't fixed it since I corrected the hex size. Placing it on the side becomes a problem when it goes to double digits. It will not be as clearly associated with a specific hex. For example, if there are 6 hexes with units in them side by side there will be 5 black rectangles between them indicating the number of units in each hex. It would be very easy to confuse which black box is associated with which hex. Chris' decision to place it at the top is also quite clever because it is right next to the status boxes, which also indicate how many units are in the hex - a good design.

You might note that the stack of units with the battle ship on top (BB) has a couple of black status boxes for units below. They are for a carrier air unit and its carrier; the black status boxes indicate that the former is assigned/attached to the latter.

If you compare how the divisonal 2-3 sits in its hex to how the stacked units sit in theirs, you will see that the additional units descend (up to 4 sets of status boxes are shown). The hex with 16 units in it and the units in the hex below and to its left are as close as two stacks of units ever get - not much room to play around with is there?

[pak19652002]

The WiFFE river text is italicized. Maybe that would help.

Peter

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: pak19652002

The WiFFE river text is italicized. Maybe that would help.

Peter

Yes, it would. And a slightly smaller font. I am holding off on that decision until I see the rivers. Then I'll probably change the color to match too.

[lomyrin]

The contrast between land and river could be stronger. it ought to be readily seen without a close look at the terrain to make movement planning easier.

Lars

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

The contrast between land and river could be stronger. it ought to be readily seen without a close look at the terrain to make movement planning easier.

Lars

The rivers as you see them on these screen shot maps will be completely replaced. They should be very close to matching the ones used in the WIF FE paper maps, winding about in different hexes instead of being simply wider light blue hex borders.

[Froonp]

Steve, and what about your idea of seeing 4 smaller sized counters into a large hex ?
Have you dropped it ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Steve, and what about your idea of seeing 4 smaller sized counters into a large hex ?
Have you dropped it ?

Not at all.

I intend to use the medium resolution for all units types and have it available at zoom levels 8 and 6. Lower than that I do not believe the counters will be inteligible. Essentially, you will be seeing counters the size of zoom levels 4 and 3 in hexes big enough to hold 4 units within 1 hex in a little grid 2 by 2.

I would like to get all unit types finalized at high resolution before developing them for medium and low resolution. My decision on that has something to do with not wanting to advance one part of the project too far ahead of its companion pieces. I can't verbalize this very well, but until all the high resolution units are completed there is a risk that needed changes to them might affect any work done on the lower resolution levels. I am avoiding anything that runs the risk of being wasted effort.

Also, I first want to rewrite the code for: (1) placing units on the map during setup and (2) placing units in sea boxes. Once I have them working correctly, I will have a much better understanding of the code that moves units around and changes their locations, after the player decides where he wants them. The real problem with that code is that it contains an elaborate system for being able to undo all the moves during a phase at any time, in any order. Or at least until the player commits to them all by clicking on the "end of phase" button. I do not want to destroy the undo capability.

[scout1]

I do not want to destroy the undo capability.

One of the greatest features of ANY software (game or not). Please never remove it.

i call it the "Ah Shit" key ....

[Neilster]

Would it be possible to make the ends of the anchors less "blobby" and more arrow shaped?

Thanks for all the hard work.

Cheers, Neilster

[dhatchen]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Would it be possible to make the ends of the anchors less "blobby" and more arrow shaped?

Thanks for all the hard work.

Cheers, Neilster

Ok everybody, time to pick on Steve's funny marine symbol again!!!

Actually I am just being silly. I really appreciate the fact that he even asks. I did not like the original anchour and thought that the tank tread was too square on the armour. The changes came pretty much the same day. It is interesting to see adaptability on Steve's part for even the smallest details. Lets face it, some of these details pale to insignificance when one considers the mammoth task that he has in front of him. Thanks again Openness player to input and player willingness to voice concerns is going to make this game the greatest it can be.

My vote is for the current anchour.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Would it be possible to make the ends of the anchors less "blobby" and more arrow shaped?

Thanks for all the hard work.

Cheers, Neilster

'Blobby"? Is that a London cop who has put on a lot of weight?

Points - tried, couldn't make it happen.

[c92nichj]

I have another tiny tiny comment on the land units, I do not wish you to spend time on it though as it is not really important at all.

The name on the units looks to be left adjusted the XXX British ARM for example have it's name almost below it's nato symbol, personally I think it would be prettier if the name was centered with the Nato symbol.
But as I allready said, it is not of any importance at all.

[Larry Smith]

I'll apologize ahead of time for going off topic, but I tried my question of the WiF Discussion site and was promptly shot down. On the first page of this thread, Froonp mentioned that units could be loaned to other Major Powers. I have been unable to find any rules for this, and I wanted to read up on it if they are available (I have the latest RAW). I did search the WiF list archives, and found passing mention of "loaning" units (as opposed to Lend-Lease), from way back when CWiF was version 0.xxx to 3.xxx. I have the last version CM made available, and I haven't been able to find any "Loan" feature.
If anyone wishes to reply, just e-mail me at:
Laurence_Smith@telus.net

Thanks

[Larry Smith]

For captured and aligned naval units, how about borders. A captured unit would change the border colour to match the conquering nation. An aligned nation stays as is (its alignment is indicted in its home country), and ships from friendly nation that have been conquered (Greece, Netherlands, Norway; for eg. wrt the UK) would fight on with the main background colour of their new controlling country, but the border colour of their home nation.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: c92nichj

I have another tiny tiny comment on the land units, I do not wish you to spend time on it though as it is not really important at all.

The name on the units looks to be left adjusted the XXX British ARM for example have it's name almost below it's nato symbol, personally I think it would be prettier if the name was centered with the Nato symbol.
But as I allready said, it is not of any importance at all.

The names are centered within the available space (height of the counter), which is needed for units with long names. The NATO symbol is placed high in the counter to make more room for the strength and movement numbers. Thus, the name is not centered with the NATO symbol.

I will probably tweak the abbreviation (always 3 capital letters) placement to center it both left to right and top to bottom (with the NATO symbol).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

I'll apologize ahead of time for going off topic, but I tried my question of the WiF Discussion site and was promptly shot down. On the first page of this thread, Froonp mentioned that units could be loaned to other Major Powers. I have been unable to find any rules for this, and I wanted to read up on it if they are available (I have the latest RAW). I did search the WiF list archives, and found passing mention of "loaning" units (as opposed to Lend-Lease), from way back when CWiF was version 0.xxx to 3.xxx. I have the last version CM made available, and I haven't been able to find any "Loan" feature.
If anyone wishes to reply, just e-mail me at:
Laurence_Smith@telus.net

Thanks

Loaned units are not part of the rules. In over-the-board play, Germany will often let Italy move the German units that are in North Africa. Of course, any said moves are taken from the German activity limits for same. There are a lot of other places where one ally will let another ally physically move units. The simple description for this practice is 'loaning' units. In CWIF, and also in MWIF, this practice has to be formalized into the code by having (for example) Germany enter instructions that certain units are 'loaned' to the Italians. Otherwise, the program would require the German player to move them.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Larry Smith

For captured and aligned naval units, how about borders. A captured unit would change the border colour to match the conquering nation. An aligned nation stays as is (its alignment is indicted in its home country), and ships from friendly nation that have been conquered (Greece, Netherlands, Norway; for eg. wrt the UK) would fight on with the main background colour of their new controlling country, but the border colour of their home nation.

I have problems with room for a border. Inside the existing counter there isn't space for a border without having it overlay some of the text. If it does overlay some of the existing text (i.e., as background, with the text appearing on top of it), then I have troubles with maintaining high contrast between the background color and the text color. White on white and black on black being two notable examples of hard to read combinations - both of which I have acheived at various times when playing around with color combinations and coding systems.

CWIF used horizontal stripes: bottom third of the counter for loaned units, and center third of the counter for lend lease units.

I am trying to avoid both of those for the same reason given above.

Though showing the original ownership of the units would be nice, I decided that it is much more important to know who currently owns the unit. Therefore I am going with the color of the new owner for captured units. I am leaving units that belong to aligned countries untouched because the interactions of multiple aligned minors can be tricky. The Balkan countries notedly disliked each other and there are rules in the game to that effect.

Territorials are handled differently. Those units, usually part of the Commonwealth or France, use the colors of the controlling major power rather than their own. Again, this is simply to make understanding who controls what units easier.

[Larry Smith]

Thanks for the reply. Explains why I was shot down of the Yahoo forum-the guy probably missed that I was talking about CWiF.