MWIF Game Interface Design

[brian brian]

yeah, it is very easy to forget that was only a change to an optional

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: sajbalk

Looks functional and attractive. One concern, in the rules issued this summer, back up FTR's are now worth 1/10 of their air to air value. In the example above, would the allied strength not be 8.7? This rounds to +1/-1, so no difference in results here.

The air-to-air factors under/over the large images of the front units are shown as tenths to accommodate such fine detail. The +1, -1, in the Odds column of the table in the lower right, are rounded as they would be for using the table.

EDIT: I have since changed the form so:
(1) the insert map updates automatically - centering on the hex where the combat is taking place;
(2) the Selectable Units form (in the upper left of the screen shot) is cleared once each air mission subphase is completed. As shown, the fighters are the ones that Germany could/did use for defensive interception.

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The air-to-air factors under/over the large images of the front units are shown as tenths to accommodate such fine detail. The +1, -1, in the Odds column of the table in the lower right, are rounded as they would be for using the table.

Recently there was a discussion on the Yahoo list about calculating the air-to-air differential. My group had always rounded the total for our own side and then taken the difference between the sides. Apparently this may have been wrong all along, although I have yet to re-read RAW to satisfy myself. Seems that you take the difference between the sides and then round that. Previously this would only have an impact if carrier planes are involved, but if that new back-up fighter rule comes into play, then it will raise its head more often.

[oscar72se]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

I must say that I really like the overall look, but I do have one concern. I think that the buttons "disappears" in the middle. The very first time I looked on the form I really had two look twice in order to find them.

Is there any simple way of highlighting them in order to let the "action buttons" stand out? If one made the 3-D effect on the buttons a little stronger it could help, or even changing colors on them?

Best regards,
Oscar

I'm not too worried about this.

The form is very busy with many parts, each of which is of interest at different times in the "Decision Sequence". Simplifying the form by splitting it into 2 or 3 forms, was one consideration but I decided that having everything present throughout the air-to-air combat would let the players keep track of what is happening: past, present, and future.

The complexity of the form is the reason the buttons become 'lost'. In practice, the players will quickly learn that the center of this form contains the decision buttons. As the decision sequence progresses, I am changing the labels of the buttons, sometimes showing only one, sometimes two. There are 3 positions available/used for the buttons. When the buttons are not selectable/clickable, I have simply removed them from sight completely. That change came from feedback from the beta testers who found disabled buttons confusing.

What you have made me think about though, is the possibility of adding icons to the buttons. For example, the Help button has the little book. I don't know what symbols could be used. And artwork is not my forte. But a little icon for each button might made them more noticeable.

Changing colors is both difficult (I am using Theme Engine for all the buttons in the game) and not necessarily good, since there are 8 different background colors - 1 per major power.

Button labels are:

Combat Chosen = location/combat selected
Axis Ready = Axis units arranged
Allies Ready = Allied units arranged
Abort
Stay
Ok - Done

Excellent idea, adding icons to the buttons would probably help drawing the attention of the user. Which ones to choose is, as you pointed out, not easy. If it was up to me I would choose icons that the user has seen before.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I am revising the display (and processing) of land combat resolution. Here is the new form.

At the top is the sequence of the subphases within the phase land combat resolution. RAC (rules as coded) follows RAW (rules as written), for this subphase sequence. Regrettably, RAW is somewhat vague about who decides to use snow units first/second and where the decision about using the engineer occurs.

I am going to change what you see here so that following Select Combat will be: Attacker decides whether to use Snow Units, Defender decides to use Snow Units, Attacker decides to use Engineer, and lastly, the decision about combat table is made.

Note that the Odds are updated as these decisions are made, though those decisions that require a die roll are only estimates until the die roll actually occurs. When there is a difference between Assault and Blitz odds, both are shown with Assault odds shown first (e.g., hex [49, 45]).

At the bottom, the Unit Data Panel is updated whenever the cursor passes over one of the defending or attacking units.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is the same screen but with the Flyouts shown within the insert map. By using the flyouts, you can examine what units are in each hex as the land combat resolution process executes. This is important when deciding about Retreats and Advance After Combat.

Note that the status indicators for these units are silver in the upper - left, and red in the left - top. That shows they have been selected during the land combat phase (silver) and are committed to the combat (red).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
At the top is the sequence of the subphases within the phase land combat resolution. RAC (rules as coded) follows RAW (rules as written), for this subphase sequence. Regrettably, RAW is somewhat vague about who decides to use snow units first/second and where the decision about using the engineer occurs.

About this, I have this feeling that the way the sequence of the subphases is show looks like the user could choose one of them, when in reality it is only showing (I believe) what subphase you're in.
So why not using some other kind of graphical way of showing the progression, like this example for example (a progression of a color on a colored line where the subphases are written).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Regrettably, RAW is somewhat vague about who decides to use snow units first/second and where the decision about using the engineer occurs.

I've asked the question to Harry Rowland (& the rule discussion group) to see what they have to say about that.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Note that the Odds are updated as these decisions are made, though those decisions that require a die roll are only estimates until the die roll actually occurs. When there is a difference between Assault and Blitz odds, both are shown with Assault odds shown first (e.g., hex [49, 45]).

Any chances for the actual combat factor totals figures to be also displayed somewhere in this form ?
Knowing the total def factors is a help as t means that each time you add that number of attack factors, you are at +2 on the 2d10 CRT, so it is a good help to decide what unit attacks where when you have the correct data.
Having to count on the board would be a needless pain when playing a computer game.

But maybe this form only appears when all combat hexes have already been decided, in which case you can no longuer decide that a unit is attacking a hex or another. If that is the case, which I'm nearly 100% sure now that I think about it, let's just say that the total attacking / defending factors have to be displayed somewhere when the attacking units are affected to the various combats.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
At the top is the sequence of the subphases within the phase land combat resolution. RAC (rules as coded) follows RAW (rules as written), for this subphase sequence. Regrettably, RAW is somewhat vague about who decides to use snow units first/second and where the decision about using the engineer occurs.

About this, I have this feeling that the way the sequence of the subphases is show looks like the user could choose one of them, when in reality it is only showing (I believe) what subphase you're in.
So why not using some other kind of graphical way of showing the progression, like this example for example (a progression of a color on a colored line where the subphases are written).

I forgot to say that I have the same bad feeling about the radio buttons that show the sequence of the subphases in the Air to air combat form.

[jjax]

I just want to say that i noticed a help button in all of the forms. Im sure that will be much appreciated come play time[;)].

[Neilster]

I agree with Patrice. Radio buttons indicate choice. It will confuse people to use them as indicators.

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Note that the Odds are updated as these decisions are made, though those decisions that require a die roll are only estimates until the die roll actually occurs. When there is a difference between Assault and Blitz odds, both are shown with Assault odds shown first (e.g., hex [49, 45]).

Any chances for the actual combat factor totals figures to be also displayed somewhere in this form ?
Knowing the total def factors is a help as t means that each time you add that number of attack factors, you are at +2 on the 2d10 CRT, so it is a good help to decide what unit attacks where when you have the correct data.
Having to count on the board would be a needless pain when playing a computer game.

But maybe this form only appears when all combat hexes have already been decided, in which case you can no longuer decide that a unit is attacking a hex or another. If that is the case, which I'm nearly 100% sure now that I think about it, let's just say that the total attacking / defending factors have to be displayed somewhere when the attacking units are affected to the various combats.

The current odds are shown when you hover over the hex - during land combat declaration or the other 'phases' between that and the land combat resolution phase (e.g., ground support). As you add units, the odds changed. The form shown above only appears once all land combats have been declared.

I thought about showing all the gory details of the odds calculation, but it would be a lot of work and I don't really see a big benefit. You can see the units clearly, and the unit data panel gives you the effective values (attack/defense) for each unit. Also the form is rather congested, so adding more information would require some clever design work.

====
I reread the code and the decision about the engineer is made by the attacker when he commits the unit to the attack. This is a menu item on the unit pop up menu. It is the same way night missions are handled for air missions.

So I have deleted the engineer subphase from the list. In its place I have added converting shattered results to retreats. That occurs before selecting which units take losses.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
At the top is the sequence of the subphases within the phase land combat resolution. RAC (rules as coded) follows RAW (rules as written), for this subphase sequence. Regrettably, RAW is somewhat vague about who decides to use snow units first/second and where the decision about using the engineer occurs.

About this, I have this feeling that the way the sequence of the subphases is show looks like the user could choose one of them, when in reality it is only showing (I believe) what subphase you're in.
So why not using some other kind of graphical way of showing the progression, like this example for example (a progression of a color on a colored line where the subphases are written).

I forgot to say that I have the same bad feeling about the radio buttons that show the sequence of the subphases in the Air to air combat form.

I agree.

Once I have things working correctly, I'll go back and change the graphic presentation fo the subphases. Though I would like to handle it the same way I do the Sequence of Play form with a flag (the decision maker's) adjacent to the current subphase, I doubt that I have sufficient room.

[csharpmao]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Froonp


About this, I have this feeling that the way the sequence of the subphases is show looks like the user could choose one of them, when in reality it is only showing (I believe) what subphase you're in.
So why not using some other kind of graphical way of showing the progression, like this example for example (a progression of a color on a colored line where the subphases are written).

I forgot to say that I have the same bad feeling about the radio buttons that show the sequence of the subphases in the Air to air combat form.

I agree.

Once I have things working correctly, I'll go back and change the graphic presentation fo the subphases. Though I would like to handle it the same way I do the Sequence of Play form with a flag (the decision maker's) adjacent to the current subphase, I doubt that I have sufficient room.

Hello,

I found the idea of Froonp not bad, but I'd add something to explain it's a sequence.
Maybe something like the following picture.


Sharpmao

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I reread the code and the decision about the engineer is made by the attacker when he commits the unit to the attack. This is a menu item on the unit pop up menu. It is the same way night missions are handled for air missions.

So I have deleted the engineer subphase from the list. In its place I have added converting shattered results to retreats. That occurs before selecting which units take losses.

Why not have it the same with Snow Units : A menu item on the unit pop up menu, where the attacker selects "Snow units" (By the way, "Winterized units" is the term that is more commonly used, not "Snow units" -- as there is also blizzard).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: csharpmao
I found the idea of Froonp not bad, but I'd add something to explain it's a sequence.
Maybe something like the following picture.


Sharpmao

That sure is a great improvement ! I love it !

[bredsjomagnus]

ut this, I have this feeling that the way the sequence of the subphases is show looks like the user could choose one of them, when in reality it is only showing (I believe) what subphase you're in.
So why not using some other kind of graphical way of showing the progression, like this example for example (a progression of a color on a colored line where the subphases are written).



 

 
This is a great idea. I´ve also had a bad feeling about the radio buttons that is often used when you can choose one of a number of options.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I reread the code and the decision about the engineer is made by the attacker when he commits the unit to the attack. This is a menu item on the unit pop up menu. It is the same way night missions are handled for air missions.

So I have deleted the engineer subphase from the list. In its place I have added converting shattered results to retreats. That occurs before selecting which units take losses.

Why not have it the same with Snow Units : A menu item on the unit pop up menu, where the attacker selects "Snow units" (By the way, "Winterized units" is the term that is more commonly used, not "Snow units" -- as there is also blizzard).

The use of snow units (blizzards usually involve a lot of snow[;)]) is associated with the attacked hex, not the individual units. If you are benefiting from the use of snow units, then all the snow units are vulnerable to taking losses. Engineers can be committed individually, with one engineer using its bonus, while a second one in the same attack does not.

[Anendrue]

Regarding buttons. Since the buttoms seem to use an inset or inalid  property, perhaps a simple property change would lift them up and cause them to appear as buttons to be pressed like a keyboard instead of buttons flush to ythe form. I haven't dine any "screen painting" since my intern days many many years ago. Still I seem to remember it causes quite a dramatic difference  in forms without the need for additional graphics work.