MWIF Game Interface Design

World in Flames is the computer version of Australian Design Group classic board game. World In Flames is a highly detailed game covering the both Europe and Pacific Theaters of Operations during World War II. If you want grand strategy this game is for you.

Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets

Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).
Repair Pool and Construction Pool and be viewed by clicking on those items in the left-most column.

I agree about seeing what is in production and the air reserve. I think I will just add a button for viewing the Pools form which shows all of this stuff.
==
Yeah, I think the intent of the Scrap button is to scrap units, not do some sort of regretful survey of past decisions. I'll check it out.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Also the gearing types should be clustered together - or can you click the headings to sort by that column?
I doubt it.

I have little interest in providing a sort capability here. The form works well enough for showing you what is available. Certainly it is much better than what we had to work with when playing over the board.[:)]
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 30658
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

For instance, during a land combat resolution phase, the attacking player (phasing side) advances after combat and overruns some naval units. The "player to decide" changes to the player who controls the naval units and he excutes an overrun digression to rebase his naval units. While moving his naval units they enter a sea area where the phasing side can intercept them. The interception succeeds and a naval combat ensues. A naval air combat is chosen and one of the subphases of that is an air-to-air combat. The question is: which side is the attacking side in the air-to-air combat? The program figures this out, but when I was writing the code to build the table, I foulnd it much simlper to just always put the Axis die rolls in the odd rows and the Allies in the even rows.

By the way, I simplified my example enormously and left out a half dozen other places in that little sequence of play where the person who decides can change (e.g., naval air support, surprise points, choosing sea box sections included, ...).
I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.
For MWIF I have redefined the 'attacker' in naval interception combat to be the side that provokes the combat; that is, the side that moved ships into the sea area.

This seems more logical to me given that naval interception combat can occur in some pretty strange places during the end-of-turn phases (e.g., naval units forced to rebase because of conquest).

I was also unhappy with the phasing side always being the 'attacker' when naval units from both sides might abort from a naval combat and have moving ships that 'provoke' a naval interception combat. For example, according to WIF FE, Ax and Al both abort from a naval combat and both are intercepted on their way back to port (in different sea areas), but the 'attacker' is always the phasing side, regardless of which side is moving and which side is intercepting. This is particularly difficult for me to swallow during a land movement phase where the naval interception sequence of events was initiated by an overrun.

I have documented this fully in Section 7 of the Players Manual.
---
This is all fairly minor stuff and extremely unlikely to occur.

I find it weird that a side aborting is considered attacker when they are intercepted just because they are the ones moving the ships into the sea area. Even more so when they are forced to rebase after being overrun. I would find it more easy to understand if the side initiating the search is considered the attacker rather than the one moving into the sea area.

This can become confusing in multiple sea combats. For example:
Phasing side moves to sea and is intercepted and is then the attacker.
Non phasing side aborts and is intercepted and phasing side is then defender.
Phasing side continues to move and is intercepted again and is again attacker.
Phasing side moves on. Ends move and searches in a sea and is attacker.
Non Phasing side aborts and is intercepted. Phasing side is then defender.


I am used to phasing side is attacker so I am comfortable with that even when it is combat in unusual places. But I suppose I can adapt to the change.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8475
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

Also the gearing types should be clustered together - or can you click the headings to sort by that column?
I doubt it.

I have little interest in providing a sort capability here. The form works well enough for showing you what is available. Certainly it is much better than what we had to work with when playing over the board.[:)]
I wasn't requesting a sort by column click, I just wondered. However, I do think having all the infantry together, all the cavalry together, etc. - would be helpful when thinking about the gearing total of that type. So you are less likely to scroll up or down and have one of the same type off the screen. This would be an improvement to playing over the board - like after the fact when you realize: "damn, should have built the Ski Div, not the Mot Div".
Paul
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8475
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).
Repair Pool and Construction Pool and be viewed by clicking on those items in the left-most column.
Errh, sorry, which left column? Oh, you mean if you click on ships and subs?

Paul
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

There should be more display then just "Off-map". You need to know what's in the Repair Pool and the Construction Pool and being able to see the Reserve Pool would be helpful for deciding about pilots. Actually a button to view what's in the production pipeline (on the spiral) would also be very good IMO (or does View resources/Production do that?).
Repair Pool and Construction Pool and be viewed by clicking on those items in the left-most column.
Errh, sorry, which left column? Oh, you mean if you click on ships and subs?

If you look at the US example, you'll see the rows Naval Repair and Naval Construction.
===
You might also want to sort by cost or turns or a combination of things.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Orm

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck



I must be mssing something. The non-phasing player always shoots first in air-to-air. From there you take turns being the attacker. The game must know whose impulse it is.
For MWIF I have redefined the 'attacker' in naval interception combat to be the side that provokes the combat; that is, the side that moved ships into the sea area.

This seems more logical to me given that naval interception combat can occur in some pretty strange places during the end-of-turn phases (e.g., naval units forced to rebase because of conquest).

I was also unhappy with the phasing side always being the 'attacker' when naval units from both sides might abort from a naval combat and have moving ships that 'provoke' a naval interception combat. For example, according to WIF FE, Ax and Al both abort from a naval combat and both are intercepted on their way back to port (in different sea areas), but the 'attacker' is always the phasing side, regardless of which side is moving and which side is intercepting. This is particularly difficult for me to swallow during a land movement phase where the naval interception sequence of events was initiated by an overrun.

I have documented this fully in Section 7 of the Players Manual.
---
This is all fairly minor stuff and extremely unlikely to occur.

I find it weird that a side aborting is considered attacker when they are intercepted just because they are the ones moving the ships into the sea area. Even more so when they are forced to rebase after being overrun. I would find it more easy to understand if the side initiating the search is considered the attacker rather than the one moving into the sea area.

This can become confusing in multiple sea combats. For example:
Phasing side moves to sea and is intercepted and is then the attacker.
Non phasing side aborts and is intercepted and phasing side is then defender.
Phasing side continues to move and is intercepted again and is again attacker.
Phasing side moves on. Ends move and searches in a sea and is attacker.
Non Phasing side aborts and is intercepted. Phasing side is then defender.


I am used to phasing side is attacker so I am comfortable with that even when it is combat in unusual places. But I suppose I can adapt to the change.
I used the side moving into the sea area being the attacker, because that makes it the pahsing side during naval movement, when most naval interception occur. This makes it match WIF FE, rather than directly contradict it.

During the end-of-turn, there is no "phasing side", so WIF FE uses "the side which had the initative in the previous turn" as the 'attacker'.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Missouri Rebel
Posts: 111
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 7:46 pm

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Missouri Rebel »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

I am speaking of the Unit Data Panels. Any form that shows these have this hard to read text. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

mo reb

I'll look at the color choices in the Unit Data panels. Those are all from CWIF - I don't think I have changed them very much, if at all.

Bold is always easier to read but it takes more room (which it has been pared down to the individual pixel in those forms). The other problem is that there are 6 different layouts for those forms, by branch of service and for showing summary statistics. I have reworked the layouts multiple times, so I won't be doing that again.

But I might be able to do something with the colors, ...


The form looks very good as does MWiF in general. I just wasnt sure if the text was so pale in the UDP because of some in-game circumstances and that is why I asked why you did it that way. I don't think that it needs to be in bold and I do like how it is of a lighter shade than the classifications but, to me they are indeed too light.

Seems really trivial with all the work you have before you but thought it worth mentioning.


mo reb
We must act... against the Sioux, even to the extermination of men, WOMEN and CHILDREN.The more Indians we can kill this year, the less will have to be killed next year. They all have to be killed or be maintained as a species of paupers.- w.t. SHErMAN
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8475
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



Repair Pool and Construction Pool and be viewed by clicking on those items in the left-most column.
Errh, sorry, which left column? Oh, you mean if you click on ships and subs?

If you look at the US example, you'll see the rows Naval Repair and Naval Construction.
===
You might also want to sort by cost or turns or a combination of things.
I disagree, although maybe it's a personal preference, but the most sensible "view" for me when I think about building is I think of it type by type, what do I need and what can I spend. The cost and turns I have memorized, what is there to build, I don't (usually) have memorized.

If there is only one way to sort it, by type would be best IMO. What is the existing sort key or is there one?
Paul
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Missouri Rebel

I am speaking of the Unit Data Panels. Any form that shows these have this hard to read text. Sorry if I was unclear in my original post.

mo reb

I'll look at the color choices in the Unit Data panels. Those are all from CWIF - I don't think I have changed them very much, if at all.

Bold is always easier to read but it takes more room (which it has been pared down to the individual pixel in those forms). The other problem is that there are 6 different layouts for those forms, by branch of service and for showing summary statistics. I have reworked the layouts multiple times, so I won't be doing that again.

But I might be able to do something with the colors, ...


The form looks very good as does MWiF in general. I just wasnt sure if the text was so pale in the UDP because of some in-game circumstances and that is why I asked why you did it that way. I don't think that it needs to be in bold and I do like how it is of a lighter shade than the classifications but, to me they are indeed too light.

Seems really trivial with all the work you have before you but thought it worth mentioning.


mo reb
These colors are easy to change.

I tweak a lot of stuff and have done so for years. Each little bit (pun intended) doesn't seem like much but the effect over time is substantial (in my opinion).
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: paulderynck



Errh, sorry, which left column? Oh, you mean if you click on ships and subs?

If you look at the US example, you'll see the rows Naval Repair and Naval Construction.
===
You might also want to sort by cost or turns or a combination of things.
I disagree, although maybe it's a personal preference, but the most sensible "view" for me when I think about building is I think of it type by type, what do I need and what can I spend. The cost and turns I have memorized, what is there to build, I don't (usually) have memorized.

If there is only one way to sort it, by type would be best IMO. What is the existing sort key or is there one?
Sorting by cost is obvious, when you pnly have 2 BPs left to spend. Sorting by division might be desired at times too. As I said, there are a lot of different possibilities that come to mind. [I doubt that everyone has memorized the cost of each type of unit.][:D]
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
User avatar
paulderynck
Posts: 8475
Joined: Sat Mar 24, 2007 5:27 pm
Location: Canada

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by paulderynck »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Sorting by cost is obvious, when you pnly have 2 BPs left to spend. Sorting by division might be desired at times too. As I said, there are a lot of different possibilities that come to mind. [I doubt that everyone has memorized the cost of each type of unit.][:D]
Well I went back and looked, and it sure isn't sorted by cost. My question was: is it sorted by anything? And my suggestion was that if it could be done one time, then I think by type is the most sensible. Sure, if you can dynamically sort, those other things could be helpful to some, but you seemed to indicate there was no in-form sort capability.

And I think a lot of veteran players know 90% of the costs off by heart.
Paul
User avatar
Orm
Posts: 30658
Joined: Sat May 03, 2008 7:53 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Orm »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Sorting by cost is obvious, when you pnly have 2 BPs left to spend. Sorting by division might be desired at times too. As I said, there are a lot of different possibilities that come to mind. [I doubt that everyone has memorized the cost of each type of unit.][:D]
Well I went back and looked, and it sure isn't sorted by cost. My question was: is it sorted by anything? And my suggestion was that if it could be done one time, then I think by type is the most sensible. Sure, if you can dynamically sort, those other things could be helpful to some, but you seemed to indicate there was no in-form sort capability.

And I think a lot of veteran players know 90% of the costs off by heart.

There are not so many units in MWIF. I have found that after building units for a few turns you got all the units memorized. (So you get the current costs updated and forgets the ghosts from the wif past)

The order of Units looks ok to me. If I could have one change it would be that Naval Construction and Naval Repair are located next to building the different naval units.
Have a bit more patience with newbies. Of course some of them act dumb -- they're often students, for heaven's sake. - Terry Pratchett

A government is a body of people; usually, notably, ungoverned. - Quote from Firefly
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Sorting by cost is obvious, when you pnly have 2 BPs left to spend. Sorting by division might be desired at times too. As I said, there are a lot of different possibilities that come to mind. [I doubt that everyone has memorized the cost of each type of unit.][:D]
Well I went back and looked, and it sure isn't sorted by cost. My question was: is it sorted by anything? And my suggestion was that if it could be done one time, then I think by type is the most sensible. Sure, if you can dynamically sort, those other things could be helpful to some, but you seemed to indicate there was no in-form sort capability.

And I think a lot of veteran players know 90% of the costs off by heart.
By obvious I meant "it is obvious that some players will want to sort by cost".

I an almost certain the order is that of the program's internal list in the unit types. The tricky bit here is that unit types that do not exist are removed from the list - which can happen for several reasons, choice of optional rules being the primary one.
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

ORIGINAL: composer99

Also, should the US not have 11 build points on the first turn of a Global War game? They usually produce 10 and get an extra one from their trade with Japan. Unless they are saving a lot of oil, I suppose.
Yes. It looks like a bug. The convoys are all in place for both the US and Japan.

Here is the Production Planning form that precedes actual production. Note that the build points received is zero.

Image
Attachments
ResProd42920091.jpg
ResProd42920091.jpg (288.29 KiB) Viewed 260 times
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
Shannon V. OKeets
Posts: 22165
Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
Contact:

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Shannon V. OKeets »

What I did get working correctly today is the Swedish resources arriving in Germany. Here is another screen shot of the Production Planning form, this time for Germany and with the Expand List button clicked on so more items can be seen.



Image
Attachments
Res Prod 4 29 2009 2.jpg
Res Prod 4 29 2009 2.jpg (274.87 KiB) Viewed 257 times
Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.
willycube
Posts: 95
Joined: Mon Jan 24, 2005 5:07 pm

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by willycube »

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is an example of zoom level 2 on a 1280 by 1024 monitor. The Flyouts let you see what is in any particular stack. Here the Soryu has sent a Fighter to participate in a ground strike on the US units in Guadalcanal (I think that is where that is). It should be flying as a bomber, which is what I am debugging at the moment. Note the Selectable Units form in the upper left.

I do not have medium resolution turned on, so the numbers are difficult to see on the units. It is much better with medium res.

Image

Question about this attack, a plane from the Soryu is attacking Guadacanal and primarily
the CA Vincennes, it is at zoom level 2 so it is hard to see the naval boxes, looking at the the 4 on the plane I assume that it has a range of 4, now it is hard to tell if the Soryu is in box 1 or 2, regardless which box its in how does the carrier plane reach the attack point where its shown attacking, it looks like its a range of 5 to me but I could be very wrong here. Maybe its not caculated that way [range of the plane] if not how? If every carrier that remains at sea must be in a sea box how do carrier attack planes reach certain targets do you caculate from the sea box to the target, is there a target they cant reach in the same sea area as the attacking carrier planes or does the planes range restict them from reaching certain targets. Could that plane fly from the Soryu and reach Bouganville which seems to be in the Coral Sea area?

Willy
User avatar
Taxman66
Posts: 2285
Joined: Tue Mar 18, 2008 10:28 pm
Location: Columbia, MD. USA

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Taxman66 »

The box number the carrier is in has no impact on the range of the CVP (carrier plane) flying the mission.  A plane with a range of 1 can fly a mission from a CV in any box to any hex adjacent to a all sea hex in the CV's sea area.
"Part of the $10 million I spent on gambling, part on booze and part on women. The rest I spent foolishly." - George Raft
bredsjomagnus
Posts: 114
Joined: Sun Oct 22, 2006 1:26 pm
Location: Sweden

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by bredsjomagnus »

IIRC neutral powers can only save one oil per turn. Isn´t that so?
 
I was thinking about that US is saving 3 oil in the "Resource - Production Summary & Details" form.
User avatar
Froonp
Posts: 7998
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 8:23 pm
Location: Marseilles, France
Contact:

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Post by Froonp »

ORIGINAL: willycube
Question about this attack, a plane from the Soryu is attacking Guadacanal and primarily
the CA Vincennes, it is at zoom level 2 so it is hard to see the naval boxes, looking at the the 4 on the plane I assume that it has a range of 4, now it is hard to tell if the Soryu is in box 1 or 2, regardless which box its in how does the carrier plane reach the attack point where its shown attacking, it looks like its a range of 5 to me but I could be very wrong here. Maybe its not caculated that way [range of the plane] if not how? If every carrier that remains at sea must be in a sea box how do carrier attack planes reach certain targets do you caculate from the sea box to the target, is there a target they cant reach in the same sea area as the attacking carrier planes or does the planes range restict them from reaching certain targets. Could that plane fly from the Soryu and reach Bouganville which seems to be in the Coral Sea area?

Willy

From 14.4 :
"A carrier plane can fly a mission to any hex in range. Measure the range from any hex-dot in the CV’s sea area (it’s usually best to pick the hex-dot closest to your target). "
Post Reply

Return to “World in Flames”