MWIF Game Interface Design

[macgregor]

I'm embarrassed to ask. but how does the game display flipped units?. I notice the little brown square above the piece too. Would anyone mind explaining me what that means?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: macgregor

I'm embarrassed to ask. but how does the game display flipped units?. I notice the little brown square above the piece too. Would anyone mind explaining me what that means?

I have posted this screen shot before (June 2008), but doing so again doesn't hurt. This screen can be called up from the help menu during a game. The key point with status indicators is that if a unit has no status indicators 'lit', then it is "doing fine". The top 3 status indicators are the important ones:
1 - whether the unit can 'move' in the current phase/subphase; more generally, this is whether the unit can be 'selected', such as HQ units reorganizing other units - the HQs do not 'move' when they reorganize other units.
2 - whether the unit is disorganized ('flipped' in board game parlance).
3 - whether the unit is out of supply/isolated

[macgregor]

Thanks Steve-

I had no idea that much info would be displayed -very nice!

[csharpmao]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

When this screen shot was taken, the combat result was determined incorrectly. It should be a die roll of 4, modified to 19 (with a 67% chance of going to 20). The correct result is 2 attacker losses and 2 defender losses. And that was rolling a 4 as the sum of two 10-sided dice. 94% of the time the sum should be better than that.

EDIT: I show a lot of stuff in development - warts and all.

Hello,

You're saying there is 67% chance of going to 20, but if I'm referring to the correct version of the rules, the fractional odds option rounds to the next 10% in favour of the defender, so it would be 60% of going 20.
But maybe this has been decided to not round this number for MWif.

Option 41: (Fractional odds) Round to a whole number in favour of the defender, then work out how far to the next odds ratio you are. Round this in favour of the defender to the next 10%. Roll a die just before rolling the combat die (you could roll it with the combat die if you want), to see if you find the result on the lower odds or the higher odds. If you roll the percentage or less, you resolve it on the next higher odds, otherwise on the lower odds.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: csharpmao

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

When this screen shot was taken, the combat result was determined incorrectly. It should be a die roll of 4, modified to 19 (with a 67% chance of going to 20). The correct result is 2 attacker losses and 2 defender losses. And that was rolling a 4 as the sum of two 10-sided dice. 94% of the time the sum should be better than that.

EDIT: I show a lot of stuff in development - warts and all.

Hello,

You're saying there is 67% chance of going to 20, but if I'm referring to the correct version of the rules, the fractional odds option rounds to the next 10% in favour of the defender, so it would be 60% of going 20.
But maybe this has been decided to not round this number for MWif.

Option 41: (Fractional odds) Round to a whole number in favour of the defender, then work out how far to the next odds ratio you are. Round this in favour of the defender to the next 10%. Roll a die just before rolling the combat die (you could roll it with the combat die if you want), to see if you find the result on the lower odds or the higher odds. If you roll the percentage or less, you resolve it on the next higher odds, otherwise on the lower odds.

MWIF rounds to the nearest 100th (why not?).

[csharpmao]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: csharpmao

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

When this screen shot was taken, the combat result was determined incorrectly. It should be a die roll of 4, modified to 19 (with a 67% chance of going to 20). The correct result is 2 attacker losses and 2 defender losses. And that was rolling a 4 as the sum of two 10-sided dice. 94% of the time the sum should be better than that.

EDIT: I show a lot of stuff in development - warts and all.

Hello,

You're saying there is 67% chance of going to 20, but if I'm referring to the correct version of the rules, the fractional odds option rounds to the next 10% in favour of the defender, so it would be 60% of going 20.
But maybe this has been decided to not round this number for MWif.

Option 41: (Fractional odds) Round to a whole number in favour of the defender, then work out how far to the next odds ratio you are. Round this in favour of the defender to the next 10%. Roll a die just before rolling the combat die (you could roll it with the combat die if you want), to see if you find the result on the lower odds or the higher odds. If you roll the percentage or less, you resolve it on the next higher odds, otherwise on the lower odds.

MWIF rounds to the nearest 100th (why not?).

It's not a problem for me. In fact, I prefer this solution.
I was just pointing a difference between RaW and RaC, and asking if it was on purpose or not.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: csharpmao
It's not a problem for me. In fact, I prefer this solution.
I was just pointing a difference between RaW and RaC, and asking if it was on purpose or not.

I believe that RAW is that way because we guys are not computers, and we prefer to have it simple.
The computer can round to what decimal we decide in the same amount of time, and decide if the odds are passed or not. So let's have it the way RAC have it, it's no problem.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I don't think I have ever shown a screen shot where two monitors are visible. That is what I have, though I almost always restrict MWIF to just the left monitor and use the one on the right for examining the source code as I debug the program. Both of these monitors are 1280 by 1024.
===

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here is another dual monitor screen shot. I have been cleaning up the presentation of the Save Build Points form. Here Germany is saving 2 build points (don't you wish you opponent did this when you were playing the Allies?).

If you have limited screen real estate, the Save Build Point form by itself works pretty well. But if you have extra room, you can keep your primary detailed map in view. Notice the long list of Map Views. This enables the German player to jump around the map effortlessly. However, for saving build points, you can just click on a location and the form's insert map centers on that hex - the primary map only centers on the location if the check box is checked.

The beta testers have provided me with a full set of map views for all major powers for all scenarios, ~400 map views. I think of these as a "starter set" and I expect each player will change them to suit his personal preferences. But at least you won't start with an empty list of map views and be expected to figure them all out without any examples - [whcih is what the beta testers had to do[:D]].

[composer99]

I wouldn't be too pleased to see Germany saving build points. Means they're saving them for o-chits or something.

[IKerensky_alt]

Hum, it just hit me but, if you consider their game impact aren't city name too big and ressource and factory icon too small ? are thoses final graphics or will they be adjusted back to their ancient shape ? The Oil is very blending in his surrounding I didnt even noticed it at first sight...
 
I suppose that as an option we can mod/substitute the .png .gif of the ressources or are they drawn on the map ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Greywolf

Hum, it just hit me but, if you consider their game impact aren't city name too big and ressource and factory icon too small ? are thoses final graphics or will they be adjusted back to their ancient shape ? The Oil is very blending in his surrounding I didnt even noticed it at first sight...

I suppose that as an option we can mod/substitute the .png .gif of the ressources or are they drawn on the map ?

Those are final graphics (from over 3 years ago).

Modifying the map graphics is what I consider part of a WIF design kit, which is not in my contract (indeed, it is expressly NOT in my contract).

You can toggle off the labels if you want to.

There are only so many pixels in each hex and there can be a lot of stuff in a hex. The problem is especially acute in coastal hexes where most of the hex is wet. Note that the labels are rarely contained within a hex.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I have just added all the Vichy subphases to the Sequence of play form. The French flag indicates the current place in the sequence of play.

The list on the left are the units that have to be placed in the closest French hex (either Free France or Vichy controlled. The major power that declared Vichy France (e.g., Germany) gets to place those units.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I have just added all the Vichy subphases to the Sequence of play form. The French flag indicates the current place in the sequence of play.

Fine.
But I wonder about the Vichy Production subphase. Vichy production is done, as all other productions, during the production phase. Is there a reason for it to be here ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I have just added all the Vichy subphases to the Sequence of play form. The French flag indicates the current place in the sequence of play.

Fine.
But I wonder about the Vichy Production subphase. Vichy production is done, as all other productions, during the production phase. Is there a reason for it to be here ?

The label is poorly chosen. This is the processing (i.e., who goes where) of French units that were in Production at the time of Vichification.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I've just revised how the Vichy French air and naval units are shown. Because these use bitmapped images, I can't change the color behind the graphics for the air and naval units. Therefore, I have colored in the portion that does not use the bitmapped image. For the land units, there are no bitmapped images, so they are easy to do. The same is true for convoy units.

This isn't ideal, but it should be good enough for you to instantly know which units are Freen French and which are Vichy French.

[christo]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I've just revised how the Vichy French air and naval units are shown. Because these use bitmapped images, I can't change the color behind the graphics for the air and naval units. Therefore, I have colored in the portion that does not use the bitmapped image. For the land units, there are no bitmapped images, so they are easy to do. The same is true for convoy units.

This isn't ideal, but it should be good enough for you to instantly know which units are Freen French and which are Vichy French.

Not too many battles involve the Vichy and so seems a good quick solution. Easy to tell the difference esp re land units.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I've just revised how the Vichy French air and naval units are shown. Because these use bitmapped images, I can't change the color behind the graphics for the air and naval units. Therefore, I have colored in the portion that does not use the bitmapped image. For the land units, there are no bitmapped images, so they are easy to do. The same is true for convoy units.

This isn't ideal, but it should be good enough for you to instantly know which units are Freen French and which are Vichy French.

I think that this is great. It shows them nicely.

[bredsjomagnus]

I agree

[IKerensky_alt]

Could you please post a screenshot with both Vichy and FF land unit on it please ? I am colorblind and I can easily see Vichy Air and Navy but I wanted to check for Land units.