Tutorial #5 - Naval Units

[Ballista]

I think that's a good idea- especially for those who haven't played the game before (but also for those of us returning after a long hiatus)....

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Interesting, but way too much detail for the tutorials. And just think about what hasn't been mentioned in the tutorials so far.

I know, but you can pick only a few data of a few types of ships :
- A BB Surface factor is most of the time 5-9, and it's defense factor is most of the time 1-4.
- A CA Surface factor is most of the time 2-4, and it's defense factor is most of the time 5-7.

This can give quick judgements to new players :
A BB with a 10 Surface factor and with a 0 Defense factor is an ultra powerful BB, and there is nearly nothing better as a BB. A BB with a defense of 5 is not very protected, etc...
A CA with a 5 Surface Factor and 5 Defense factor is an ultra powerful CA, and there is nearly nothing better as a CA.

Not all data nor all ships are interesting to be put into those sorts of comments, only some are.

[Greyshaft]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Interesting, but way too much detail for the tutorials. And just think about what hasn't been mentioned in the tutorials so far.

I know, but you can pick only a few data of a few types of ships :
- A BB Surface factor is most of the time 5-9, and it's defense factor is most of the time 1-4.
- A CA Surface factor is most of the time 2-4, and it's defense factor is most of the time 5-7.

I did the same calculations for Land units and Air units.

Yes, I was thinking that something about this level of simplicity would be good. It wouldn't have to be for all unit classes or all factors on those units. After all if I know that a BB surface factor ranges from 5-9 then I can probably guess that a CA surface factor slots in just under the lower end of that scale.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have switched around which colors will appear as backgrounds for each tutorial, but the color doesn't change within the tutorial - it is the same for all the pages.

The images of the carrier planes are excellent. Carrier planes are able to land on smaller carriers throughout the war based on the year they were built. A carrier plane of size 2 in 1938 will land on a size 1 carrier in 1940 for example. Some carrier planes have three size changes.

My question is: Are you going to leave the original value (say 4) on the unit and let it land on a smaller carrier, or are you going to change the value of the plane size on the counter when appropriate?

[stretch]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99

My question is: Are you going to leave the original value (say 4) on the unit and let it land on a smaller carrier, or are you going to change the value of the plane size on the counter when appropriate?

or make it an option. wait.. too many options already. My preference would be to change the counters but altering the counters during game play might not be something people like the idea of doing.

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here are the first 4 pages of the 5th tutorial.

About the ships' graphic as displayed on this screenshot :
I also remark with delight that the range & movement are both centered now, that's great [:)].
But, would it be possible to lower the ship's graphic a few pixels, so that it is more centered within the space left between the name, and the movement factor ? Even in the case of thename taking 2 lines, we can see here that there is room left below the graphic.

It's not entirely clear the the second build cycle of a ship is Cst1+Cst2. It would make more sense - To me, to have the first and second cycle explicitly shown instead of making the player calculate the cost of the second cycle.

[CBoehm]

ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
It's not entirely clear the the second build cycle of a ship is Cst1+Cst2. It would make more sense - To me, to have the first and second cycle explicitly shown instead of making the player calculate the cost of the second cycle.

Its not ...and it is ...or else Im very sadly mistaken !
(if its the japanese CL thats confusing you ...yes it cost "0" for the 2. cycle ...! hmm thats pretty cheep for a 6-mover ...

[Froonp]

My question is: Are you going to leave the original value (say 4) on the unit and let it land on a smaller carrier, or are you going to change the value of the plane size on the counter when appropriate?

As it is now, the value on the counter is changing.
I see no reasons for it not to be that way.

[Froonp]

It's not entirely clear the the second build cycle of a ship is Cst1+Cst2. It would make more sense - To me, to have the first and second cycle explicitly shown instead of making the player calculate the cost of the second cycle.

The second build cycle of a ship is NOT Cst1+Cst2.
The first and second cycle ARE explicitly shown in the screenshot here.
CST 1 / CST 2 / TRNS are displayed in the detailled view.
Vittorio Veneto : 2 / 3 / 6

Where is the problem ?

[Froonp]

(if its the japanese CL thats confusing you ...yes it cost "0" for the 2. cycle ...! hmm thats pretty cheep for a 6-mover ...

Well, this is also a 8 defense ship, so he suffers the damage inflicted 80% of the time, whih is pretty deadly.

Anyway, this point is moot in 90% (maybe even 99%) of the cases of ships with a 2nd cycle cost of 0, because they are already inluded at setup. And as the second cycle cost is never used again after a ship is built, it is not a problem (The first cycle cost is also used to find out the number of BP needed to repair a ship -- the second cycle cost is only used to "repair" a ship that was bottomed in a port attack).

[CBoehm]

I know I know ...well Japan does get a few cheap CLs in 42 they might build if I recall correctly. IT gets some too ...but I daubt they want to build them ...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here are some revisions to the first 3 pages. I added stuff about the cost and time to build, but not repair. The latter will be discussed later.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

The carrier air units' class #s can change during the game and that information will be shown in the Unit Data panel for the air units (Tutorial #6). I expect to have a page there that will look like this one, but with the air units on the left with their Unit Data displayed and the carriers on the right.

When the air unit class changes, the unit depiction reflects the change.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

3rd and last in series. This is mostly the same except for the next-to-last new paragraph.

I have the graphics done for pages 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12. Only #7 is missing graphics. If I can find the time, I do the writeups on some more of these today.

[SamuraiProgrmmr]

Steve,
 
Everything looks GREAT!  Keep up the good work!  It is a pleasure watching you proceed on this project.  It is not often that I get to watch the workings of a programming master and it has been an education.
 
On the display of the unit information with labels (the part with the white background), are you using the area on the last line (where Disorganized shows up) that is directly under  'Cst 1/Cst 2/Trns/Rrg:#/#/#/#?
 
If not, it would sure help if you changed the arrangement to :
 
Cst1   #  Trns    #
Cst2   #  Reorg  #
 
I do have another idea and I don't want to offend.  I expect you thought about it and came to a decision, but here goes...
 
Since there are multiple columns in close proximity, the right justified labels may be making things look cluttered.  Do you think it would look any better if the labels Country, Year, Attack, Defense, an Type were left justified?  Also what about Name, Range and Move.  If you moved Bombardment to the same line as range and ASW Anti-Air to the same line as Move, you could left justify Oil to match Anti-Air.  If you are able to rearrange the Cst 1/Cst 2/Trns/Rrg line, you could then line it up in the same way with ASW and Anti-Air.  I sill think the values should be left justified with each other like they are.
 
(I use right justified labels and left justified values all of the time because I generally like them better, but when they are this tightly packed, I wonder if the other way might be easier to look at.
 
I know this seems like nit-picking and it is, but I think that such alignment will make the numbers jump out better. 
 
Just an idea and I could be wrong.
 
 

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: SamuraiProgrammer

Steve,

Everything looks GREAT!  Keep up the good work!  It is a pleasure watching you proceed on this project.  It is not often that I get to watch the workings of a programming master and it has been an education.

On the display of the unit information with labels (the part with the white background), are you using the area on the last line (where Disorganized shows up) that is directly under  'Cst 1/Cst 2/Trns/Rrg:#/#/#/#?

If not, it would sure help if you changed the arrangement to :

Cst1   #  Trns    #
Cst2   #  Reorg  #

I do have another idea and I don't want to offend.  I expect you thought about it and came to a decision, but here goes...

Since there are multiple columns in close proximity, the right justified labels may be making things look cluttered.  Do you think it would look any better if the labels Country, Year, Attack, Defense, an Type were left justified?  Also what about Name, Range and Move.  If you moved Bombardment to the same line as range and ASW Anti-Air to the same line as Move, you could left justify Oil to match Anti-Air.  If you are able to rearrange the Cst 1/Cst 2/Trns/Rrg line, you could then line it up in the same way with ASW and Anti-Air.  I sill think the values should be left justified with each other like they are.

(I use right justified labels and left justified values all of the time because I generally like them better, but when they are this tightly packed, I wonder if the other way might be easier to look at.

I know this seems like nit-picking and it is, but I think that such alignment will make the numbers jump out better. 

Just an idea and I could be wrong.

Thanks.

Your input on this layout (Unit Data panel) is appreciated. I inherited this design from CWIF and have only made a few small changes: increased the panel width by 5 pixels (wow!) and forced the colons to line up. Chris had used varying placements within a column which I found hard to read.

There are actually about a half-dozen problems I have with this layout and I think I might have to just make the whole thing larger. While the Unit Data panel is included in dozens (40+) forms, giving it a larger panel only really affects the display of the "Units Under Cursor" form (which can be toggled on/off). But that form is very useful when playing, since it lets you 'see' the units in a stack as you move the cursor down the line of units. It is also used for showing summary data for a stack (e.g., total naval attack strength). All in all, keeping the footprint for the Units Under Cursor small is a serious goal.

Off the top of my head, problems are (1) the visual clutter you mentioned, (2) for the United Kingdom, the country name overlies the unit name, (3) light aircraft carrier type overlies the Cst etc. info, and (4) Range overlies ASW information. Some of this is because I changed Chris' code to make the colons line up. Other problems are due to the addition of new unit types (e.g., ASW for Convoys in Flames).

Another constraint on this design is that the same panel is used for all unit types. The branching logic separates unit types into 4 groups: air, land, naval, and special (e.g., forts, oil points). The internal design is the same for all the unit types with only the parameters for column placements and fields shown changing. A lot of the inofrmation is the same for all unit types so some of the code is reusable across all unit types.

I think I will just sit down an redo the whole thing from scratch. It's possible that going to 7 or 8 rows may reduce the required width.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here are 2 more pages of the tutorial introducing naval units.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

2nd and last in series. Halfway done with this tutorial.

[freeboy]

do those cl have torpedoes as in real life?

[trees trees]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


When the air unit class changes, the unit depiction reflects the change.

nice. I was wondering how a Fulmar got an orange color on the front. But you might want to mention in the tutorial that double stacking carrier planes is only an optional rule. Since that is such an obscure one and rarely played, I think I would leave that out of the tutorial. CV plane classes are confusing enough. I do hope double-stacking is a sub-choice in the CV Plane option? Perhaps gist for the optional thread.

I also like that the TRS defense factor is 5 right on the counter.