Unit Depictions on Screen

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Here come the Italians.

1 - Long names make for tight clearances.

2 - When there is a colored circle on the same line, I am moving the names off from perfectly centered. In this screen shot that affects the night fighters and the flying boats. I guess I have to change the offset to 4 pixels (instead of 2). That should make the Re.2001 and Gabbiano easier to read.

3 - Hyphenating Sparviero isn't needed. I'll undo that.

4 - The SM.79bis needs to move up 4 more pixels.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Last in the series.

1 - I guess I have to hyphenate Cicogna. Hyphenation was the first skill I had trouble with in school (third grade). It never did make any sense to me where the break was suppose to go.

2 - I hope hyphenating Marsupiale works out, since I don't have any more room to move it up in the frame.

3 - The name P.108A is not centered. Instead it is offset away from the red circle.

4 - The top row here is a duplicate of the bottom row from the previous post.

[JagdFlanker]

everything looks beautiful and perfect as is, but as an option instead of Macchi C.xxx the official short form is Mc.xxx if you'd rather more counter room!

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I have been making progress towards this - sort of. I haveplaced the status boxes at the top of the units outside the 96 by 96 pixel frame for the counter and I have removed the black outline around the counters. This has given me a little bit more room to work with. One consequence has been to reduce the number of units in a stack whose status boxes are continuously visible (it use to be 4, now it's 3).

Is it imperative even to show status boxes for multiple units in a stack? Would it be acceptable simply to show the status box of the top unit? (I ask this due to a possible alternative presentation of the status "bar".)

What still gives me pause here are the status boxes at the top. The other units in the screen shots from other games do not have this feature.

I want to review what each of the 6 status boxes indicates. I expect to reduce their number back down to 5 (as CWIF had originally) and to make them of varying sizes, so the more important ones (e.g., disrupted unit) are slightly larger. Doing away with the status boxes seems to me to be a very bad idea. Besides indicating which units are disrupted, they show supply status, whether a unit is transporting/being transported, and whether a unit has been committed to a land attack. These are crucial aspects of a unit the player needs to know when playing the game. Putting more numbers or other indicators inside a unit's frame would be insane.

I'm not aware of where the current presentation of unit status originated, but there are alternative graphic devices that might suffice and make the entire presentation a bit more slick. Of course, that's just in my opinion... [:D]

For example, it doesn't seem to matter to me if the status bar is flush with the edges of the counter or not. If the counter is rounded and shaded, you can still place the bar on top (itself perhaps rounded and shaded, like a bar of "lights"). Whether you can also show additional status bars over a stack is, to me, immaterial as long as you can tell by looking (at the 3D portrayal of the stack) that there is, indeed, more than one unit in a hex. Knowing this, you could then easily cycle through the units as needed to see their own status bars.

Similarly, you don't even need a bar, necessarily. Just have a row of "lights" over each counter/stack. They could be round, square, anything. They wouldn't need to be a solid bar as they are now, just individual "lights". When neutral, they would be "unlit" (gray?); when activated, they would "light up" with the appropriate color according to their status.

I'll get to this design problem eventually, but I think the edging for the counters (shadows, rounding) has to be resolved simultaneously with defining the status boxes.

Thanks for seriously considering the issue. I think it's pretty important and there is likely more than one way to devise a way to satisfy both graphic and informational concerns. [:)]

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I have been making progress towards this - sort of. I haveplaced the status boxes at the top of the units outside the 96 by 96 pixel frame for the counter and I have removed the black outline around the counters. This has given me a little bit more room to work with. One consequence has been to reduce the number of units in a stack whose status boxes are continuously visible (it use to be 4, now it's 3).

Is it imperative even to show status boxes for multiple units in a stack? Would it be acceptable simply to show the status box of the top unit? (I ask this due to a possible alternative presentation of the status "bar".)

What still gives me pause here are the status boxes at the top. The other units in the screen shots from other games do not have this feature.

I want to review what each of the 6 status boxes indicates. I expect to reduce their number back down to 5 (as CWIF had originally) and to make them of varying sizes, so the more important ones (e.g., disrupted unit) are slightly larger. Doing away with the status boxes seems to me to be a very bad idea. Besides indicating which units are disrupted, they show supply status, whether a unit is transporting/being transported, and whether a unit has been committed to a land attack. These are crucial aspects of a unit the player needs to know when playing the game. Putting more numbers or other indicators inside a unit's frame would be insane.

I'm not aware of where the current presentation of unit status originated, but there are alternative graphic devices that might suffice and make the entire presentation a bit more slick. Of course, that's just in my opinion... [:D]

For example, it doesn't seem to matter to me if the status bar is flush with the edges of the counter or not. If the counter is rounded and shaded, you can still place the bar on top (itself perhaps rounded and shaded, like a bar of "lights"). Whether you can also show additional status bars over a stack is, to me, immaterial as long as you can tell by looking (at the 3D portrayal of the stack) that there is, indeed, more than one unit in a hex. Knowing this, you could then easily cycle through the units as needed to see their own status bars.

Similarly, you don't even need a bar, necessarily. Just have a row of "lights" over each counter/stack. They could be round, square, anything. They wouldn't need to be a solid bar as they are now, just individual "lights". When neutral, they would be "unlit" (gray?); when activated, they would "light up" with the appropriate color according to their status.

I'll get to this design problem eventually, but I think the edging for the counters (shadows, rounding) has to be resolved simultaneously with defining the status boxes.

Thanks for seriously considering the issue. I think it's pretty important and there is likely more than one way to devise a way to satisfy both graphic and informational concerns. [:)]

I post these things in the hopes of getting suggestions such as yours. Thanks.

1 - It would be nice to see the status boxes for the top 3 units merely by scrolling the map. For example, when the stacks are sorted by (or limited to) a unit type, you could tell whether there are any units in the stack that can still move. Expanding on this example, you could be looking for fighters, tactical air, or armor.

2 - Using circles instead of rectangles is a viable alternative. This idea is new to me and I haven't been able to absorb the implications yet. I wouldn't want them to look like the lights on top of a 4 by 4. But I think circles are inherently better looking than rectangles. Arguing against circles, rectangles can be drawn cleanly, while circles can suffer from jaggies.

3 - As you noted, alternative shapes for the status indicators (note change in terminology) provide more flexibility for the associated counter shape.

4 - I've thought about placing the status indicators on the side and that won't work. It is too difficult to determine whether they apply to the unit on the left or the right - this is especially true at low levels of zoom. Just for a mind warp, if the orientation of the hexagonal grid were rotated 60 degress, then placing the indicators on the side would be required. Putting them on top would then be ambiguous as to whether they applied to the top or bottom unit.

5 - How about a slight overlap of a circle of 1 or 2 pixels with the top of the counter. That would keep them from 'floating'.

6 - They could just be semi-circles. That would provide more room for 'stacking' them so you can see what they are for the top 3 units.

7 - We could use the leftmost indicator to determine availability: (A) empty would mean that it is available, just not during the current phase, (B) bright green would mean that is available for movement this phase, (C) black would mean that it has already moved this phase - but could be undone, (D) dark red would mean that it is no longer available this turn - unless you reorganize it, of course. This conflicts with the current scheme of using a bright green outline to denote a unit's availability (B in the preceeding list).

I'm sure I'll come up with some more thoughts about this by the end of the day.

Perhaps you have some thoughts too?

[stretch]

ok this may be stupid but here goes.

in the spirit of recreating the board game has any consideration been given to actually showing units flipped when they are flipped (with the status bar still there) with perhaps a key toggle to revert them all to the face up way we have them now for scanning the board ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: stretch

ok this may be stupid but here goes.

in the spirit of recreating the board game has any consideration been given to actually showing units flipped when they are flipped (with the status bar still there) with perhaps a key toggle to revert them all to the face up way we have them now for scanning the board ?

The backs of the counters contain almost no information (year built). Some have build cost and time but that has little value when moving units and attacking.

Effectively what you are suggesting is removing the information from the unit's counter once a unit has moved (or become disrupted, etc.). As a player that would be a great loss.

In general, modifying the counter face to indicate changes in a unit's status is unattractive because the information density is so high already. 6 numbers plus color coding for naval units, 5 numbers plus image shape plus color coding for planes, only 2 numbers but a wealth of other symbology for land units. Add in the different countries with who controls the unit indicators, and it seems increasing the burden on those little 96 by 96 pixels is likely to overwhelm it. Never mind zoomnig them down to 48 by 48!

Hence the status boxes to convey dynamic information. The counter depictions are static (for the most part). The label 'status' was very well chosen: it indicates the current state(s) of the unit.

Discussions to clarify and build an understanding of the problem are always good. Once you know what you are dealnig with, you're half way home.

[SurrenderMonkey]

Hi Shannon,

Yes - please go with the 'circles' idea. Very nice.

[PanzerMax]

The Dauntless is is about 5 degrees shallower than the others.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are some more USA naval air units and a bunch of their bombers. I've been fairly successful at getting the airplane image to not be occluded by the text and numbers.

Though there are still a dozen or so that need some more tweaking.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: PanzerMax
The Dauntless is is about 5 degrees shallower than the others.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here are some more USA naval air units and a bunch of their bombers. I've been fairly successful at getting the airplane image to not be occluded by the text and numbers.

Though there are still a dozen or so that need some more tweaking.

Coming out of its dive?

[Zorachus99]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

At some point you have to trust your allies. I would not enjoy playing with an ally who wanted me to say "Mother, may I" every time I wanted to move one of the units he had loaned to me. Nor would I want to impose such a restriction on an ally to whom I had loaned units.

Hehe that's fine.

I'm laughing because I often mentally say "Mother, may I", in some crazy way when I think of what the commanders on each front would be clamoring for. How many air missions go to each specific front, how many want naval moves, ect... There are often several theatres of combat for Germany, and figuring out how to spend those precious air and naval missions get's me into arguements with myself. Hence, crazy and funny.

I've seen opponents look at me like I'm crazy as I call an air impulse during a turn, others non-plussed.

It was on a 'would like to have' list.

Thanks for moderating! The Dev team speaking with one voice is awesome!

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Yohan

I agree go with the red number inside the blue circle. Just like some of the nightfighters have for their combat value.

Rob

P.S. Those poor BEL and NE troops, up against the Gustav rail gun and Jagd Tigers in 1940...sheesh <g>

Maybe they held out until 1944 [:'(]

Edit. Ooops. Read the later posts Neilster. That joke's been done.

Cheers, Neilster

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: amwild
I noticed that the CR.42bis aircraft bitmap doesn't look too good against the dark background - the dark areas of the camouflage tend to get lost in the background. At first glance, I saw an engine and wheel, a wing, and a fuselage, all seemingly separate, until I looked much closer, and even then... Perhaps these sorts of bitmaps need a single pixel white/light outline to separate them properly from dark backgrounds.

Let me see, you're complaining that the camouflage works too well?[;)]

Yeah, I need to figure something out for the 3 or 4 air units for which this is a problem.

A pale grey outline might work without being too obtrusive.

Cheers, Neilster

[Neilster]

3 - As you noted, alternative shapes for the status indicators (note change in terminology) provide more flexibility for the associated counter shape.

How about almost rectangular elipses? If you wanted to round the corners of the counters slightly, the elipse corner geometry could be tailored so that the leftmost and rightmost staus indicators were flush with the counter corners. The appearance of separation that the eliptical shape should provide may help clarity too.

If possible, IMHO, slightly rounding the counters and adding a 3D effect will improve the look of the game.

Thanks for posting the cameos of the new air units on map. They really give a feel for what MWiF will look like. I didn't have Planes in Flames so this is a real treat.

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

3 - As you noted, alternative shapes for the status indicators (note change in terminology) provide more flexibility for the associated counter shape.

How about almost rectangular elipses? If you wanted to round the corners of the counters slightly, the elipse corner geometry could be tailored so that the leftmost and rightmost staus indicators were flush with the counter corners. The appearance of separation that the eliptical shape should provide may help clarity too.

If possible, IMHO, slightly rounding the counters and adding a 3D effect will improve the look of the game.

Thanks for posting the cameos of the new air units on map. They really give a feel for what MWiF will look like. I didn't have Planes in Flames so this is a real treat.

Cheers, Neilster

I am leaning towards squares with rounded corners for each status indicator for a couple of reasons:

1 - That would make them miniture versions of the counter itself, aesthetically pleasing.

2 - I want as large a number of pixels colored in for the status indicator as possible. Otherwise it might be hard to determine the color at all levels of zoom (e.g., circles have a smaller footprint).

I am also giving some consideration to having 3 indicators running across the top, shoved to the left. They would be the same for all unit types (availability, disruption, supply). Then I would have 3 more running down the lefthand side, shoved to the top. They would contain information that is different for each branch of service: land, air, and naval. The unit type specific indicators would be for combat effects, transporting/transported, and other odds and ends. I really like the idea of separating the universal indicators from those that change depending on branch of service. It should make them a lot easier to learn and remember.

The main argument against this is that I do not see a way to display the indicators for units beneath the top unit. I'll worry about that today. Maybe I'll even take my wife's advice and mock up some to see what they look like. [She is always the pragmatist. Comments like that one have an accompanying look that says "... dummy!" 35 years come July.].

[Froonp]

1 - That would make them miniture versions of the counter itself, aesthetically pleasing.

2 - I want as large a number of pixels colored in for the status indicator as possible. Otherwise it might be hard to determine the color at all levels of zoom (e.g., circles have a smaller footprint).

I'm happy that you will try rounding the corners of the counters. But PLEASE, do not make the corners too much round !

I am also giving some consideration to having 3 indicators running across the top, shoved to the left. They would be the same for all unit types (availability, disruption, supply). Then I would have 3 more running down the lefthand side, shoved to the top. They would contain information that is different for each branch of service: land, air, and naval. The unit type specific indicators would be for combat effects, transporting/transported, and other odds and ends. I really like the idea of separating the universal indicators from those that change depending on branch of service. It should make them a lot easier to learn and remember.

I like this.
But I'd prefer to see it to have a better idea of if I like it or love it.

[Neilster]

...35 years come July

you only get 12 for manslaughter [:'(]

Cheers, Neilster

[Freddy Fudpucker]

I don't recall posting here before but I've been lurking for quiite some time now. Thought I'd pipe up and add my support by saying how great the art is coming along and I admire the dedication being shown in producing this game.

I'm already looking forward to parting with my cash to get hold of a copy when its done.[8D]

[Capitaine]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

I am leaning towards squares with rounded corners for each status indicator for a couple of reasons:

1 - That would make them miniture versions of the counter itself, aesthetically pleasing.

2 - I want as large a number of pixels colored in for the status indicator as possible. Otherwise it might be hard to determine the color at all levels of zoom (e.g., circles have a smaller footprint).

I am also giving some consideration to having 3 indicators running across the top, shoved to the left. They would be the same for all unit types (availability, disruption, supply). Then I would have 3 more running down the lefthand side, shoved to the top. They would contain information that is different for each branch of service: land, air, and naval. The unit type specific indicators would be for combat effects, transporting/transported, and other odds and ends. I really like the idea of separating the universal indicators from those that change depending on branch of service. It should make them a lot easier to learn and remember.

This sounds good. Only seeing a sample can determine if it works aesthetically. Oh, and I agree with Froonp, any "rounding" of the counter edges should be very slight; too round and things begin to look worse. Just take the point off the corner, IMO.

The main argument against this is that I do not see a way to display the indicators for units beneath the top unit. I'll worry about that today. Maybe I'll even take my wife's advice and mock up some to see what they look like. [She is always the pragmatist. Comments like that one have an accompanying look that says "... dummy!" 35 years come July.].

Well, as I implied in a previous post, I think showing indicators for units underneath the top unit makes things look confusing. You can only see a portion of the indicator, and you can't see the unit below anyway because it's covered. If you have a unit/stack display area on the screen somewhere (part of the interface; not on the map), it would be more appropriate to show the info for all units in a hex there (might be a good idea to have this; you could then even dispense with the second set of 3 indicators on the side and merely show them on the unit display area). This convention is used for most PC games that have a lot of info on the units but need additional space for more details. See, e.g., SSG's Decisive Battles games, TOAW, etc.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I am leaning towards squares with rounded corners for each status indicator for a couple of reasons:

1 - That would make them miniture versions of the counter itself, aesthetically pleasing.

2 - I want as large a number of pixels colored in for the status indicator as possible. Otherwise it might be hard to determine the color at all levels of zoom (e.g., circles have a smaller footprint).

I am also giving some consideration to having 3 indicators running across the top, shoved to the left. They would be the same for all unit types (availability, disruption, supply). Then I would have 3 more running down the lefthand side, shoved to the top. They would contain information that is different for each branch of service: land, air, and naval. The unit type specific indicators would be for combat effects, transporting/transported, and other odds and ends. I really like the idea of separating the universal indicators from those that change depending on branch of service. It should make them a lot easier to learn and remember.

This sounds good. Only seeing a sample can determine if it works aesthetically. Oh, and I agree with Froonp, any "rounding" of the counter edges should be very slight; too round and things begin to look worse. Just take the point off the corner, IMO.

The main argument against this is that I do not see a way to display the indicators for units beneath the top unit. I'll worry about that today. Maybe I'll even take my wife's advice and mock up some to see what they look like. [She is always the pragmatist. Comments like that one have an accompanying look that says "... dummy!" 35 years come July.].

Well, as I implied in a previous post, I think showing indicators for units underneath the top unit makes things look confusing. You can only see a portion of the indicator, and you can't see the unit below anyway because it's covered. If you have a unit/stack display area on the screen somewhere (part of the interface; not on the map), it would be more appropriate to show the info for all units in a hex there (might be a good idea to have this; you could then even dispense with the second set of 3 indicators on the side and merely show them on the unit display area). This convention is used for most PC games that have a lot of info on the units but need additional space for more details. See, e.g., SSG's Decisive Battles games, TOAW, etc.

Excellent points.

I am working on a popup that gives more details about the units under the cursor. This will be an alternative to dedicating a fixed portion of the screen for that purpose (code already exists for the latter). As you say, the counter depiction, and the details about the units in a hex provided in the popup, should complement one another. I'll keep that in mind.

Thanks.