Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


My opinion hasn't changed on this.

There are two tints of red for interior colors already for the Communist Chinese. Adding a third is too subtle a difference. The blue interior for artillery is consistent with all the other artillery divisions in the game. WIF FE used a mix of red and blue which doesn't scale well through all levels of zoom.

I have another try, because I feel that the fact that these 2 ART are Communist units doesn't show at all.
Either write "COMM" on them as you wrote "AUS" for Australian, or you an also have the box lines be red ?

Here are the different units under discussion (with some Japanese thrown in). To my eye the difference between the Communist artillery and the Nationalist artillery is strong. The Communists get the darker shade. Indeed, that darker blue interior for the Communist Chinese appears only on their two artillery units. All the other artillery units in the game have the lighter shade of blue (which is also used for airborne units).

Just a newbie tangent, but I need to ask: After looking at the rules (admittedly not too closely), I still can't figure out why units in the same nation have different colors (except, of course, for the difference between the Nationalist and Communist Chinese). In this example, for instance, why the difference in color between the different Japanese Army-size infantry counters? (I'm referring the 20th and 27th Armies.)

With corps/army sized units there are two classes: elite and regular.  The elite units are shown with white combat and movement numbers and white interiors for their NATO symbols. The only difference between elite and non-elite is that the latter defend better when they are passive (disrupted) and out of supply.  The difference is that regular army units, when passive and out-of-supply, defend with a strength of 1, regardless of what is printed on the counter.  Elite units defend with a strength of 3 under the same circumstances.  One of the keys to winning is to disrupt regular army enemy units and then overrun them.  A ground strike to disrupt enemy units followed by maneuvering through the line to cut off their supply can transform a hex worth 11 (a 6-3 and a 5-3) into a hex worth 2 that can be overrun.  Net result: a big hole in the line, cheers on one side, and tears on the other.

I have most of the air and naval bitmaps installed now. Here is a screen shot taken from Barbaroosa - first turn.

The Germans have taken out the sacrificial lamb left in Brest-Litovsk and punched a hole in the river line in Lithuania. The current decision is whether to use von Leeb to reorganize the JU87B and a division - they have orange status indicators marking them as passive/disrupted.

To the right you can see the units in the hex under the cursor.

Only von Leeb and von Brock have the bright green status indicators because they are the only HQs eligible for reorganizing units. That is, there are units within their range that could be reorganized.

This screen shot is seriously cropped (to meet the 200k limit for posts). It was done at zoom level 5 (out of 8). I think this is a reasonable level at which to play the game and that the unit depictions you see in this screen shot are what you will see when playing. The full screen (at 1280 by 1024) shows 14.5 hexes across and 11 hexes high. I could have made that slightly larger but I left some margins for other stuff I was doing.

The two naval air units did a port attack on Riga, which is why they are passive/expended for the turn (orange status indicator).

Hi Steve,

It looks like the 3-3 Art in the cursor hex is also passive? If so, it is not showing on the map in the background of the hex?

Rob

ORIGINAL: Yohan

Hi Steve,

It looks like the 3-3 Art in the cursor hex is also passive? If so, it is not showing on the map in the background of the hex?

Rob

Yeah, it's passive because I used it for bombardment during the ground strike phase. There is a small piece of the orange visible, but you have to look closely (orange on red is very hard to see). I will most likely reduce the amount of shadowing so more of the status indicators for units underneath can be seen. Notice that the SS unit has a gray shadow rather than black.

The positioning of the units within the units' panel isn't correct. I have to allow for a larger margin around them to accommodate the status indicators.

I've seen several posts for improving the shadows and status indicators but I am holding off on trying new variations at the present. Once the graphics artist finishes the unit bitmaps, I'll ask him for advice on both.

It's nit picking, but you seemed to be attentive to that, but it seems that the "Stuka" name is too high and written on the wing of the bird.

The shadows are not really quite like I would llike them, they look too much like shadows. I would have prefered them to look like some thickness of the counter, you see what I mean.

Otherwise it's quite a splendid and gorgeous view.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
It's nit picking, but you seemed to be attentive to that, but it seems that the "Stuka" name is too high and written on the wing of the bird.

The shadows are not really quite like I would llike them, they look too much like shadows. I would have prefered them to look like some thickness of the counter, you see what I mean.

Otherwise it's quite a splendid and gorgeous view.

The placement of the names has only been tailored for zoom level 8. I believe I now have them all correct, but I want to wait until I see the rest of the units from the last 4 counter sheets.

Once I am certain they are all as perfect as I can make them at zoom level 8, I'll scale them for the other zoom levels. This was a problem I had for all the land units when I was designing their high resolution unit depictions. There is a large internal data file I created that contains nothing but offset numbers for placing the component parts of the counters within the frame at different levels of zoom: X offset, Y offset, font size, variations for if circled numbers are present, and a long list of other modifiers.

Steve, I'm finding that the names are too far away from the Graphics for the ships counters. You could make them closer without harming the counter.

Also, I find that the circles for Range & Speed are both too large for ships. I'm sure you could trim it down a bit.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Steve, I'm finding that the names are too far away from the Graphics for the ships counters. You could make them closer without harming the counter.

Also, I find that the circles for Range & Speed are both too large for ships. I'm sure you could trim it down a bit.

All the circles are the same in that they are based on the size of the font used inside the circle. When there are two digits, the circles are larger, otherwise they are precisely the same.

What you are probably noticing is that 3, 4, and 6 have more room from the digit to the perimeter of the circle. 2, 5, and 7 have less.

Steve, do you have an opinion on the question I asked about AI vs AI playtesting? I know that when you don't reply it oftens means that "Deep Thought" is analysing the position

Also, and I apologise if this has been covered before, will it be possible to create bitmaps to replace those used as unit counters? I have something specific in mind where I want to replace certain air units with some of my own creation. I know I'll be able to modify the units' values/year of entry etc via the CSV files but it would be good if I could create my own bitmaps to complete the swap. I understand that even if this is possible, several bitmaps will be required for each unit to handle zoom levels.

Cheer, Neilster

Using the colored dot to indicate flipped units looks a little tricky, in this case, with the Russians and an orange dot.

One idea: maybe the status indicator could be blinking? (possibly annoying. so possibly optional, like the way you can control your cursor blink rate or no blink at all on a computer) but maybe that coulp help anyone having trouble with the colors.

We used to play WiF5 on a wall, using poster putty to attach the units to the map. Instead of flipping the pieces over as you do on a table, we would rotate them 180 degrees to indicate which ones were flipped over.

Using the colored dot to indicate flipped units looks a little tricky, in this case, with the Russians and an orange dot.

One idea: maybe the status indicator could be blinking? (possibly annoying. so possibly optional, like the way you can control your cursor blink rate or no blink at all on a computer) but maybe that coulp help anyone having trouble with the colors.

Maybe disrupted Aicraft & Ships units could show the generic Aircraft & Ship graphic ?
This is a bit like the WiF FE game, where disrupted units are flipped down, thus showing the generic graphic.
This is a habit WiF FE players have, and they immediately recognise disrupted aircraft in the whole map picture because they see the generic graphic.

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Steve, do you have an opinion on the question I asked about AI vs AI playtesting? I know that when you don't reply it oftens means that "Deep Thought" is analysing the position

Also, and I apologise if this has been covered before, will it be possible to create bitmaps to replace those used as unit counters? I have something specific in mind where I want to replace certain air units with some of my own creation. I know I'll be able to modify the units' values/year of entry etc via the CSV files but it would be good if I could create my own bitmaps to complete the swap. I understand that even if this is possible, several bitmaps will be required for each unit to handle zoom levels.

Cheer, Neilster

Enabling AI versus AI is a task not on my radar.

Right now I have the high resolution air and naval unit bitmaps as one per counter. Once I have them all, I will be consolidating them into bitmap pages of 100 units per page. I might consider providing a untility program for: (1) splicing the pages apart into individual counters and (2) reformulating the pages. That would let the players modify individual counters. I am considering this mainly because I have to do the second piece anyway. It will not be a polished program, just a quick and dirty.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

Using the colored dot to indicate flipped units looks a little tricky, in this case, with the Russians and an orange dot.

One idea: maybe the status indicator could be blinking? (possibly annoying. so possibly optional, like the way you can control your cursor blink rate or no blink at all on a computer) but maybe that coulp help anyone having trouble with the colors.

Maybe disrupted Aicraft & Ships units could show the generic Aircraft & Ship graphic ?
This is a bit like the WiF FE game, where disrupted units are flipped down, thus showing the generic graphic.
This is a habit WiF FE players have, and they immediately recognise disrupted aircraft in the whole map picture because they see the generic graphic.

It's good to hear other ideas, but none of these wins over my heart and mind.

The program will already come with a disclaimer about the monitor's active light beams inducing epilepsy (I am serious about this), so blinking the lights is out.

I do not want the passive units to remove any information from the player's view. Or make it harder to read.

At this point, I do not see the problem with the status indicators you are trying to fix.

WiF players are just used to counters being upside down. People will blow a big attack somewhere, forgetting about that unflipped aircraft in that one stack, because of the little status indicator, bitch and moan for a few days, get used to it, and get down to playing the new computer game.

ORIGINAL: trees trees

WiF players are just used to counters being upside down. People will blow a big attack somewhere, forgetting about that unflipped aircraft in that one stack, because of the little status indicator, bitch and moan for a few days, get used to it, and get down to playing the new computer game.

If the concern is finding/missing air units that can participate in a combat, then I am working on other solutions to that problem.

The idea is to have a disembodied list of units available when doing strategic bombing, or performing any other air mission. The placement of the "selectable units" list will be under the players control, as will whether it is shown at all. Its purpose is simple: to show all the air units who can fly an air mission during that phase. The reason for wanting this list, in addition to the status indicators and other ways of indicating which units can move during a phase, is that sometimes a long range bomber is off-screen and easily forgotten.

By clicking on any unit in the list, the player can center the map on that unit. I expect this to be of some use in addressing the problem you mentioned. It comes with the price of more clutter on the screen - but one person's clutter is another person's vital information.

That air unit idea sounds real good. A 'show unflipped fighters only' option would be great. So would a little zone around them basically showing which hexes currently had figher cover. If I was ordering around a Star Trek style computer, that's what I would tell it to do.

Every WiF player has their own style on how to stack the counters. (and the stacks can be pretty big these days. it can be handy to use a little piece of paper with a copy of the Belgian front hexes on it just for airplanes, or a small map with blown-up hexes for that front). Most folks put guns and divs on top of the corps/armies, and then air units on top of that. Then some want all flipped units at the bottom of the stack, others still want flipped air on top, and flipped divs/guns still on top of corps.

Will the computer always stack pieces in the same way?

ORIGINAL: trees trees

That air unit idea sounds real good. A 'show unflipped fighters only' option would be great. So would a little zone around them basically showing which hexes currently had figher cover. If I was ordering around a Star Trek style computer, that's what I would tell it to do.

Every WiF player has their own style on how to stack the counters. (and the stacks can be pretty big these days. it can be handy to use a little piece of paper with a copy of the Belgian front hexes on it just for airplanes, or a small map with blown-up hexes for that front). Most folks put guns and divs on top of the corps/armies, and then air units on top of that. Then some want all flipped units at the bottom of the stack, others still want flipped air on top, and flipped divs/guns still on top of corps.

Will the computer always stack pieces in the same way?

There are a myriad of ways to sort the counters on the map. I propse to add the ability to filter which units are shown too (e.g., just fighters).

Once I get all the different resolution depictions sorted out, I'll go back to my favorite idea on making units visible. That is: place 4 small unit stacks in a square grid formation within a large hex. Using units sized appropriately for zoom level 4 in a map hex at zoom level 8, makes that readily possible. Basically, you will have 4 units completely visible in each hex. You should be able to see all the land units and a stack of air units, for example, without having to cursor over anything.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Neilster
Steve, do you have an opinion on the question I asked about AI vs AI playtesting? I know that when you don't reply it oftens means that "Deep Thought" is analysing the position

Also, and I apologise if this has been covered before, will it be possible to create bitmaps to replace those used as unit counters? I have something specific in mind where I want to replace certain air units with some of my own creation. I know I'll be able to modify the units' values/year of entry etc via the CSV files but it would be good if I could create my own bitmaps to complete the swap. I understand that even if this is possible, several bitmaps will be required for each unit to handle zoom levels.

Cheer, Neilster

Enabling AI versus AI is a task not on my radar.

Right now I have the high resolution air and naval unit bitmaps as one per counter. Once I have them all, I will be consolidating them into bitmap pages of 100 units per page. I might consider providing a untility program for: (1) splicing the pages apart into individual counters and (2) reformulating the pages. That would let the players modify individual counters. I am considering this mainly because I have to do the second piece anyway. It will not be a polished program, just a quick and dirty.

Understood. I just threw AI vs AI out there in case it may be useful later. I know that at least TOAW 3 and Conquest of the Aegean have been testing using AI vs AI.

That sounds like good news about the bitmaps. My alternative-history Luftwaffe, in which a radical canard-pusher He 112 is built in preference to the Me 109 in many variants, looks like it's coming together [:D]

Cheers, Neilster

At this point, I do not see the problem with the status indicators you are trying to fix.

Please note that I was not trying to fix anything.
My suggestion was just an idea out of the blue, just a suggestion that I felt was cool

But I'm satisfied with the indicators as they are now.