Page 42 of 108

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:25 pm
by composer99
In terms of the promo shot not really matching up with the reality of the game, it's not much different than the ones on the WiF:FE box.

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:44 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is a screen shot I composed for the Matrix web site (marketing). There are 11 of them total and I have one more to do. Once I have sent Sean the last 4 (he already has 7 of them) I expect he will post them all.

Title: Invasion at Anzio.
Cool down Steve, AMPH can't load MECH unit.
Unless you're playing without AMPH, and that AMPH are treated like normal TRS units.
Also, MECH can't invade.
Plus, invading from the 1 box is pretty much a suicide, especially on Anzio where you setup a strong German ARM with a second unit.
Rats, I meant to move the 8-3 but forgot.

Section 1 was because I set up the BB in section 2 and I wanted less than 10 units in the sea box section.

There is a small coastal hex available for the invasion just west of the German armor - The 'A' of Anzio not the 'nzio'.

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:53 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is a screen shot I composed for the Matrix web site (marketing). There are 11 of them total and I have one more to do. Once I have sent Sean the last 4 (he already has 7 of them) I expect he will post them all.

Title: Invasion at Anzio.
Cool down Steve, AMPH can't load MECH unit.
Unless you're playing without AMPH, and that AMPH are treated like normal TRS units.
Also, MECH can't invade.
Plus, invading from the 1 box is pretty much a suicide, especially on Anzio where you setup a strong German ARM with a second unit.
Rats, I meant to move the 8-3 but forgot.

Section 1 was because I set up the BB in section 2 and I wanted less than 10 units in the sea box section.

There is a small coastal hex available for the invasion just west of the German armor - The 'A' of Anzio not the 'nzio'.
Is this better?

Image

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:55 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
Anzio is page 3. Here is page 1. [Look familiar Patrice?].

Image

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:57 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
Here is page 2. Yeah, the supply status indicators for the Japanese air units are wrong, but the buyers won't know that.

Image

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Mon Oct 22, 2007 9:59 pm
by Shannon V. OKeets
Page #11 for the web site. Also inspired by Patrice (rampant plagarism on my part).

Image

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 12:52 am
by brian brian
I really like seeing the '5' defense factors on the TRS/AMPH; quite helpful!

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:29 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
My first pass on the summary form for reviewing all of a major power's task forces. There will be a complementary form for show a single task force. this one is simply to provide a player with an overview. Location will either be a port or a sea area section box. A task force has to all be within a single section of a sea area.

Now is the best time for comments and suggestions. There is no code behind this. As you can see there is plenty of room for other stuff. The blank space at the bottom is for a scroll bar so there can be more than 7 task forces in existence. I need to keep the columns fairly wide to show the name and location.

Cargo units do not include carrier air units on carriers.

Image

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 3:43 am
by Zorachus99
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Here is page 2. Yeah, the supply status indicators for the Japanese air units are wrong, but the buyers won't know that.

Image

I might be wrong but shouldn't the japanes 6 1 0 0 ftr be shinden, rather than shiden?

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:21 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
Names were taken from the counter sheets:
315,54,49,J7W1 Shinden,,1945,0,9,0,0,1,0,4,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
343,54,49,N1K1-J Shiden (George),,1943,0,6,0,0,1,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
344,54,49,N1K1-J Shiden (George),,1943,0,7,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
345,54,49,N1K2-J Shiden-kai,,1944,0,7,0,0,3,1,10,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
430,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1945,0,8,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1946,4,1947,3,2,
431,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1945,0,8,0,0,0,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1946,4,1947,3,2,
432,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1946,0,8,1,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1947,4,1948,3,2,
433,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1946,0,9,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
434,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,9,1,0,1,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
435,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,10,0,0,0,0,9,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
436,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,8,2,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
437,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,9,2,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
438,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,8,3,0,2,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
439,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,11,0,0,0,0,9,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1950,4,1951,3,2,

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:38 am
by Froonp
ORIGINAL: Zorachus99
I might be wrong but shouldn't the japanes 6 1 0 0 ftr be shinden, rather than shiden?
Shiden is correct :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kawanishi_N1K-J
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ky%C5%ABsh%C5%AB_J7W

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:12 am
by Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

My first pass on the summary form for reviewing all of a major power's task forces. There will be a complementary form for show a single task force. this one is simply to provide a player with an overview. Location will either be a port or a sea area section box. A task force has to all be within a single section of a sea area.

Now is the best time for comments and suggestions. There is no code behind this. As you can see there is plenty of room for other stuff. The blank space at the bottom is for a scroll bar so there can be more than 7 task forces in existence. I need to keep the columns fairly wide to show the name and location.

Cargo units do not include carrier air units on carriers.
About the name, it would be cool to indicate somewhere a list of historical Task Force Names for each country for the player to pick from that. Forum members could gather that. You could propose these in drop down boxes in the form for creating Task Forces. Obviously, you should not remove the possibility for a player to type his own name.

About the Location, it should be abbreviated (most are extra long), with a tooltips appearing on it when the mouse hover for a second showing the full name. Those abbreviations can be added to one of the datafiles (SEA). I can add them if you want, but we would need to list them and ask the people about those abreviations.

Also, maybe "# of Submarines" is can be deleted, as a Task Force can't have both Submarines and Surface naval units. I mean that if 1 SUB and 1 BB move from the same port to the same sea area section box, this costs 2 naval moves, so there is no need to group them into Task Force, as they won't ever be able to be moved in one single Naval Move.
Quote from RAW
****************************
11.4.1 Definition of ‘naval move’
Each group of units you move is called a task force. A task force can contain any number of surface naval units or any number of SUBs. You can’t have surface naval units and SUBs in the same task force.
****************************

"# of Transports should be "# of Transports / Amphibious" (abbreviated to "# of TRS / AMPH") and both numbers separated by a slash.

"# of Convoy" should be "# of Convoy / Tankers" and both numbers separated by a slash.

"# of cargo units" may be broken down into 3 figures separated by slashes, in the same cell : "# of cargo units that can invade", "# of cargo land units", "# of cargo air units".

You can add a row showing "Max FTR force" which would be the Max air to air rating of the CVP carried by this TF, if all above average (in air to air factor) CVP are assigned to fighter role in case of an air to air combat. I do this on the tabletop game. For instance, I know right now that my May 1943 TF58 has a 8 Air to Air rating. This is a very useful bit of information for you to have, to assess your chances of surviving a fight in a given sea area where you intend to project your power through your carrier force.
For example, if I have 10 carrier planes 1 x 5 air to air CVP, plus 4 x 4 Air to air CVP, plus 5 other with 2 or below factors, I know that I have 6.6 (5+1.6) that is 7 air to air combat rating.
I realise that it is there already, it is the "Air-to-air" row [:D]. I did not see it.

What do you intend to write in the "Defense" row ? Average Defense ? Max Defense ? Min Defense ? Average can be interesting, but min or max have poor interest IMO. Average can give a rough idea of the kind of ships in the TF. The lower, the tougher.

All factors sum-up figures should also include the results of low sea box sections penalties (Shore Bombardments) and weather effects (Naval air power and sea box penalties increase).

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:12 am
by Neilster
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Names were taken from the counter sheets:
315,54,49,J7W1 Shinden,,1945,0,9,0,0,1,0,4,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
343,54,49,N1K1-J Shiden (George),,1943,0,6,0,0,1,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
344,54,49,N1K1-J Shiden (George),,1943,0,7,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
345,54,49,N1K2-J Shiden-kai,,1944,0,7,0,0,3,1,10,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1890,0,1890,0,2,
430,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1945,0,8,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1946,4,1947,3,2,
431,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1945,0,8,0,0,0,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1946,4,1947,3,2,
432,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1946,0,8,1,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1947,4,1948,3,2,
433,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1946,0,9,0,0,0,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
434,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,9,1,0,1,0,8,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
435,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,10,0,0,0,0,9,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
436,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1947,0,8,2,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1948,4,1949,3,2,
437,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,9,2,0,1,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
438,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,8,3,0,2,0,7,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1949,4,1950,3,2,
439,55,49,J7W2 Shinden,J7W2++Shinden,1948,0,11,0,0,0,0,9,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,6,2,1950,4,1951,3,2,
Shiden (violet lightning) is correct. This is a J7W1 Shinden (Magnificent Lightning) below. The J7W2 was to be a turbojet variant.

Cheers, Neilster

Image

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:18 am
by Neilster
Steve, are the unit shadows working in the images you've just posted?

Cheers, Neilster

Edit: My 1000th post! [X(] [8D] [:'(]

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:38 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: Neilster

Steve, are the unit shadows working in the images you've just posted?

Cheers, Neilster
Yes. I toned them back and standardized on a single size regardless of the number of units in the hex. This was to leave enough room for the status indicators - they are smack dab right up against each other now with no room for bigger sahdows.

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:41 am
by Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here is page 1. [Look familiar Patrice?].
Yes, I do recognise the situation, but you re-made the screenshot from scratch didn't you ?

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:42 am
by Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
There is a small coastal hex available for the invasion just west of the German armor - The 'A' of Anzio not the 'nzio'.
Oh yes, you're right, Anzio is right there.
Seems that the allies are ready to be repelled to the sea in this version as well [:D].

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:52 am
by Shannon V. OKeets
ORIGINAL: Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

My first pass on the summary form for reviewing all of a major power's task forces. There will be a complementary form for show a single task force. this one is simply to provide a player with an overview. Location will either be a port or a sea area section box. A task force has to all be within a single section of a sea area.

Now is the best time for comments and suggestions. There is no code behind this. As you can see there is plenty of room for other stuff. The blank space at the bottom is for a scroll bar so there can be more than 7 task forces in existence. I need to keep the columns fairly wide to show the name and location.

Cargo units do not include carrier air units on carriers.
About the name, it would be cool to indicate somewhere a list of historical Task Force Names for each country for the player to pick from that. Forum members could gather that. You could propose these in drop down boxes in the form for creating Task Forces. Obviously, you should not remove the possibility for a player to type his own name.

About the Location, it should be abbreviated (most are extra long), with a tooltips appearing on it when the mouse hover for a second showing the full name. Those abbreviations can be added to one of the datafiles (SEA). I can add them if you want, but we would need to list them and ask the people about those abreviations.

Also, maybe "# of Submarines" is can be deleted, as a Task Force can't have both Submarines and Surface naval units. I mean that if 1 SUB and 1 BB move from the same port to the same sea area section box, this costs 2 naval moves, so there is no need to group them into Task Force, as they won't ever be able to be moved in one single Naval Move.
Quote from RAW
****************************
11.4.1 Definition of ‘naval move’
Each group of units you move is called a task force. A task force can contain any number of surface naval units or any number of SUBs. You can’t have surface naval units and SUBs in the same task force.
****************************

"# of Transports should be "# of Transports / Amphibious" (abbreviated to "# of TRS / AMPH") and both numbers separated by a slash.

"# of Convoy" should be "# of Convoy / Tankers" and both numbers separated by a slash.

"# of cargo units" may be broken down into 3 figures separated by slashes, in the same cell : "# of cargo units that can invade", "# of cargo land units", "# of cargo air units".

You can add a row showing "Max FTR force" which would be the Max air to air rating of the CVP carried by this TF, if all above average (in air to air factor) CVP are assigned to fighter role in case of an air to air combat. I do this on the tabletop game. For instance, I know right now that my May 1943 TF58 has a 8 Air to Air rating. This is a very useful bit of information for you to have, to assess your chances of surviving a fight in a given sea area where you intend to project your power through your carrier force.
For example, if I have 10 carrier planes 1 x 5 air to air CVP, plus 4 x 4 Air to air CVP, plus 5 other with 2 or below factors, I know that I have 6.6 (5+1.6) that is 7 air to air combat rating.
I realise that it is there already, it is the "Air-to-air" row [:D]. I did not see it.

What do you intend to write in the "Defense" row ? Average Defense ? Max Defense ? Min Defense ? Average can be interesting, but min or max have poor interest IMO. Average can give a rough idea of the kind of ships in the TF. The lower, the tougher.

All factors sum-up figures should also include the results of low sea box sections penalties (Shore Bombardments) and weather effects (Naval air power and sea box penalties increase).
Ok. I'll remove submarines.

Abbreviations of all the ports I want to avoid - too much trouble. Abbreviating the 83 sea areas might not be too hard though. That could be done like I did for the air/naval unit names. I would just add an extra field for the abbreviation and if it is blank, then the full name is used. That would make the task something that can be done off-line by editing the CSV file. You just go through the sea area names and either add a comma (blank field) or a shorter name and a comma.

Separating TRS from AMPH seems unnecessary, there is unlikely to be more than 2 since the task force will want to return to port where stacking limits on land units will be in effect.

I'll split the convoys and tankers though - I keep forgetting about the tankers (please keep reminding me).

Defense is the average with 1 decimal point (e.g., 7.2).

I could do separate rows for the cargo (there is plenty of room) and then use a better name: e.g., Invasion Force.

I'll make sure to include the modifcation(s) for sea box section for units at sea.

I am thinking of adding flags for all the countries at the bottom so a player can review/switch to each major power's task forces by clicking on a flag.

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 7:57 am
by Froonp
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Abbreviations of all the ports I want to avoid - too much trouble. Abbreviating the 83 sea areas might not be too hard though. That could be done like I did for the air/naval unit names. I would just add an extra field for the abbreviation and if it is blank, then the full name is used. That would make the task something that can be done off-line by editing the CSV file. You just go through the sea area names and either add a comma (blank field) or a shorter name and a comma.
I did not thought about abbreviating ports, I too think that this is not necessary
Separating TRS from AMPH seems unnecessary, there is unlikely to be more than 2 since the task force will want to return to port where stacking limits on land units will be in effect.
I disagree. If you sail out 6 TRS & 2 AMPH from 4 different ports and join them in the same TF, and then invade / unload during the turn, you're perfectly in right to return to base all the 6 TRS and 2 AMPH to the same port for future operations.
I could do separate rows for the cargo (there is plenty of room) and then use a better name: e.g., Invasion Force.
Good thing.
I am thinking of adding flags for all the countries at the bottom so a player can review/switch to each major power's task forces by clicking on a flag.
Good thing too ! Reviewing the enemy's Task Force is crutial too to good play in the Pacific.
This said, Task Forces in ports are subject to change without notice, so this is touchy too.
Maybe you should only be show task forces that are at sea, and for the ships in ports, only show them port per port ? Don't know.

RE: MWIF Game Interface Design

Posted: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:00 am
by Froonp
I'd add that separating AMPH from TRS is very important, for assessing the enemies invasion capabilities. Remember that these ships may be empty in Section 4, drop down to section 3 and fill up with invasion troops and immediately invade, during a well timed combined action.

Knowing where the enemies AMPH are is very important in the game, it helps guessing his intentions. Knowing where yours are is also important, but normaly you should always know that by heart without external help.