Sorry, I completely missed the point you were making.[:(] I'll think about thinner - though they are pretty thin already as I recall.ORIGINAL: Neilster
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Space was the driver. The units are "so big" and they have to fit in a hex. Between the units are status indicators (very important). More room for shadows can't be had without making the units or status indicators smaller or the hexes bigger.ORIGINAL: Neilster
It's just that they're quite thick, so perhaps it would be a good visual cue to reduce their thickness for only 1 or 2 units. Why was this ditched? Something to do with zoom levels? OK, so maybe we lose this differentiation at certain zoom levels. At least it's an aid at other times.
Cheers, Neilster
I don't understand your answer. I didn't suggest making the shadows bigger. I suggested reducing their thickness for hexes with only 1 or 2 units (at the appropriate zoom levels).
Cheers, Neilster
MWIF Game Interface Design
Moderator: Shannon V. OKeets
-
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
Cheers patrice.
Can you then target tankerconvoys seperate in seacombat, if you get surprise points or like vice?
Andi.
Edit:typos
Can you then target tankerconvoys seperate in seacombat, if you get surprise points or like vice?
Andi.
Edit:typos
The winner of a battle may not be the one who wins the War.
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
Sure. Also in air to sea combat, you can target Tankers if you want. But Tankers are not always the better targets.ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin
Cheer patrice.
Can you then target tankerconvoys seperate in seacombat, if you get surprise points or like vice?
Andi,
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
Yes, I do too, but I was talking about you seeing enemy ships. I think that when the enemy ships are in a port, you should maybe not see how they are grouped in Task Forces ? Well, this said, in the paper game you see the enemy task forces in ports too. Forget about that ! [:D]ORIGINAL: composer99
I would myself prefer to have task forces in port as well. In WIF:FE I usually keep all the ships in a single port in a single task force (so the marker is on the map & the ships are on the Task Force chart).
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
Strange since they where prime target in the war????
Andi.
Andi.
The winner of a battle may not be the one who wins the War.
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
It depends on what your enemy is short of. In our current real WiF FE game, I'm the CW and I'm shorter on CP than in Tankers, so my enemy would be badly advised to spend surprise points to sink my tankers (hence sinking less than if he used his surprise to sink more CP).ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin
Strange since they where prime target in the war????
Andi.
This may not be the same with Japan, as Japan is ultra oil dependent, and Japan does not have a nearly infinite reserve of that in Canada.
-
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
First let me thank you for these ideas. As you know already, there are a lot of rules involved with moving groups of naval units and I want the task force implementation to not mess things up. I am trusting that the readers of this forum, such as yourself, will keep critiquing my design until it is solid.ORIGINAL: haromar
Also consider following points (ignore them if already discussed):
- While in port, a ship or Task Force could be OOS or stacked with another Major Power ships thus decreasing its movement. Indicate this so the player is not confused as to why you are substracting him 1 or 2 mp. For OOS he can remedy the problem within the impulse, the - 1 MP for other Major Power ships is there for the whole impulse.
- Ships are sometimes dropped off in sea zones from a task force. Allow for that.
- An "average" defense factor is imo pretty useless, better indicate the best defense factor of a single ship, usually a 2, 1 or 0.
- Air to Air has to be max air to air considering dual role of CVP, e.g. use all CVPs as fighter.
- Same for naval air, also max. e.g. use all CVPs as naval bombers (assumes they have a respective value).
- With shore bombardment display max value at -0. (assumes 4 box in fair). Display a second column value assuming all have -1. Maybe even a third value all with -2. Or use a button (-0, -1 or -2). Its up to the player to figure out in which modified shore bombardment box he will be when conducting his operation. You can't know that since the SB mod is affected by wheather, with one sea area possible bordering more than 1 wheather zone.
- Definetely differentiate between amph and trs.
- Definetely throw out subs, by the rules you cannot have them in the same task force anyways. Indicate the presence of a separate sub task force.
- Not sure about loaded cargo, the way I play it is that you "load" cargo in the port at will when leaving the port. So imo only "possible" cargo makes sense.
- Include mod search box due to CVP with 4 or 7 range.
Opening caveat - my references to Task Forces (TF) will be the MWIF implementation, not to be confused with the more general term, or some other definition (explicit or implied).
1 - Task forces will be restricted to units controlled by a single major power. The only exception will be transported units. Note that this still enables the British to include Dutch units, since they are aligned. The reason for this restriction is that one and only one decision maker needs to be in charge of moving a task force (computer implementation is stricter than over the board play). If you want to create a super task force containing a mixture of US and CW naval units, you will have to create two task forces and "pick them up" at the same time for movement. This design issue is not set in stone, but I think it is a good one. Feel free to make a case for changing this. Oh, and since players are able to 'loan' units to each other freely, the US player could 'loan' several naval units to the British which would enable the British player to add them to a CW task force.
2 - The definition of a task force does not change just because it is stacked with other units, either at sea or in port. The player is free to change the definition of a task force at any time, since it is merely an administrative designation and has no effect on game play.
3 - A task force is represented by a single 'counter/unit' but it can travel with other units and/or task forces. During its travels it can mutate by dropping off units in sea areas it travels through. And obviously it can embark, pick up while at sea, and debark transported units - those actions would change the composition of the task force.
4 - How about a defense rating as an average followed by the rating for the best ship in parentheses? E.g., 4.7 (1).
5 - Air to air and and naval air will be maximums. Obviously setting one of them to the maximum is likely to change the other number significantly - but for the summary page this doesn't matter a whole lot.
6 - For shore bombardment I will show a single number taking into consideration the sea box section. If there is different weather in the coastal hexes that will change this number, I will show a range: 8-13. I hadn't thought about this until you mentioned it.
7 - Why do you feel it is so important to know that a task force has 1 TRS and 1 AMPH versus 2 TRS, instead of a simple '2'? If you want more details on a task force, you can always click on it to bring up the detailed screen showing the actual units in the task force. This is just a summary page. If you were talking about a game to another player over the phone would you need to make this distinction? Or would saying a TF has carrying capacity for 2 corps sized units sufficient?
8 - I am thinking about a simplified variation on a task force called a wolfpack for submarines. But I keep thinking that is excessive. Opinions? My time is limited, so take that into consideration.
9 - I am coming around to the opinion that this form will not be called the task force form when you are looking at enemy naval units. It will be the same form, but will show all the enemy units in a port or sea box section. Perhaps even merging all the sea box sections in one sea area into an aggregate. The idea is that you could use this summary page to see all the locations of enemy naval units: at sea or in port. Then you could scan through the list. This idea is less than 1 minute old, but I think it has promise. Perhaps some filtering ability so you can see all the ports that can reach a sea area? I do not want to get too elaborate here but some way to gain an overview of enemy fleets seems very valuable to me. Then clicking on a column would bring up the detailed screen of what is on the port/sea area. Opinions?
This design is evolving, and it is important to keep an open mind to new ideas (especially true for myself). Building on someone else's idea(s) is an excellent way to come up with something great, instead of merely adequate.
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
-
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
I envision the summary page showing all defined task forces for a major power. Perhaps I could augment that with a single location column for a selected port or sea box section. If the columns are sorted (or filtered) right, you could see all the naval units in a port a several columns: one for each TF in the port, plus an extra column for those units not in a TF.ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin
ORIGINAL: Froonp
Good thing too ! Reviewing the enemy's Task Force is crutial too to good play in the Pacific.ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
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.
I think patrice is right here only show the TF on sea, not in ports.
Andi.
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
-
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
Sorry. I do not have a clear undestanding of what is being proposed here. A search number for the task force? Or a search number modification, that would be theoretical, and exist even when the TF is in port?ORIGINAL: Froonp
Cargo can be loaded at other places than ports.ORIGINAL: haromar
- Not sure about loaded cargo, the way I play it is that you "load" cargo in the port at will when leaving the port. So imo only "possible" cargo makes sense.
Very good idea !- Include mod search box due to CVP with 4 or 7 range.
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
- composer99
- Posts: 2931
- Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 8:00 am
- Location: Ottawa, Canada
- Contact:
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
7 - Why do you feel it is so important to know that a task force has 1 TRS and 1 AMPH versus 2 TRS, instead of a simple '2'? If you want more details on a task force, you can always click on it to bring up the detailed screen showing the actual units in the task force. This is just a summary page. If you were talking about a game to another player over the phone would you need to make this distinction? Or would saying a TF has carrying capacity for 2 corps sized units sufficient?
8 - I am thinking about a simplified variation on a task force called a wolfpack for submarines. But I keep thinking that is excessive. Opinions? My time is limited, so take that into consideration.
9 - I am coming around to the opinion that this form will not be called the task force form when you are looking at enemy naval units. It will be the same form, but will show all the enemy units in a port or sea box section. Perhaps even merging all the sea box sections in one sea area into an aggregate. The idea is that you could use this summary page to see all the locations of enemy naval units: at sea or in port. Then you could scan through the list. This idea is less than 1 minute old, but I think it has promise. Perhaps some filtering ability so you can see all the ports that can reach a sea area? I do not want to get too elaborate here but some way to gain an overview of enemy fleets seems very valuable to me. Then clicking on a column would bring up the detailed screen of what is on the port/sea area. Opinions?
This design is evolving, and it is important to keep an open mind to new ideas (especially true for myself). Building on someone else's idea(s) is an excellent way to come up with something great, instead of merely adequate.
7 - I was going to say something else, but now that I think about it, if this table is meant to apply to friendly task forces, it probably isn't important to make this distinction on the summary form itself.
8 - The submarine "task forces" can have their own entry on the same summary form as all the regular task forces. You might just want to add a two-value row that tells you whether the task force is a "Surface" or "Sub" force.
9 - This seems like a good idea to me.
~ Composer99
-
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
It's marketing[:D]. The WIF grognards will love it.[;)]ORIGINAL: haromar
Pertaining to the screenshot about Belgium, while that set up with the Belgian CAV in Liege to ZOC out the PZRs, Brussels empty, the 2 Infantry in Antwerpen and the Belgian Fighter in Belgian Congo is a standard WiF set-up, its probably not very historical. So for a more "historical" screenshot, you might want to put the Belgian Infantry in Brussels and include the Belgian Fighter.
[They might complain about the set up in the North Sea though. I expect they would be very frustrated if there wasn't something for them to critique in the screen shots.]
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
The theorical (assuming weather allows it) search number modifier linked to the Range of the CVP that the CV of that Task Force are carrying.ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Sorry. I do not have a clear undestanding of what is being proposed here. A search number for the task force? Or a search number modification, that would be theoretical, and exist even when the TF is in port?
*************************************
11.5.5 Searching
(...)
SiF option 27: (CV search) Instead of increasing the search number in a section of a sea-box by 1, in Fine, Snow or Rain modify it according to the longest range among the carrier planes on undamaged committed CVs in that section:
ï if the longest range is 1-3 no modifier
ï if the longest range is 4-6, increase the search number by 1;
ï if the longest range is 7+, increase the search number by 2.
*************************************
-
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
Maybe. I appreciate the work you did here and will try to find a way to use it. But I do not need extra tasks. Each of these names seems to beg for some sort of write up on the TF too. Maybe this could be handled as documentation and not part of the game? I'll think about it some more.ORIGINAL: Froonp
I thought that it would be a piece of cake to find lists of historical Task Forces names, and it is not !!!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.
I've found the complete Japanese Fleets list, but nearly nothing more :
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Maritime Escort Fleet (1943/11/15 - 1945/08/25)
Combined Fleet (1894/07/18 - 1945/10/10)
1st Fleet (1903/12/28 - 1944/02/25)
2nd Fleet (1903/10/27 - 1945/04/20)
3rd Fleet (1903/12/28 - 1944/11/15)
4th Fleet (1937/10/20 - 1945/09/02)
5th Fleet (1938/02/01 - 1945/02/05)
6th Fleet (1940/11/15 - 1945/09/15)
7th Fleet (1945/04/15 - 1945/09/15)
8th Fleet (1942/07/14 - 1945/09/03)
9th Fleet (1943/11/15 - 1944/07/10)
China Area Fleet (1937/10/20 - 1945/09)
Northeastern Area Fleet (1943/08/05 - 1944/12/05)
Southeastern Area Fleet (1942/12/24 - 1945/09/06)
Southwestern Area Fleet (1942/04/10 - 1945/09)
Central Pacific Area Fleet (1944/03/04 - 1944/07/18)
10th Area Fleet (1945/02/05 - 1945/09)
Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1941/07/31 - 1942/01/03)
1st Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/01/03 - 1945/09)
2nd Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/03/10 - 1945/09)
3rd Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/01/03 - 1945/09)
4th Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1943/11/30 - 1945/03/10)
1st China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1943/08/20)
2nd China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1945/09)
3rd China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1942/04/10)
1st Escort Fleet (1944/12/10 - 1945/08/25)
1st Task Fleet (1944/03/01 - 1944/11/15)
-------------------------
The Task Forces proposed in WiF FE for Japan are :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Advance
Mobile
Strike
Combined
-------------------------
For the USA :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Atlantic Fleet
Pacific Fleet
TF-11
TF-16
TF-17
TF-58
-------------------------
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Atlantic Fleet
Pacific Fleet
Asiatic Fleet
TF-11
TF-16
TF-17
TF-31
TF-34
TF-38
TF-58
TF-61
TF-80
TF-88
-------------------------
I'm sure some are missing.
For the CW :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Force H
Mediterranean Fleet
ABDA
Force Z
Home Fleet
-------------------------
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Eastern Fleet (East Indies Fleet / Far East Fleet)
Force A
Force B
Force Z
Home Fleet
Mediterranean Fleet
Force H
Pacific Fleet
-------------------------
For Russia
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Advance
Strike
-------------------------
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Baltic Fleet
Black Sea Fleet
Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet
Pacific Ocean Fleet
-------------------------
For Italy
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Primo
Secondo
Rapido
Forza
-------------------------
No historical names found.
For Germany
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
AKT-Kräfte
Ost
Nord
-------------------------
No historical names found.
For France
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Première
Deuxième
Avancée
Méditeranée
-------------------------
No historical names found.
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
-
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
8 - Excellent.ORIGINAL: composer99
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
7 - Why do you feel it is so important to know that a task force has 1 TRS and 1 AMPH versus 2 TRS, instead of a simple '2'? If you want more details on a task force, you can always click on it to bring up the detailed screen showing the actual units in the task force. This is just a summary page. If you were talking about a game to another player over the phone would you need to make this distinction? Or would saying a TF has carrying capacity for 2 corps sized units sufficient?
8 - I am thinking about a simplified variation on a task force called a wolfpack for submarines. But I keep thinking that is excessive. Opinions? My time is limited, so take that into consideration.
9 - I am coming around to the opinion that this form will not be called the task force form when you are looking at enemy naval units. It will be the same form, but will show all the enemy units in a port or sea box section. Perhaps even merging all the sea box sections in one sea area into an aggregate. The idea is that you could use this summary page to see all the locations of enemy naval units: at sea or in port. Then you could scan through the list. This idea is less than 1 minute old, but I think it has promise. Perhaps some filtering ability so you can see all the ports that can reach a sea area? I do not want to get too elaborate here but some way to gain an overview of enemy fleets seems very valuable to me. Then clicking on a column would bring up the detailed screen of what is on the port/sea area. Opinions?
This design is evolving, and it is important to keep an open mind to new ideas (especially true for myself). Building on someone else's idea(s) is an excellent way to come up with something great, instead of merely adequate.
7 - I was going to say something else, but now that I think about it, if this table is meant to apply to friendly task forces, it probably isn't important to make this distinction on the summary form itself.
8 - The submarine "task forces" can have their own entry on the same summary form as all the regular task forces. You might just want to add a two-value row that tells you whether the task force is a "Surface" or "Sub" force.
9 - This seems like a good idea to me.
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
How about an average plus / minus a standard deviation ?ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
4 - How about a defense rating as an average followed by the rating for the best ship in parentheses? E.g., 4.7 (1).
Why not the maximum, assuming all units with an above average rating in air to air / air to sea are commited to this role ?5 - Air to air and and naval air will be maximums. Obviously setting one of them to the maximum is likely to change the other number significantly - but for the summary page this doesn't matter a whole lot.
Because TRS are harmless (unless MAR are loaded in them) and can't threaten the coasts around that sea area. AMPH are ambulant threat and you need to know they are sortied or not. When talking to my best Friend who lives 1,000 kms away about our game, I always detail this as this changes it all in the Task Force profile.7 - Why do you feel it is so important to know that a task force has 1 TRS and 1 AMPH versus 2 TRS, instead of a simple '2'? If you want more details on a task force, you can always click on it to bring up the detailed screen showing the actual units in the task force. This is just a summary page. If you were talking about a game to another player over the phone would you need to make this distinction? Or would saying a TF has carrying capacity for 2 corps sized units sufficient?
Not distinguishing AMPH & TRS would be like not distinguishing BB, CA and CL. After all, they are all Surface Combat Ship, with some with better gunfire and better defense.
Why not ?8 - I am thinking about a simplified variation on a task force called a wolfpack for submarines. But I keep thinking that is excessive. Opinions? My time is limited, so take that into consideration.
But from an historical point of view, a SUB counter is already a wolfpack in itself as it represents 30 submarines. I would rather call a gathering of SUB counters a SUB flotilla.
About theses special Task Forces, you need to show both their surface combat strength in surface and submarine combat (in surface they have a penalty of 1 to their gunfire).
I may have not understood fully, but I think finally that seeing the enemy task forces as they are formed up is good.9 - I am coming around to the opinion that this form will not be called the task force form when you are looking at enemy naval units. It will be the same form, but will show all the enemy units in a port or sea box section. Perhaps even merging all the sea box sections in one sea area into an aggregate. The idea is that you could use this summary page to see all the locations of enemy naval units: at sea or in port. Then you could scan through the list. This idea is less than 1 minute old, but I think it has promise. Perhaps some filtering ability so you can see all the ports that can reach a sea area? I do not want to get too elaborate here but some way to gain an overview of enemy fleets seems very valuable to me. Then clicking on a column would bring up the detailed screen of what is on the port/sea area. Opinions?
This design is evolving, and it is important to keep an open mind to new ideas (especially true for myself). Building on someone else's idea(s) is an excellent way to come up with something great, instead of merely adequate.
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
The simplest way is to provide drop down list of historical task forces, and also allow the players to type their own.ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Maybe. I appreciate the work you did here and will try to find a way to use it. But I do not need extra tasks. Each of these names seems to beg for some sort of write up on the TF too. Maybe this could be handled as documentation and not part of the game? I'll think about it some more.
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
1 - Task forces will be restricted to units controlled by a single major power. The only exception will be transported units. Note that this still enables the British to include Dutch units, since they are aligned. The reason for this restriction is that one and only one decision maker needs to be in charge of moving a task force (computer implementation is stricter than over the board play). If you want to create a super task force containing a mixture of US and CW naval units, you will have to create two task forces and "pick them up" at the same time for movement. This design issue is not set in stone, but I think it is a good one. Feel free to make a case for changing this. Oh, and since players are able to 'loan' units to each other freely, the US player could 'loan' several naval units to the British which would enable the British player to add them to a CW task force.
Will the loaned ship keep its original nations impulse move choise? If not this can be exploited, loan all your ships to one nation witch makes a naval move, the other nation loan all its land units to the first witch makes a land move!!!
4 - How about a defense rating as an average followed by the rating for the best ship in parentheses? E.g., 4.7 (1).
Love this idea.
7 - Why do you feel it is so important to know that a task force has 1 TRS and 1 AMPH versus 2 TRS, instead of a simple '2'? If you want more details on a task force, you can always click on it to bring up the detailed screen showing the actual units in the task force. This is just a summary page. If you were talking about a game to another player over the phone would you need to make this distinction? Or would saying a TF has carrying capacity for 2 corps sized units sufficient?
Yes i would make the difference, since one can invade while the other can not.
8 - I am thinking about a simplified variation on a task force called a wolfpack for submarines. But I keep thinking that is excessive. Opinions? My time is limited, so take that into consideration.
This will be a waste of time IMO.
9 - I am coming around to the opinion that this form will not be called the task force form when you are looking at enemy naval units. It will be the same form, but will show all the enemy units in a port or sea box section. Perhaps even merging all the sea box sections in one sea area into an aggregate. The idea is that you could use this summary page to see all the locations of enemy naval units: at sea or in port. Then you could scan through the list. This idea is less than 1 minute old, but I think it has promise. Perhaps some filtering ability so you can see all the ports that can reach a sea area? I do not want to get too elaborate here but some way to gain an overview of enemy fleets seems very valuable to me. Then clicking on a column would bring up the detailed screen of what is on the port/sea area. Opinions?
Simply BRILLIANT!!!![&o][&o][&o]
Andi.
The winner of a battle may not be the one who wins the War.
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Maybe. I appreciate the work you did here and will try to find a way to use it. But I do not need extra tasks. Each of these names seems to beg for some sort of write up on the TF too. Maybe this could be handled as documentation and not part of the game? I'll think about it some more.ORIGINAL: Froonp
I thought that it would be a piece of cake to find lists of historical Task Forces names, and it is not !!!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.
I've found the complete Japanese Fleets list, but nearly nothing more :
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Maritime Escort Fleet (1943/11/15 - 1945/08/25)
Combined Fleet (1894/07/18 - 1945/10/10)
1st Fleet (1903/12/28 - 1944/02/25)
2nd Fleet (1903/10/27 - 1945/04/20)
3rd Fleet (1903/12/28 - 1944/11/15)
4th Fleet (1937/10/20 - 1945/09/02)
5th Fleet (1938/02/01 - 1945/02/05)
6th Fleet (1940/11/15 - 1945/09/15)
7th Fleet (1945/04/15 - 1945/09/15)
8th Fleet (1942/07/14 - 1945/09/03)
9th Fleet (1943/11/15 - 1944/07/10)
China Area Fleet (1937/10/20 - 1945/09)
Northeastern Area Fleet (1943/08/05 - 1944/12/05)
Southeastern Area Fleet (1942/12/24 - 1945/09/06)
Southwestern Area Fleet (1942/04/10 - 1945/09)
Central Pacific Area Fleet (1944/03/04 - 1944/07/18)
10th Area Fleet (1945/02/05 - 1945/09)
Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1941/07/31 - 1942/01/03)
1st Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/01/03 - 1945/09)
2nd Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/03/10 - 1945/09)
3rd Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/01/03 - 1945/09)
4th Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1943/11/30 - 1945/03/10)
1st China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1943/08/20)
2nd China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1945/09)
3rd China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1942/04/10)
1st Escort Fleet (1944/12/10 - 1945/08/25)
1st Task Fleet (1944/03/01 - 1944/11/15)
-------------------------
The Task Forces proposed in WiF FE for Japan are :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Advance
Mobile
Strike
Combined
-------------------------
For the USA :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Atlantic Fleet
Pacific Fleet
TF-11
TF-16
TF-17
TF-58
-------------------------
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Atlantic Fleet
Pacific Fleet
Asiatic Fleet
TF-11
TF-16
TF-17
TF-31
TF-34
TF-38
TF-58
TF-61
TF-80
TF-88
-------------------------
I'm sure some are missing.
For the CW :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Force H
Mediterranean Fleet
ABDA
Force Z
Home Fleet
-------------------------
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Eastern Fleet (East Indies Fleet / Far East Fleet)
Force A
Force B
Force Z
Home Fleet
Mediterranean Fleet
Force H
Pacific Fleet
-------------------------
For Russia
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Advance
Strike
-------------------------
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Baltic Fleet
Black Sea Fleet
Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet
Pacific Ocean Fleet
-------------------------
For Italy
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Primo
Secondo
Rapido
Forza
-------------------------
No historical names found.
For Germany
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
AKT-Kräfte
Ost
Nord
-------------------------
No historical names found.
For France
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Première
Deuxième
Avancée
Méditeranée
-------------------------
No historical names found.
I have allready written about 3-4 taskforces in my writeups. But can write the english ones up if you want it.
Andi.
The winner of a battle may not be the one who wins the War.
-
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
Here is the revised form based on 1 day's worth of feedback.
I think showing the invasion units as "# (strength)" answers concerns about TRS versus AMPH. If you have a infantry corps aboard a TRS when playing with the amphibious rules, well, then it's cargo.[:)] This also will add in divisions on surface units.
I don't think I will change the theme colors when you switch to seeing another major power.
Clicking on an enemy flag will not show task forces but instead show all naval unit locations (ports and sea areas) for that major power. The name row will be blank, which should be a strong enough indicator that that is what is being shown.
Groups of subs will just be considered another task force. A task force will either be all subs or contain no subs. For their Surface # I'll include the unmodified sub attack strength in parenthesis: "20 (25)".

I think showing the invasion units as "# (strength)" answers concerns about TRS versus AMPH. If you have a infantry corps aboard a TRS when playing with the amphibious rules, well, then it's cargo.[:)] This also will add in divisions on surface units.
I don't think I will change the theme colors when you switch to seeing another major power.
Clicking on an enemy flag will not show task forces but instead show all naval unit locations (ports and sea areas) for that major power. The name row will be blank, which should be a strong enough indicator that that is what is being shown.
Groups of subs will just be considered another task force. A task force will either be all subs or contain no subs. For their Surface # I'll include the unmodified sub attack strength in parenthesis: "20 (25)".

- Attachments
-
- TFSummary..232007.jpg (142.54 KiB) Viewed 333 times
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.
-
- Posts: 22165
- Joined: Wed May 18, 2005 11:51 pm
- Location: Honolulu, Hawaii
- Contact:
RE: MWIF Game Interface Design
i won't forget the offer.[;)] For now, I want to mull this over a bit. Patrice's idea of a drop down list is a reasonable idea too.ORIGINAL: Graf Zeppelin
ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Maybe. I appreciate the work you did here and will try to find a way to use it. But I do not need extra tasks. Each of these names seems to beg for some sort of write up on the TF too. Maybe this could be handled as documentation and not part of the game? I'll think about it some more.ORIGINAL: Froonp
I thought that it would be a piece of cake to find lists of historical Task Forces names, and it is not !!!
I've found the complete Japanese Fleets list, but nearly nothing more :
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Maritime Escort Fleet (1943/11/15 - 1945/08/25)
Combined Fleet (1894/07/18 - 1945/10/10)
1st Fleet (1903/12/28 - 1944/02/25)
2nd Fleet (1903/10/27 - 1945/04/20)
3rd Fleet (1903/12/28 - 1944/11/15)
4th Fleet (1937/10/20 - 1945/09/02)
5th Fleet (1938/02/01 - 1945/02/05)
6th Fleet (1940/11/15 - 1945/09/15)
7th Fleet (1945/04/15 - 1945/09/15)
8th Fleet (1942/07/14 - 1945/09/03)
9th Fleet (1943/11/15 - 1944/07/10)
China Area Fleet (1937/10/20 - 1945/09)
Northeastern Area Fleet (1943/08/05 - 1944/12/05)
Southeastern Area Fleet (1942/12/24 - 1945/09/06)
Southwestern Area Fleet (1942/04/10 - 1945/09)
Central Pacific Area Fleet (1944/03/04 - 1944/07/18)
10th Area Fleet (1945/02/05 - 1945/09)
Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1941/07/31 - 1942/01/03)
1st Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/01/03 - 1945/09)
2nd Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/03/10 - 1945/09)
3rd Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1942/01/03 - 1945/09)
4th Southern Expeditionary Fleet (1943/11/30 - 1945/03/10)
1st China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1943/08/20)
2nd China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1945/09)
3rd China Expeditionary Fleet (1939/11/15 - 1942/04/10)
1st Escort Fleet (1944/12/10 - 1945/08/25)
1st Task Fleet (1944/03/01 - 1944/11/15)
-------------------------
The Task Forces proposed in WiF FE for Japan are :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Advance
Mobile
Strike
Combined
-------------------------
For the USA :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Atlantic Fleet
Pacific Fleet
TF-11
TF-16
TF-17
TF-58
-------------------------
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Atlantic Fleet
Pacific Fleet
Asiatic Fleet
TF-11
TF-16
TF-17
TF-31
TF-34
TF-38
TF-58
TF-61
TF-80
TF-88
-------------------------
I'm sure some are missing.
For the CW :
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Force H
Mediterranean Fleet
ABDA
Force Z
Home Fleet
-------------------------
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Eastern Fleet (East Indies Fleet / Far East Fleet)
Force A
Force B
Force Z
Home Fleet
Mediterranean Fleet
Force H
Pacific Fleet
-------------------------
For Russia
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Advance
Strike
-------------------------
-------------------------
Historical Task Forces
-------------------------
Baltic Fleet
Black Sea Fleet
Soviet Red Banner Northern Fleet
Pacific Ocean Fleet
-------------------------
For Italy
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Primo
Secondo
Rapido
Forza
-------------------------
No historical names found.
For Germany
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
AKT-Kräfte
Ost
Nord
-------------------------
No historical names found.
For France
-------------------------
WiF FE Task Force Markers
-------------------------
Première
Deuxième
Avancée
Méditeranée
-------------------------
No historical names found.
I have allready written about 3-4 taskforces in my writeups. But can write the english ones up if you want it.
Andi.
Steve
Perfection is an elusive goal.
Perfection is an elusive goal.