MWIF Game Interface Design

[haromar]

Your MWIf definition of a task force is actually pretty similar to the TF markers in WiF that we place on the wiF board substituting a bunch of ships that we then place on the SiF board. At least some players do that.
 
I'm still not sure whether in the "Naval Review" summary you will show a 6 or 5 Max movement capability for the case described but I'm sure the Info in whatever form will be usefull. Certainly better than in WiF, where you have to do all the math by yourself

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: haromar

Your MWIf definition of a task force is actually pretty similar to the TF markers in WiF that we place on the wiF board substituting a bunch of ships that we then place on the SiF board. At least some players do that.

I'm still not sure whether in the "Naval Review" summary you will show a 6 or 5 Max movement capability for the case described but I'm sure the Info in whatever form will be usefull. Certainly better than in WiF, where you have to do all the math by yourself

Right now I amplanning on showing the movement numbers that reflect moving the TF as an entity. So, minus 1 if units from two major powers are included.

This will never be perfect since the Rough Seas optional rule can make movement more costly for CLs in some sea areas. And "in the presence of the enemy" could make movement more costly depending on who in the task force is at war with whom. The player should know about those things though, if he has decided to play with those optional rules.

[haromar]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I disagree. It is not the purpose of the TF display to interpret all the ways the TF might be used. By your logic, showing the total bombardment strength should be eliminated too, since there may be other units in the sea box section adding in their bombardment factors. Same again for surface attack strength, anti-air defense, ...

Instead the TF summary statisitcs are for the TF, nothing more. when the TF is at sea, adjustments are make to the TF's numbers to reflect the effects of the TF's current sea box section. It is up to the player to do the recalculations when other units (friendly or enemy) are involved (e.g., versus twin engine fighters). As Patrice make passing reference to, my intent is to leave most of these calculations up to the player. My sardonic phrase for this is that this constitutes "playing the game".

To reiterate, the TF summary is just that - a summary of the TF all by its lonesome.

So discard all my comments for the "TF" display, but please consider them when the appropiate phase arrives. In case you've already discused all the displays in e.g. the Naval Combat phase, then disregard these comments as well.

Intuitivily I thought you were not only summarising ships grouped in Task Forces but also other ships in that sea box once out at sea.

From my experience that's actually the counting you mostly do when ships are out at sea.

It would be nice to allow for that, irregardless if the player has put his ships in "administrative" task Forces a priori.

These calculations of Air to Air or ASW or Surface to Surface etc takes up loads of time. Especially when the player has 4 or more surprise points, he will count all possible scenarios. If you have 2 boxes involved, it gets even uglier.

He will still "play the game", since he has to decide which combat type to choose, which boxes to include how to align his LBA etc etc.

But at least the counting would be simplified.

Again, if you've already covered summary displays during naval combat, ignore.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: haromar

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets


I disagree. It is not the purpose of the TF display to interpret all the ways the TF might be used. By your logic, showing the total bombardment strength should be eliminated too, since there may be other units in the sea box section adding in their bombardment factors. Same again for surface attack strength, anti-air defense, ...

Instead the TF summary statisitcs are for the TF, nothing more. when the TF is at sea, adjustments are make to the TF's numbers to reflect the effects of the TF's current sea box section. It is up to the player to do the recalculations when other units (friendly or enemy) are involved (e.g., versus twin engine fighters). As Patrice make passing reference to, my intent is to leave most of these calculations up to the player. My sardonic phrase for this is that this constitutes "playing the game".

To reiterate, the TF summary is just that - a summary of the TF all by its lonesome.

So discard all my comments for the "TF" display, but please consider them when the appropiate phase arrives. In case you've already discused all the displays in e.g. the Naval Combat phase, then disregard these comments as well.

Intuitivily I thought you were not only summarising ships grouped in Task Forces but also other ships in that sea box once out at sea.

From my experience that's actually the counting you mostly do when ships are out at sea.

It would be nice to allow for that, irregardless if the player has put his ships in "administrative" task Forces a priori.

These calculations of Air to Air or ASW or Surface to Surface etc takes up loads of time. Especially when the player has 4 or more surprise points, he will count all possible scenarios. If you have 2 boxes involved, it gets even uglier.

He will still "play the game", since he has to decide which combat type to choose, which boxes to include how to align his LBA etc etc.

But at least the counting would be simplified.

Again, if you've already covered summary displays during naval combat, ignore.

The Units Under Cursor box does most of this. It provides summary statisitcs for a sea area and you can filter by sea box section as well as separate totals for each side. Post # 795 in this thread shows a UUC panel. Though that screen shot is for land, is includes naval totals (NAtt, NBmb, etc.).

[haromar]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets



Right now I amplanning on showing the movement numbers that reflect moving the TF as an entity. So, minus 1 if units from two major powers are included.

Since in a separate post you mention that the administrative TF will incluide units of one MP solely, I gather you mean the example of other MP units being not in the TF but in the port at that time.

Displaying -1 makes sense.

I agree about the optional issue. Thats why in the examples I cited I tried to focus on rules examples, which always apply. Displaying correct and perfect info for all the possible permutations for the 70+ optionals is imo not necessary.

[Froonp]

I had a few ideas / suggestions regarding Task Forces :

==> Why not having a pretty navy picture in the background ? Or better, the navy's symbol (if any) displayed somewhere in one corner ? Japanese's one is very pretty.

==> Also, to enhance the difference between a Task Force counter and a normal counter, why not having the country flag on the Task Force counter ?

==> The CV "column" should be 3 times the width of the other columns. That way, its carrier planes are displayed beside it (CV can carry 2 CVP). There would be the CV verticaly aligned, and the CVP besides them.

==> There could be a separate column for ships who have a cargo. Empty TRS & AMPH would still be in that column. That column would have 2 times the width of the normal columns, and the cargo would be displayed beside the ship who transport them, with ships aligned in the first array. For ships who have a 2nd cargo, the 2nd one would be displayed under the first, and a row would be empty in the cargo ships alignement. An SCS loaded with a unit would appear in that column too. Its factors would be dynamicaly changed to show its transporting status.

[Froonp]

An illustration of what I propose. Forget about the colors & wrong countries & the duplications of counters, I had no time for US CVP.
British CVP cant be on US CV, this is only to show the concept.

[Mziln]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

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 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.

United States Task Force naming conventions

[Ballista]

I hope that the ability to name TF is up to the player (e.g. he can type his names in as needed- I tend toward more non-pretty names like "Escort for Central Med" or some such to remind me of what that TF is for) and the fixed names are for flavor only. IMHO having a fixed counter-set to name TF would not be a good thing....

I, like many others, are waiting with bated breath for this game..... [:)]

[wosung]

Another gimmick in the name of easy playing could be:

The option:

Return from an air strike to the same fields the aircraft were started from.

Even if the return phase is a good occasion to optimize the frontline a/c location, sometimes it's annoying to find just the one possible hex for the last returning a/c.

Regards

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: wosung

Another gimmick in the name of easy playing could be:

The option:

Return from an air strike to the same fields the aircraft were started from.

Maybe this could be an option that you tick "on" in the unit menu for each air unit ? That way, you could tick it "on" or "off" at will before sending the air unit to an air mission.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Ballista
I hope that the ability to name TF is up to the player (e.g. he can type his names in as needed- I tend toward more non-pretty names like "Escort for Central Med" or some such to remind me of what that TF is for) and the fixed names are for flavor only. IMHO having a fixed counter-set to name TF would not be a good thing....

I hope too.
My proposal is just to add WWII flavor in the TF names, but I would not advise to prevent the players to create their own names.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Mziln
United States Task Force naming conventions

Would you find the same for WWII ?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

An illustration of what I propose. Forget about the colors & wrong countries & the duplications of counters, I had no time for US CVP.
British CVP cant be on US CV, this is only to show the concept.

I want to use Z5 so the names are legible. You are showing Z4 here.

I want to be able to dsiplay two of these forms side by side within a 1024 by 768 screen resolution, which makes the maximum width 512. This will permit the easy transfer of units between a port and a TF, for instance. That is the purpose of the Transfer Units button. The player will select units and click on Transfer Units to place them in the other location. For instance, from the setup tray or port to a TF.

The battleships and cruisers can also transport units (divisions), so those columns would have to be wider too.

I need to provide room for vertical scroll bars for each column (preferably a separate one for each column).

So, instead of what you are proposing I intend to place the transported units directly below the transporting units.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Ballista

I hope that the ability to name TF is up to the player (e.g. he can type his names in as needed- I tend toward more non-pretty names like "Escort for Central Med" or some such to remind me of what that TF is for) and the fixed names are for flavor only. IMHO having a fixed counter-set to name TF would not be a good thing....

I, like many others, are waiting with bated breath for this game..... [:)]

Yes.

(If you want to see serious impatience for the release of MWIF, you should meet my wife).

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: wosung

Another gimmick in the name of easy playing could be:

The option:

Return from an air strike to the same fields the aircraft were started from.

Maybe this could be an option that you tick "on" in the unit menu for each air unit ? That way, you could tick it "on" or "off" at will before sending the air unit to an air mission.

No. Far too many exceptions.

Better to solve the problem: "annoying to find the one possible hex permissible". That can be corrected with the more general solution of "find all legal moves". I expect to do the latter in some way, shape, or form.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I want to be able to dsiplay two of these forms side by side within a 1024 by 768 screen resolution, which makes the maximum width 512. This will permit the easy transfer of units between a port and a TF, for instance. That is the purpose of the Transfer Units button. The player will select units and click on Transfer Units to place them in the other location. For instance, from the setup tray or port to a TF.

Doesn't my proposal fit in a 512 wide form ?

The battleships and cruisers can also transport units (divisions), so those columns would have to be wider too.

I proposed that SCS tranporting units be placed in the cargo ships section.

I need to provide room for vertical scroll bars for each column (preferably a separate one for each column).

So, instead of what you are proposing I intend to place the transported units directly below the transporting units.

Yes, but it makes the CVP carrier overview less easy.
Setting them up as I propose allows for easily scan the rows of CVP for a quick and accurate assessing of forces.

[composer99]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

An illustration of what I propose. [...]

The blatant rules violations aside ([:'(]) this looks pretty nice!

Edit: To see what looks nice, check Patrice's post #907 or Steve's post #914.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I want to be able to dsiplay two of these forms side by side within a 1024 by 768 screen resolution, which makes the maximum width 512. This will permit the easy transfer of units between a port and a TF, for instance. That is the purpose of the Transfer Units button. The player will select units and click on Transfer Units to place them in the other location. For instance, from the setup tray or port to a TF.

Doesn't my proposal fit in a 512 wide form ?

The battleships and cruisers can also transport units (divisions), so those columns would have to be wider too.

I proposed that SCS tranporting units be placed in the cargo ships section.

I need to provide room for vertical scroll bars for each column (preferably a separate one for each column).

So, instead of what you are proposing I intend to place the transported units directly below the transporting units.

Yes, but it makes the CVP carrier overview less easy.
Setting them up as I propose allows for easily scan the rows of CVP for a quick and accurate assessing of forces.

Here is a more refined picture (done with cut and paste) of your proposal.

I think there is enough room, but it will be very tight. There is only 14 pixels available for the form frame width, which is probably not enough.

This will also require special programming because the standard CWIF list of units fills from the top to the bottom before starting the next column.

As you can see from my example, the 3rd column within the carrier column will almost always be empty.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
Here is a more refined picture (done with cut and paste) of your proposal.

Thank you for trying.

I think there is enough room, but it will be very tight. There is only 14 pixels available for the form frame width, which is probably not enough.

This will also require special programming because the standard CWIF list of units fills from the top to the bottom before starting the next column.

As you can see from my example, the 3rd column within the carrier column will almost always be empty.

No, I think that you're wrong. I'm in a game right now, and the CW, Japanese and US Carriers are nearly all double stacked. About 70% are.