MWIF Game Interface Design

[warspite1]

Mine is just a single screen - 1280 x 1024

[Norman42]

1 screen

1280x1024 @70hz

[Shannon V. OKeets]

I have been reworking the naval combat screens. Here is the revised Surprise Point usage screen.

The surprising (left) and surprised (right) units are at the top, with their summary statistics underneath. This is a port attack on Riga, as shown in the small map view (lower right).

The center bottom lists all the possible uses for surprise points, in descending order by where they appear in the sequence of play. The possible choices are enabled - here it is just to "increase your naval combat column".

On the bottom left are how points have already been spent. Those choices can be Undone. Left center show the results without using surprise points (original) and the current results (in red). After creating this screen shot I changed the font for the last to bold so it is easier to read.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

And here is what teh Naval Combat Results form looks like.

The top shows possible targets. placnig the cursor on a target brings up the large image of the counter and refreshes the unit data under the list of target units.

You can see that the result was 3 Destroyed and 2 Aborted (from teh previous post, I had clicked on using the last 2 surprise points to increase the naval combat column).

I have already gone through all 5 of the target selections, with the Axis picking the 1st, 3rd, and 5th targets while the Allies picked the 2nd and 4th.

The Marat had a defense factor of 5 but the die roll was 3 so it was destroyed. The same fate occurred to the Kirov.

The 2nd battleship did better, rolling an 8 against a defense factor of 5, and merely being damaged instead of destroyed.

Since this was a port attack, the abort results are simply translated into disorganized. No movement is required.

===

I have to check, but I believe the Marat should have only been Bottomed, not Destroyed. The reporting of the results at this level of detail is new code.

[Manack]

Perhaps you should say "Potential Axis/Allied Losses" rather than "Expected" on the Surprise Point usage screen?

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I have to check, but I believe the Marat should have only been Bottomed, not Destroyed. The reporting of the results at this level of detail is new code.

Right.
But maybe you did not activate that optional rule ?

[IKerensky]

I am using a 22" with 1650x1080 resolution... at home.
 
at work it is 15" with 1280x1024.
 
About the port/sea summary, it is quite hard to read what port/sea you are currently looking in the windows top bar. Couldn't the information be mentionned again near the selections buttons ?
 
Also the difference between an enabled and a selected button doesnt look so evident... perhaps a greyed on text on the unenabled buttons would be more clear...

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Manack

Perhaps you should say "Potential Axis/Allied Losses" rather than "Expected" on the Surprise Point usage screen?

Yeah, this bothers me too.

The problem is that what is being shown are the Naval Combat results, from the table. But the effect of those results depends on the die roll against the selected unit's Defense #. On the one hand we know that there will be 3 'Destroyed' and 2 'Aborted' die rolls, but we do not know what the ultimate effect on the target units will be. Nor do we know which units will be the target units.

Sort of hard to say all that with 3 or 4 words.

The CRT results are definite - no probability involved. The effect on the target units depends on several things. For instance, the same unit might be targeted more than once.

Instead of Potential, maybe Maximum? Or saying something about Risk?

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: KERENSKY

I am using a 22" with 1650x1080 resolution... at home.

at work it is 15" with 1280x1024.

About the port/sea summary, it is quite hard to read what port/sea you are currently looking in the windows top bar. Couldn't the information be mentionned again near the selections buttons ?

Also the difference between an enabled and a selected button doesnt look so evident... perhaps a greyed on text on the unenabled buttons would be more clear...

I agree that the sea area/port title is both important and hard to read.

It can take up a lot of room (some labels are quite long) so I would hate to show it twice, since space is at a premium.

I am reluctant to change the title bar font, since it is used everywhere, and usually it is not all that important.

One solution is to cut a unit off the bottom of each column. A painful decision, but perhaps warranted.

===
I am not concerned about the enabled versus disabled buttons. It is actually pretty easy to see the difference on the screen, although the screen shots may make that not so obvious. And the worst case is that the player clicks on a disabled button and nothing happens.

[IKerensky]

Fair call
 
I found why the current 3D button looks weird for me : They have the heavy border top and left in place of bottom and right, like I am used for them to be... Make them look like they are encrusted into the windows while the button you cant punch are at the windows surface...
 
Effect is emplified because the windows and units have the standard border shades...
 
Looking at the submarine big picture with the 2 buttons under in the last pic make my brain go all round and round trying to figure what is up and what is down...
 
Definitely unimportant...

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: KERENSKY

Fair call

I found why the current 3D button looks weird for me : They have the heavy border top and left in place of bottom and right, like I am used for them to be... Make them look like they are encrusted into the windows while the button you cant punch are at the windows surface...

Effect is emplified because the windows and units have the standard border shades...

Looking at the submarine big picture with the 2 buttons under in the last pic make my brain go all round and round trying to figure what is up and what is down...

Definitely unimportant...

Actually, I think this is an important point. I couldn't work out why it didn't look quite right. Any chance of fixing this?

Cheers, Neilster

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

ORIGINAL: KERENSKY

Fair call

I found why the current 3D button looks weird for me : They have the heavy border top and left in place of bottom and right, like I am used for them to be... Make them look like they are encrusted into the windows while the button you cant punch are at the windows surface...

Effect is emplified because the windows and units have the standard border shades...

Looking at the submarine big picture with the 2 buttons under in the last pic make my brain go all round and round trying to figure what is up and what is down...

Definitely unimportant...

Actually, I think this is an important point. I couldn't work out why it didn't look quite right. Any chance of fixing this?

Cheers, Neilster

It took me a long time to even figure out what was being discussed here.

The graphics artist designed the button images using Theme Engine. I am not sure if the option to reposition shadows exists within Theme Engine. And since no one else has commented on this for 18 months, I am reluctant to go back and ask him to make changes.

Personally, I consider this minor cosmetics, and not worth the bother of changing.

[oscar72se]

Does MWIF have a function for viewing hexes that are supplied? It would be really neat if MWIF could highlight hexes that are supplied(with a red border for example). I think that this would be really helpful when moving HQs or identifying vulnerable enemy units. What do you think?

Best regards,
Oscar

[marcuswatney]

Yes, that would be really brilliant, if toggled.  A classic example of how a computer can relieve the player of game chores.

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: oscar72se

Does MWIF have a function for viewing hexes that are supplied? It would be really neat if MWIF could highlight hexes that are supplied(with a red border for example). I think that this would be really helpful when moving HQs or identifying vulnerable enemy units. What do you think?

Yes, I agree.

[Norman42]

Indeed, that would be a most welcome feature.

[Shannon V. OKeets]

This wouldn't be too hard to code, but I would want it to be very heavy handed so the player doesn't leave it on all the time. That is because it would have to be recalculated every time a unit moves - throughout the entire world map. And each recalculation would take a long time.

For example, cutting a rail line can cut supply to a port, which then cuts supply to a sea area, ...
And a naval unit can likewise cut supply to units that are overseas.
When playing multiplayer, other players can change your supply situation when making their moves.

So I envision this as a large green circle for in supply, a yellow X for out of supply, and a red X for isolated. Note that this would have to be for 1 major power at a time - not for both sides, nor even for all major powers on one side.

The player would have to toggle it on, and could do nothing (move no units) until he has toggled it off.

[Taxman66]

But you wouldn't have to do it for the whole world, only for the immediately viewable map, though that might take longer to code.
 
BTW, I'm new posting here... but I've been following this forum for month and I've played WiF since... we'll lets just say I know what a HS and LS are.  Though I admit I haven't played a game in recent years nor have the most recent packages (Convoys in Flames, Cruisers in Flames, Penguins in Flames (with the antartica map)... )

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Taxman66

But you wouldn't have to do it for the whole world, only for the immediately viewable map, though that might take longer to code.

BTW, I'm new posting here... but I've been following this forum for month and I've played WiF since... we'll lets just say I know what a HS and LS are.  Though I admit I haven't played a game in recent years nor have the most recent packages (Convoys in Flames, Cruisers in Flames, Penguins in Flames (with the antartica map)... )

No, you pretty much have to do the entire map.

The algorithm for determining supply (which I have redesigned but not yet coded) works by finding primary supply sources (they may not be visible on screen) followed by finding secondary supply sources. As part of that process the links between the secondarys to primarys (and tertiarys to tertiarys/secondarys) are determined. Once all the supply sources are in place, supply for individual (non-HQ) units can be determined rather quickly - they have to be within ~4 hexes of a supply source.

When a (non-HQ) unit is moved, I have to check if that messes up an existing supply link, or enables a new link that did not exist previously. Very messy to do, but possible to accomplish in real time (as the player moves the cursor) since only one unit is involved.

To do that calculation for all visible hexes (remember the player has the ability to zoom out so there are hundreds of visible hexes) could take way too long. What fraction of a second would you be willing to wait? If you are like me, you would find 3 seconds unacceptable, since it would happen every time you moved a unit.

In my opinion, it's better to just exert parental authority and deny the player the ability to become annoyed with a slow response rate.

[Taxman66]

Yeah I understand.  I thought maybe the problem was painting the supply situation onto every hex in the world when you only needed to do it for the visible map.
 
For veterns of the game it's probably not much of an issue.  But it can be a harsh learning curve when newbie moves a unit into a OOS situation, or worse moves an OOS unit that could have been put back in supply by moving a different unit first, without realizing it.  Some kind of warning would be useful.