[SOLVED] US can't deploy convoys on Central Pacific on startup

[juntoalmar]

Hi,

I just downloaded the last public beta (2.2.8.0) and started a Global War. During the US setup, I can't put any convoy unit on the Central Pacific area, and thus violating the Japan-USA trade agreement.

Am I doing something wrong or is it a bug?

[juntoalmar]

(self answered):

I can't setup the US based convoy units. The convoys restricted to setup in Hawaii can actually be in Central Pacific. Apparently you can setup the convoy units in a sea area that is at a certain "distance" to the port it could be setup originally.

Thus, Central Pacific is too far away for those set in West Coast, but not for those setup in Hawaii. I though the units tagged as "Hawaii" could only be setup in the island itself.

[paulderynck]

True. The rules state you can start units at sea. (CPs only for neutrals.) But they can only move from their original set-up locations as far as they can legally move.

[juntoalmar]

Still, from the design and interaction point of view, I think there should be some clue/feedback to the user about the right way to do it. In the game you can actually start a convoy unit directly in the sea. The convoy units based on the US could be set them up directly on Mendocino or Central Atlantic, but not on Central Pacific or Bismarck. This is so, because the distance from it's base to the Mendocino is within range limits of the convoy, but Central Pacific is not. As I firstly thought I was just putting convoys on sea areas directly, it seemed that some areas worked and some other didn't, thus the feeling of "bug".

Trying to put on Central Pacific convoys originally based on Hawaii solved the problem. But it was just a matter of luck, as there was no indication of what was wrong, or how to do it right. Probably if I had to put all the convoys first on port, and afterwards moving in the sea areas, there would be some tip about what convoy units can go where. Although this approach is more time consuming, it may be less confusing for users who don't know this rule by heart.

I'm reading at the moment a book regarding design and interaction (and studying Human Computer Interaction).

https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday- ... 0465050654

It's quite interesting and helps to realise of principles of design that we all give for granted, how users interact with interfaces (not only computer related, to VCR, washing machines or elevators) and what makes a design successful or flaw. I recommend it to everyone. For instance, this case would be a great example of how an expert user knows how to use do a task correctly because the knowledge on how to do it's in his head (you) vs a new user who can't make it work right because that knowledge is not in his head and has only the visual clues of the interface to help him working properly (what it's called "knowledge in the world").

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: juntoalmar

Still, from the design and interaction point of view, I think there should be some clue/feedback to the user about the right way to do it. In the game you can actually start a convoy unit directly in the sea. The convoy units based on the US could be set them up directly on Mendocino or Central Atlantic, but not on Central Pacific or Bismarck. This is so, because the distance from it's base to the Mendocino is within range limits of the convoy, but Central Pacific is not. As I firstly thought I was just putting convoys on sea areas directly, it seemed that some areas worked and some other didn't, thus the feeling of "bug".

Trying to put on Central Pacific convoys originally based on Hawaii solved the problem. But it was just a matter of luck, as there was no indication of what was wrong, or how to do it right. Probably if I had to put all the convoys first on port, and afterwards moving in the sea areas, there would be some tip about what convoy units can go where. Although this approach is more time consuming, it may be less confusing for users who don't know this rule by heart.

I'm reading at the moment a book regarding design and interaction (and studying Human Computer Interaction).

https://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday- ... 0465050654

It's quite interesting and helps to realise of principles of design that we all give for granted, how users interact with interfaces (not only computer related, to VCR, washing machines or elevators) and what makes a design successful or flaw. I recommend it to everyone. For instance, this case would be a great example of how an expert user knows how to use do a task correctly because the knowledge on how to do it's in his head (you) vs a new user who can't make it work right because that knowledge is not in his head and has only the visual clues of the interface to help him working properly (what it's called "knowledge in the world").

The Setup Tray has a button labelled: Setup Rules. Clicking on that for the US in Global War displays a couple of sentences stating that the US has to set up convoys in 4 sea areas to fulfill the requirements of the US-Japan trade agreement. It also states that the convoys in Hawaii should be used for the westernmost sea areas.

---

This is just one of innumerable cases in this game where (as the author of the Players Manuals, the help forms, the tutorials, and the training videos) I had important information to communicate to a new player - but lacked Dr. Spock's ability to do brain melds.[:(]

[juntoalmar]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
The Setup Tray has a button labelled: Setup Rules. Clicking on that for the US in Global War displays a couple of sentences stating that the US has to set up convoys in 4 sea areas to fulfill the requirements of the US-Japan trade agreement. It also states that the convoys in Hawaii should be used for the westernmost sea areas.

Actually I was consulting the Rules as Coded > 5.1 Trade Agreements > Japan-USA directly, but no reference that Hawaii based convoys must be used to cover Central Pacific there (apparently neither on Player’s Manual I or II).

But don’t misunderstand me. I love MWiF and I love its interface. MWiF is a complex program and I can feel that the UI:
- has been designed by expert users (you with the help of the community)
- for expert users (those who have a lot of expertise in the game and spend a lot of time in it)

At the moment I’m studying UI design and it’s principles (you know: visibility, mapping, feedback, etc…). I think MWiF UI most of the time is effective and efficient; especially for those who spend hundreds of hours playing it. Once you know how it works, it’s very efficient. For instance, double clicking in an empty hex for switching fly-over is a clean and efficient design to switch in on and off quick. If the user had to go to the menus (or buttons) to do it, will take much longer to use it. But it has a lack of visibility: how is going a new user discover that he can accomplish that? (I've seen this question often in the forums by newbies, although explained in the manual and tutorials).

On the other hand, knowing if a movement is allowed or not, is completely visible for the user as the mouse cursor changes its shapes. The user doesn’t need to go to the manual to learn how to use it. The knowledge is in the design itself, not in the instruction manual.

MWiF would be an amazing case study for my course on Interaction Design. Particularly production form, all the things that can be accomplished by it, and the different ways to get them by different users… fascinating.