saddened by poor interface

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Great point! Couldn't have said it better if I tried for months. I see it around my own shop, myself and I see this very thing in the Matrix staff, in general. You get so used to doing something a certain way and so used to looking at the same thing for so long, you can't really see or even comprehend anything else! .... Matrix, PLEASE, don't get hide-bound. It will be the death of our genre....

You miss the point that non of our products are the same. WITP and UV share a base engine, true. But other projects have their own new and intuitive engines. We have a lot of different approches. We´re definelty NOT hide-bound.

That very well, may be. This perspective more likely comes from the fact that I tend to only exclusively follow GG inspired titles, because over the past 20+ years his games seem to generally be the only type of game that appeals to me. I've tired others but never really liked any of them so I always come back.

However, after following GG stuff for that time I also see, plainly, just how hide-bound HIS efforts seem to be. Same massive hard-coding, same fixed array based data manipulation design, same problems with rigidity of design over and over again. It would be wonderful to see a GG designed game, complete with all his 6th sense at formula development and ability to delivery incredibly balanced game play, only designed and coded in a state-of-the-art methodology. Bascially, let Gary design but keep him away from the development environment, source code, and database design!!!!

So my real angst probably arises more from a competing, seemingly diametrically opposed set of interests, love of GG design and game style, hate of GG programming/data management style, and probably has little to do with Matrix at all....

So you think developing background textures and bitmaps for bitmap-buttons for WIN32 GUI's and such is "boring"? I guess I would, too..... But then server-side database design/programming is a boring as it gets, but it's what I have made a big chunk of my income doing for many years now....

GG coupled with a couple of object oriented designers and coders, an experienced GUI developer, and an SQL database guru thrown in......now THAT would be something to behold.....in my dreams....

[MadDawg]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: nihilimus
Actually, I think the defensive nature of Matrix staffers is where the point is lost. It does not serve your company well to act so defensively when a portion of your audience offers suggestions.

While I agree great graphics are critical to pulling in an audience, so is usuability and much of what is being said here crashes the core of this very complex game's workflow.

Points made about easy access to maps, addition quick keys, modular windows available to the user to popup, drop, hide while seeking the data for important decisions. All of this is to streamline workflow.

Yes... Some of our less visually-oriented friends don't need that and may be happy with either writing details on a pad or trying to remember across the vast expanses of the Pacific. I -- like military leaders past -- prefer a visual representation backed by quick access to data.

Since I was one of the first to reply I thought I should throw in a few more pennies. I've been reading this thread very closely, not looking for problems but absorbing all of your suggestions. We have a very small staff (buy more games! [;)]) and until we expand, there's simply not enough time to post back on everything. However, there are at least three people going through these suggestions. What we can do in future revisions is not up to me, but we are definitely watching, listening and as always we will try our best to continue improving the title after release.

Honestly, I was interested in the suggestions from the first post and remain so, I just couldn't agree with the idea that not much had changed since the original PacWar.

Regards,

- Erik

Thanks for the response Erik!

I had been worried that this thread had turned into an 'us vs them' situation and the actual point of the thread was going to be lost in the war of words. Hopefully there are some changes that can be made just to make the interface and information flow to the user more intuitive as I think that this size of this game really requires it.

Dawg

[Damien Thorn]

I really like the idea someone had to be able to drag a task force to a destination hex. Since we can alrerady get information about the task force by doing a mouse over we can usually tell where we'd like it to go without needing to open the TF page. Dragging would save lots of time and lots of clicking.

[Primal Fury]

Thanks for looking at the suggestions! These are meant to be constructive in nature:

Probably the biggest thing would be the ability to capture the text out of any window (and allow it to be input to excel or some other external program). This could either be done by supporting CTRL-A, CTRL-C or by producing a text file in the SAVE directory which contains the text of the current window, white space separated.

Improving the create transport TF sequence would also be much appreciated. Suggestion: From the the ground unit menu, allow "create TF to hold this gound unit" function that shows you the current/required capacities of the TF as you form it.

Drag-and-drop TF to set new destination would speed up play by a huge amount and allow you to look at the map while making moves.

Cheers guys! [&o]

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

ORIGINAL: nihilimus
Actually, I think the defensive nature of Matrix staffers is where the point is lost. It does not serve your company well to act so defensively when a portion of your audience offers suggestions.

While I agree great graphics are critical to pulling in an audience, so is usuability and much of what is being said here crashes the core of this very complex game's workflow.

Points made about easy access to maps, addition quick keys, modular windows available to the user to popup, drop, hide while seeking the data for important decisions. All of this is to streamline workflow.

Yes... Some of our less visually-oriented friends don't need that and may be happy with either writing details on a pad or trying to remember across the vast expanses of the Pacific. I -- like military leaders past -- prefer a visual representation backed by quick access to data.

Since I was one of the first to reply I thought I should throw in a few more pennies. I've been reading this thread very closely, not looking for problems but absorbing all of your suggestions. We have a very small staff (buy more games! [;)]) and until we expand, there's simply not enough time to post back on everything. However, there are at least three people going through these suggestions. What we can do in future revisions is not up to me, but we are definitely watching, listening and as always we will try our best to continue improving the title after release.

Honestly, I was interested in the suggestions from the first post and remain so, I just couldn't agree with the idea that not much had changed since the original PacWar.

Regards,

- Erik

ZOOMIE'S basic design suggestions in a nutshell. And these are just "suggestions" born out of near total ignorance of this side of the business. Not so much Matrix, but anyone desiring to be a Matrix Partner. I know you are basically the marketing, distribution arm of a consortium of many small partners that offers some development assistance in the form of programming services and graphic arts support. However any current or prospective Matrix partner might keep these in mind

1) Incorporate Object Oriented design in EVERYTHING you do.

2) Start from the bottom up, and develop robust, multi-tiered class libraries to handle the every day, ordinary, rudimentary chores. This includes a large library of reusable, easily derived from, GUI Widgets, and associated graphical overlays. (Maybe Matrix could do this part as part of their "Programming Assistant Services" function).

3) Investigate using SQL databases in a client-server style paradigm for more robust, flexible management of data and place ALL the game's rules in that database in form of database constraints. These are mostly turn base wargame titles, NOT Halflife IV FPS's and can make use of large disk IO without a loss of performance.

4) Utilize the above database system in the AI.

5) Base all UI's on standard Windows UI Widgets and consider using off-the-shelf third party object oriented toolkits like MFC, wxWidgets or Fox and go from there. Fox and wxWidgets are cross-platform, too, meaning MAC and even Linux opens up.

6) Once mature, consider selling licenses to an honest to God WarGame Developers API for a modest fee. Then new ideas come to market without the developers having to reinvent all these wheels all the time. Maybe as limited as incorporating some of GG's (or other's) best generic forumula in a series of API calls (and of course GG/others gets a royalty for each sale....). That way programmers get the benifit of his genius without him giving away all his secrets!

7) Possible consideration of a subscription based (very modest rate to basically cover server hosting costs + reasonable margin) client server type game along the lines of the old Wolfpack Empire game. Not for everyone, but the PBEM crowd might be enthused by this. Opens the door to massive-multi player titles in the turn based genre and steady, even if small revenue stream.

8) Publish this sort of stuff in a "Developmental Guide for prospective Matrix Partners".


That's just off the top of my head.....


PS: Don't throw out Java out of hand. A WitP is could definitely be done via Java. With Java, all the really HARD stuff, someone has already done!

[Marc von Martial]

Graphics get in the way, by convincing the staff that WIN32 Widgets won't cut it, they want to roll their own, because either they feel they are better able to create the "feel" or simply because, as you stated, doing bitmap buttons, and textured dialog background is "boring" and you don't want a "boring" job. Either way, if that happens, the tail has just wagged the dog!

ROFLMAO. I worked on both UV and WITP and never ever had the graphics department any word on what can be done and what not. We allways had to work and work around with what was given because that was the way the engine was set up. WITP would "look" totally different if it would have been for me and the graphic guys. These two projects are definetly a prime example of the dog wagging the tail.

As for Win32 Widgets, yes if the programmer is not able to built it so that you can generate a feel (for some games this is essential, for others not so much; you also might want to note that I never sayed that WITP or UV type of games would do bad with a Windows like GUI) then I will object and do it the "standard" way. This however does not keep the game developer and coders from developing an accesible and intuitive GUI. Graphic artists paint on what ever "canvas" is given for the job, they don´t tailor the canvas [;)]

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Graphics get in the way, by convincing the staff that WIN32 Widgets won't cut it, they want to roll their own, because either they feel they are better able to create the "feel" or simply because, as you stated, doing bitmap buttons, and textured dialog background is "boring" and you don't want a "boring" job. Either way, if that happens, the tail has just wagged the dog!

ROFLMAO. I worked on both UV and WITP and never ever had the graphics department any word on what can be done and what not. We allways had to work and work around with what was given because that was the way the engine was set up. WITP would "look" totally different if it would have been for me and the graphic guys. These two projects are definetly a prime example of the dog wagging the tail.

As for Win32 Widgets, yes if the programmer is not able to built it so that you can generate a feel (for some games this is essential, for others not so much; you also might want to note that I never sayed that WITP or UV type of games would do bad with a Windows like GUI) then I will object and do it the "standard" way. This however does not keep the game developer and coders from developing an accesible and intuitive GUI. Graphic artists paint on what ever "canvas" is given for the job, they don´t tailor the canvas [;)]

Well then to be fair to you, they SHOULD be consulting the graphics guys at least a little. But in the end, the graphics is the icing on the cake, never the cake.

And I have to admit, I'm kind of suprised by your "standard" comment. To me, using WIN32 widgets is THE standard, everything else is a one-off, custom, roll your own and all the development, maintenance, management headaches that entails. Which also means when your existing programmer(s) versed in your one-off UI gets hit by a bus on the way into work tommorrow, how much training is his replacement going to have to have to be of use? WIN32 GUI programmers are everywhere, custom UI guys are....well....unique....

BTW, thanks MUCHly for the insight into how things work inside Matrix in this area. It is VERY enlighteneing for me to understand this. Thanks for your candor.

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: ZOOMIE1980

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck

Graphics get in the way, by convincing the staff that WIN32 Widgets won't cut it, they want to roll their own, because either they feel they are better able to create the "feel" or simply because, as you stated, doing bitmap buttons, and textured dialog background is "boring" and you don't want a "boring" job. Either way, if that happens, the tail has just wagged the dog!

ROFLMAO. I worked on both UV and WITP and never ever had the graphics department any word on what can be done and what not. We allways had to work and work around with what was given because that was the way the engine was set up. WITP would "look" totally different if it would have been for me and the graphic guys. These two projects are definetly a prime example of the dog wagging the tail.

As for Win32 Widgets, yes if the programmer is not able to built it so that you can generate a feel (for some games this is essential, for others not so much; you also might want to note that I never sayed that WITP or UV type of games would do bad with a Windows like GUI) then I will object and do it the "standard" way. This however does not keep the game developer and coders from developing an accesible and intuitive GUI. Graphic artists paint on what ever "canvas" is given for the job, they don´t tailor the canvas [;)]

Well then to be fair to you, they SHOULD be consulting the graphics guys at least a little. But in the end, the graphics is the icing on the cake, never the cake.

And I have to admit, I'm kind of suprised by your "standard" comment. To me, using WIN32 widgets is THE standard, everything else is a one-off, custom, roll your own and all the development, maintenance, management headaches that entails. Which also means when your existing programmer(s) versed in your one-off UI gets hit by a bus on the way into work tommorrow, how much training is his replacement going to have to have to be of use? WIN32 GUI programmers are everywhere, custom UI guys are....well....unique....

BTW, thanks MUCHly for the insight into how things work inside Matrix in this area. It is VERY enlighteneing for me to understand this. Thanks for your candor.

I think you overestimate the ammount you have to "learn". From my conversations with the coders it never really sounded like "rocket science" to code buttons etc.

For some people Win32 is "the" standard, for other people their code / libraries is "the" standard

[mogami]

Hi, It was the threads title. I'm fretting about some poor soul in anguish over the games interface. I can't think something I enjoy so much is causing another person to experiance saddness. without trying to make it better.

I recall years ago an album where Rick Wakemen claimed in the credits to have "improved" Franz Listz (not arranged but improved) To this day I often listen to the music of Franz Listz but I had not listened to Mr Wakeman since that day. In Beriut before the the collapse of the government there was an opera house. One season they presented a Wagner Opera. But they had hired some Italian modern artsy fartsy who made major "improvements" The Opera House was burnt down (IN Beruit[X(] they still prefered it the old way) I'm sure in both cases there were supporters. However if the market wants a certain thing thats what it wants. Other markets want other things and they have there set of advocates. It seems on the surface (to me a least) GG is being asked to reinvent himself so that he can produce the same product. Now if a new user comes along who has never heard of GG and has never played this style but was brought up on the newer systems he will think it old fashioned and cumbersome.
I don't think 2by3 ever pretended that this particular product was going to be "new" in the sense that is was different from past products only that the subject was to be treated much more in depth.

It sounds like a reasonable request to make it easier and less time consuming to develop future products but then I wonder just what goes into his creative process. Prehaps (and I have no real idea whether this is a valid line or not) the end products are a result of his existing methods and they would lose something in the translation. Can any code write any routine and get the exact same results? Does any portion of a games flavour result from how it is composed? I mean is it so simple? Will we see in the future a generation of game designers able to do it better? (Since it seems so much easier now)

OK I'll let it drop. I don't really like inferring in other peoples opinions and like I said it was the threads title that provoked my need to respond. I can't help worring that something more was expected. (no matter what expanded abilities exist no one ever claimed as far as I know to be writing in any new way and I for one expectd from the start and was happy to get exactly what I got)

[ZOOMIE1980]

I think you overestimate the ammount you have to "learn". From my conversations with the coders it never really sounded like "rocket science" to code buttons etc.

For some people Win32 is "the" standard, for other people their code / libraries is "the" standard

The problem, once again, comes from a strategic code management perspective in terms of the potential for reusablity across multiple titles, potentially even by more than one Matrix partner. Basic WIN32 widgets are nearly infinitely reusable while retaining a great deal of graphic flexibility vs custom designed UI widgets for use by a particular title. And you are STILL going to have a much bigger productivity impact when you lose a custom UI programmer to other interests vs a WIN32 UI developer.

And the fact one even has to "code" a button, per se, speaks volumes to me. The OS already does that for standard WIN32 UI buttons, all one has to do is handle the WM_COMMAND event that results from pressing it..... In a roll your own, the programmer had to develop the entire event stream themselves (and heaven forbid, the event message pump, mouse tracking, etc... as well), or recode a new button every time he needs a button (as in the old DOS semi-gui's of days gone by). Ugh....lots of "brute force" there == lots of manhours spent doing something Bill Gates and Co already do very well == lots of money.

Think you get my point here???

[dinsdale]

Mogami,

Is there a reason why a UI should equal game reinvention? Comparing the change in classic opera to moving a game interface into the 21st century is a little over-dramatic, it's not as though the thread discusses turning the game into Medal Of Honour [;)]

I often wonder whether some of the great carriage makers were convinced by their dwindling customer base not to consider changing, after all "combustion is unnecessary when you pack so luxury in here, who wants to get anywhere quickly?"

[siRkid]

Please indulge me and read this true story of mine.

I design training software for the US Navy. I was working on a very complicated scenario involving ASW operations. It took me about 5 months just to lay out the design. During this period, I would go to the programmers with an idea and ask "Can this be done?" They would consider it and most of the time they would tell me sure. Well when I finally delivered my design to the programmers for coding, they just about fell out of their chairs. You see, when these things were looked at as individual items they did not appear to be a big deal, but when taken collectively it was almost impossible to do. Those poor programmers had to work many a weekend because the Navy already approved design.

The point is, you guys have listed so many ideas that it would be impractical to implement them all. When would we work on bugs? You can forget sweeping changes to the UI. Adding some filters or additional columns for sorting, or maybe a new page or two might be possible, but a complete overhaul is not in the cards.

[siRkid]

ORIGINAL: Captain Cruft

ORIGINAL: Marc Schwanebeck
Like I allready sayed earlier in this thread. All of the comments are appreciated and we definetly do not scrap them. We allways have and will appreciate comments and discussions and we often, in fact very often, have listened to our fans and customers and incoporated suggestions they made.

I'm sure this is true. However what would be really really good for both company and customers is if you were to produce a list of ideas that you have taken on board. This would just serve to quantify and clarify things; it would not imply any commitment to implement anything.

A simple text or HTML file would do ...

Oh and the same thing for bugs would be even better [8|]

If you look at the Wish List pinned at the top of the page, you will see notes in blue text that was added by me. It will tell you which items I've added to the list and which ones I have not. As for bugs, I will never post that list.

This is not my day job so I only work on WitP when I have time. Because of my limited time I will only record items found in the threads pinned at the top. I'm not trying to be a jerk but I have to optimize my time. It would be great if you guys created discussion threads like this one to debate the issues and then posted the recommendations in the Wish List.

I must say that I do not have any say in things other than making the list. The developers read the boards and sometimes they pick up ones I don't list.

[hithere]

WOW....took a couple of days off from the forum and *it hit the fan!! just my two cents...but i don't have a big problem with the interface....for the depth of the game i don't see how anyone could make it much simplier.....may combine a few screens, but that prob just is not possible...i can think of a few games that are much simplier (Star Wars:Rebellion anyone?) that had bad interfaces.

[Panzer76]

ORIGINAL: Mogami
Hi, Don't you tink part of it is simply the product is finished and now all the "I could have done it betters" appear? UV was in development for 2 years. There was an open forum. WITP required another 2 years with an open forum. (And WITP reflects a vast amount of inpput from these forums) And now that it is out people express saddness that the finished product is exactly what it has always claimed it would be. We are told we don't listen or we close our ears. Everyone knew who the designer was. Many of us expected the interface to be exactly what it is. Many of us have no problem with "might have been"
If a person knows how to do it better but also knows exactly what another programmer always does "wheres the beef"?

The problem is that the UV player, coming with suggestions of how the game should be, only sees them in the limitation of the current game, UV. That is, the user can not see the concequences of his suggestions when it comes to the UI, because he has not experienced it. Its the developers responibility to "see the whole picture" and understand that implementing all these wishes will have ramifications for other parts of the game the players do not think about.

[Panzer76]

Also, I would suggest to you the following:

WiTP could be LESS complex than UV with a better UI.

And by that I do not mean WiTP should lose ANY accuracy or data, Im only talking about how the data is presented.

Perhaps we could compare the UV-WiTP evolution to the EUII - HOI. Both are using updated game engines, but retaining the basics, while the game has evolved vastly more in complexity.

I would only hope that when the next game by 2by3 (the med perhaps) will be developed, the team would get a outside person (group think happens very easily), with no experience from UV/WiTP to design the UI. Not saying that would be perfect and everyone would be happy, but surely it atleast give the team some good ideas.

With the current UI standard (and its not BAD, mind you) I do not think games like this will ever sell in big numbers. Its simply not accessible enough. Would better UI mean that every Average Joe buying this game? No. Would it make it more accessible and more wargamers would buy it? Yes.

Anyho, its clear that nothing much will happen to WiTP in the UI depeartment, so I just hope lessons learned will be brought to new projects, and Im sure they will.

[Capitaine]

The problem with WitP is the lack of elegant abstraction. Whoever said above that you would have complete staffs of officers working to decipher and organize all the info thrown at the player in this game was on the right track. I don't like staff work. I don't mind -- in fact I usu. insist upon -- logistical considerations. However, use an elegant abstraction of some kind for this to make it a good game. Given the immensity of raw data the player(s) must address themselves, I hardly think any given game will be a meaningful "simulation" of WWII Pacific action. The manipulation of so many component parts virtually insures improper usage by players. No PC game can model reality at its lowest level. Finding the proper mix of detail (for excitement level) and abstraction (for enjoyable gameplay) is the key to a successful design. Too much of one or the other will diminish the project.

Only by breaking this monster down into small, UV-size segments could we hope to salvage some meaningful gameplay. I am a grognard. This one's beyond me as it currently stands. [>:]

[ZOOMIE1980]

ORIGINAL: Kid

Please indulge me and read this true story of mine.

I design training software for the US Navy. I was working on a very complicated scenario involving ASW operations. It took me about 5 months just to lay out the design. During this period, I would go to the programmers with an idea and ask "Can this be done?" They would consider it and most of the time they would tell me sure. Well when I finally delivered my design to the programmers for coding, they just about fell out of their chairs. You see, when these things were looked at as individual items they did not appear to be a big deal, but when taken collectively it was almost impossible to do. Those poor programmers had to work many a weekend because the Navy already approved design.

The point is, you guys have listed so many ideas that it would be impractical to implement them all. When would we work on bugs? You can forget sweeping changes to the UI. Adding some filters or additional columns for sorting, or maybe a new page or two might be possible, but a complete overhaul is not in the cards.

Nor would such an complete overhaul even be desirable at this point. Probably even counter-productive as I've at least gotten more comfortable with it, quirks and all.

More detailed sorting, if not too hard, would be nice, and a nicety that may not be that hard, are some more general info screens that use charts or something, rather than tabular data listings. For instance, the pool data or production rate data might make more sense if view graphically in a bar chart rather than a tabular display. Such stuff does not really involve changing the interface, just overlaying a display idiom on top of existing data.

[Bodhi]

ORIGINAL: Capitaine
Only by breaking this monster down into small, UV-size segments could we hope to salvage some meaningful gameplay. I am a grognard. This one's beyond me as it currently stands. [>:]

I'm not a grognard, and although I don't agree with you yet, I'm beginning to wonder if you're correct.

When I first started UV I found it a bit overwhelming. However, after perservering it became playable and the scope was just about right for me to handle without resorting to anything more complex than a notepad now and again.

However, WitP, being on a much larger scale, is proving difficult to manage at the moment. I have a few ideas forming on how I might make things easier to manage for myself, but the interface seems restrictive, and there's no way I can find to get the data out of WitP so I can format it how I'd like. For example, for one idea I'd need a list of base names and their x/y coordinates. This is available for both sides in the list bases screen, but there's no way I can get that info out from the game without scrolling through each line and writing the name and coords down! You can't even do a simple copy/paste on the data in the list bases screen! (Of course if someone knows how to get at this data, or has it available please put me out of my misery[:D])

It's too late for WitP, but it would be nice if list screens were more like the datagrids you see in may applications, where the user has control over which columns to display, the column order, the width of columns, and the column(s) to sort by. My big fear of WitP was that the larger amount of data would be difficult to handle, and I was hoping that the user would have more control over what was displayed, or failing that, a mechanism whereby the data could be "exported" from the game.

[mogami]

Hi, I've been here before. Nothing to do with the UI issue it's that other issue that divides gamers. I've struggled to define it before and so will likely fail here as well but perhaps someone will see what I mean and be able to choose the correct verbiage to express it.

There are players who are not concerned with winning a game. They are more interested in the experience win or lose. They are after several things enlightenment perhaps. One of their major complaints in the past has always been the outcome of the war is produced by built in conditions and not game play. (Call it conduct of the war) There is no chance to alter anything. Sure they can win a battle here or there or even the game from time to time but only as a result of luck (usually in the form of an opponent or AI that is exploited rather then the game mastered) These players do not mind doing the dirty work. The really hard work at planning and coordination. They don't quit the game in adverse situations because they are enjoying the experience. All they ask is an honest game.


Then there are the players who really want to win. Often they want to reverse the verdict of history and win with the side that lost. But they want to be in charge of the battles and have the program handle the details. (basically "First with the most" is their motto). They are not interested in details (also known as the "click fest") They want action. The most important things are being able to organize everything in a short time so they can fight the war.

I'm not the one to judge the merits of either since what makes a person play war-games and where they find enjoyment is personal and a matter of taste not correctness.

Now it is often supposed that Grognard means stickler for detail. That is only a side effect.
A Grognard is a player loyal to the class of game in the historical department but also who follows particular companies and designers. A Grognard buys products from his company by his designer sight unseen.
UV/WITP were designed with the Grognard from the start. Grognard testers and a forum that had a few Grognards watch dogging and questioning every rating, map hex. No project can ever be all inclusive or it will never be complete. A lot of Grognard desires were left out. A lot of non Grognard items were introduced.

The final result is something that will make a very few people very happy. Be playable with reservations to more and something incomprehensible to many.
I don't think a game can actually have too many details for a Grognard (as long as they actually have some impact no matter how slight) There are players who in a strange way are searching for some sort of truth. In a game of pure mathematics where combat is a product of weaponsxnumbers a lot of history is ungamable. Can a game on Antietam ever be honestly done and have play balance? Does anyone suppose that had they been in place of McClellan the war would have continued much past Sept 18 1862? But there are players who would want a game on that subject to not only allow a victory for the South but allow them to destroy the Army of the Potomac. Could a Grognard design or play such a game? The Southern player would almost have to be one who was able to pay attention to detail. The actual result was a testament to the tactical skill of the Confederate command. That they could achieve a draw was astounding. Few players of such a game would even begin one with that as their objective but given the hindsight any Union player would have only a host of built in restrictions could save even the most skilled Southern player. Yet there are those who would willingly play the South every game while others considered it a one sided waste of time.

I'm struggling here to explain that their are persons who think the value is in the detail. Detail is tedious and boring. But they would refuse a program feature that told them what to do, how to interpret the detail. And then there are players who would be happy if from time to time the program issued them orders "attack Saipan, use these forces. Everything is organized and ready"

Interface means something different to me. Now I admit it is because I have grown use to the present system and I can make it do what I want and understand it. I might like a new interface better. That has never been what I am trying to say. My point was my focus was on having the detail present in a form I could access. Since this exists I am happy. Less detail better interface would be for me a step backwards. No more detail and yet still better interface would be nice but I have always known exactly what the interface was going to be like and never did it cross my mind to engage in improving it rather then busy myself with getting as much detail included in a manageable form.

Does ungainly mean the same thing as unmanageable? It is good we have person expert in UI on the forum and I sincerely hope they are able to impact future designs. If this is the intent then it is a benefit. If however UI is being used to explain results then I do not concur. I know this to be true not because I can't handle criticism but because I myself find the UI easy to use and more then sufficient for allowing me to gather the data, manipulate the detail and mange the game. Not once has a poor tactical result provoked in me the feeling "stupid interface is to blame"

All games in my experience are both strange, bewildering and wonderful early on. Many games I thought unplayable because of their complexity I now look on as the work of the simple minded. WITP after 2 years still produces in me wonder and awe and promises me such exploration that I am afraid I will never be able to completely plumb it's depth.