WCNAW Further Impression
ryand...@yahoo.com
replied that all would be addressed in future upgrades) but now I
thought I would make a couple "gut-feel" comments based on playing a
lot of WW1 era roll-your-owns this week.
1) The gunnery "feels" right. It is really hard to get a hit and
getting a hit is based authentically on the tactical situation and the
"firing solution" developed over a number of salvoes.
2) As a result of the depth and confidence in the gunnery model,
decisions are a "big deal". You need to weigh carefully the impacts
of every course and speed change. For example among other things you
need to weigh the benefits of changing a division's course aginst the
impact this will have on that dividion's current "firing solution".
I have never experienced this weight and depth of decision-making in a
naval game before, though it is very evident in the naval histories I
have read down the years. And the good AI makes the possibility of
such decision-making ever-present.
For me a good wargame puts decisions to me that are like those faced
by historical commanders. Not sitting back watching events without
barely making an input. Not mechanically implementing a plan implicit
in the game's design/setup. Not crunching numbers in a mad race to
make some artificial time limit. Not puzzle-solving to get unit X to
spot Y. Not marvelling at the reflections in the water or the ripples
or haze whatever. Authentic decisions putting you in the commander's
shoes are my measure.
On that basis, this game is a huge success and probably represents a
milestone in wargaming, PC or board.
Warship NWS
I will be quite clear on this point - just for the record - we NEVER
work on the concept of "what feels right". It is our job, as the
designers, to research the material and apply our understanding of
naval warfare to our designs - not the player, and not based on what
"feels right". Everything about WCNAW is researched extensively -
combat mechanics, weapon physics and applications, the dynamics of
explosive materials, gunnery systems, armor schemes and metalurgy,
naval tactics and doctrines, dynamic damage modelling based on warship
design and construction, etc.. and we will continue to upgrade the
engine based on updated research, updated coding methods, and player
constructive feedback.
To us, this is not just about selling some naval wargame, it is our
passion and our specialization - naval combat.
To any newcomers reading this thread please visit our WCNAW website
here;
http://forums.navalwarfare.org/showthread.php?t=5
Thanks.
Christopher Dean
Naval Warfare Simulations
Director of Operations
http://www.navalwarfare.net
Wile E. Coyote
> Thanks for the positive comments.
>
> I will be quite clear on this point - just for the record - we NEVER
> work on the concept of "what feels right". It is our job, as the
> designers, to research the material and apply our understanding of
> naval warfare to our designs - not the player, and not based on what
> "feels right".
Yea, well, spend some of that research on good GUI design and attractive
graphics. You might thinks graphics and good GUI design are not
important but you would be very wrong to think that.
ryand...@yahoo.com
> work on the concept of "what feels right". It is our job, as the
> designers, to research the material and apply our understanding of
> naval warfare to our designs - not the player, and not based on what
> "feels right". Everything about WCNAW is researched extensively -
I prefaced my comments with the caveat that they were gut-feel
comments and that based on my own reading of naval history the gunnery
experience "feels" right. That's as far as I could go because I am
not a gunnery expert nor do I have to hand any kind of data or
statistical model to validate game experiences. It "feels" right
because of the validity of the underlying gunnery model (which I
referred to subsequently). Never meant to imply that the underlying
model was based on hunches, as it were, and if that came across that
certainly wasn't my intention.
Warship NWS
> comments and that based on my own reading of naval history the gunnery
> experience "feels" right. That's as far as I could go because I am
> not a gunnery expert nor do I have to hand any kind of data or
> statistical model to validate game experiences. It "feels" right
> because of the validity of the underlying gunnery model (which I
> referred to subsequently). Never meant to imply that the underlying
> model was based on hunches, as it were, and if that came across that
> certainly wasn't my intention.
I understood you comments and took them entirely as being very
constructive and positive. I was only re-emphasizing to readers the
directives that we have had here at NWS since we first opened our
operations.
Again, thanks for the positive comments. I added them to our "player
comments' thread on our WCNAW website.
Take care friend.
Warship NWS
> graphics. You might thinks graphics and good GUI design are not
> important but you would be very wrong to think that.
My simple response.. I will NEVER sacrifice time or resources at the
expense of the educational IQ of a wargame design just for the sake of
supplementing pretty pictures. The first priority of wargaming is
improving the knowledge of the player in regards to the topic being
covered through dedicated research and portraying the command of
combat units as accurately as possible within the scale represented.
Sorry, but I think the WCNAW graphics and interface work as intended..
not overly fancy or complicated. The BMI is to the point and it does
the job required, anything beyond that is, IMHO, superficial. I will
make improvements to the BMI (battle management interface - more
important to a wargame then a typical GUI for a variety of reasons) as
needed and with a purpose, not just to make WCNAW "fancier". I did add
a 3D environment to the battleviewer to improve the "immersion" effect
of which I will be exploring further potential of that side of the
engine as I work on future updates - but not at the expense of the
educational value of the design.
That is my personal opinion, sorry if you disagree.
Giftzwerg
@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, ryand...@yahoo.com says...
I think it's been observed about fighter planes that, "If it *looks*
right, it probably *is* right."
Here we have a case where a methodical approach to quantify the real-
world factors about naval combat yields a result where everyone
concerned is saying, "Yah, that's right. That's what would happen."
Win!
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Surprise, surprise - that somebody who shouts 'Allahu Akbar' as he
shoots up a room of soldiers might have Islamist motives in doing that."
- Charles Krauthammer
Giftzwerg
d004ff...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Wars...@yahoo.com says...
> > I prefaced my comments with the caveat that they were gut-feel
> > comments and that based on my own reading of naval history the gunnery
> > experience "feels" right. That's as far as I could go because I am
> > not a gunnery expert nor do I have to hand any kind of data or
> > statistical model to validate game experiences. It "feels" right
> > because of the validity of the underlying gunnery model (which I
> > referred to subsequently). Never meant to imply that the underlying
> > model was based on hunches, as it were, and if that came across that
> > certainly wasn't my intention.
>
> I understood you comments and took them entirely as being very
> constructive and positive. I was only re-emphasizing to readers the
> directives that we have had here at NWS since we first opened our
> operations.
>
> Again, thanks for the positive comments. I added them to our "player
> comments' thread on our WCNAW website.
I think also that the degree to which these ongoing threads about WCNAW
focus on strategy and tactics and the real world - rather than quibbling
about bugs or interface issues or "graphics" - is indicative of the
*huge* success of the design.
Arjuna and Mr. Walker had better be including stuff like, "oral sex from
Heidi Klum" if they even wanna *think about* getting my vote for WOTY.
[But yeah, I know, The Prestigious Charles S. Roberts Award for PC
wargame of the year will go to "No winner." Again.]
ryand...@yahoo.com
> world factors about naval combat yields a result where everyone
> concerned is saying, "Yah, that's right. That's what would happen."
Well put.
Also, this game is a really good use of a CPU for a wargamer because I
would not like to have to number-crunch the gunnery model with a
calculator and a pencil!
Those CPUs are amazing. I was wondering when wargamers were really
going to start using them to add something to wargames other than
graphics and die-rolls.* I have one down here under my desk
actually. I think I can hear its fan.
*Slight exaggeration but I hope you get my drift!
Giftzwerg
dfc893...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>, Wars...@yahoo.com says...
> > Yea, well, spend some of that research on good GUI design and attractive
> > graphics. You might thinks graphics and good GUI design are not
> > important but you would be very wrong to think that.
>
> My simple response.. I will NEVER sacrifice time or resources at the
> expense of the educational IQ of a wargame design just for the sake of
> supplementing pretty pictures. The first priority of wargaming is
> improving the knowledge of the player in regards to the topic being
> covered through dedicated research and portraying the command of
> combat units as accurately as possible within the scale represented.
> Sorry, but I think the WCNAW graphics and interface work as intended..
> not overly fancy or complicated. The BMI is to the point and it does
> the job required, anything beyond that is, IMHO, superficial. I will
> make improvements to the BMI (battle management interface - more
> important to a wargame then a typical GUI for a variety of reasons) as
> needed and with a purpose, not just to make WCNAW "fancier". I did add
> a 3D environment to the battleviewer to improve the "immersion" effect
> of which I will be exploring further potential of that side of the
> engine as I work on future updates - but not at the expense of the
> educational value of the design.
<applause>
Would that more wargame designers had this kind of focus on what's
important, and not waste precious programming time on cutesy-pooh
"graphics" ... or - worse - some fucking Nazi eLicensensing scheme.
And absolutely *nothing* is wrong with the graphics in WCNAW. The
tactical map shows me exactly what I need to know. The division display
gives me at-a-glance information about the status of my forces. And the
ship display at the top is a perfect blend of information, ship details,
and a nail-biting experience as crucial warships fire and come under
fire.
"MAGAZINE EXPLOSION! Oh, *fuck*! Goddamn it! I hate my whole life!!!"
Warship NWS
the game board - chess is designed screw with your brain.. same with a
wargame. So long as you know where the pieces are and what they are
intended to do that is what matters most.. all else is superficial and
teaches you nothing.
Holdit
ecd617...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>, Wars...@yahoo.com says...
> My simple anology.. no matter how pretty you make the chess pieces or
> the game board - chess is designed screw with your brain.. same with a
> wargame. So long as you know where the pieces are and what they are
> intended to do that is what matters most.. all else is superficial and
> teaches you nothing.
>
Very true. I know quite a few serious chess players (i.e. club level and
beyond), but I don't know a single one who would prefer to play with a
fancy Waterloo/Dungeons&Dragons/Other novelty themed board instead of
their trusty Staunton style tournament set.
From personal experience, the novelty sets actually make it harder.
Holdit
--
"THESE SO-CALLED disposable cameras are such a farce. Now I have
absolutely no record of a perfectly lovely holiday."
("Letter" to Viz)
Warship NWS
Interesting how "novelty" graphics can also make PC wargames more
difficult to play - art without function is nothing more then eye
clutter.
Bostonmyk
At the same time I don't know if graphics vs. number crunching
tradeoff argument is as true as it once was. Processing is so much
better these days and frankly I don't think the average wargamer's
expectations are high enough to cause a conflict really.
I think what is true is the cost if you don't have the talent in
house. Maybe one day they'll be a big enough market to justify
acquiring the risk.
M
ryand...@yahoo.com
> tradeoff argument is as true as it once was. Processing is so much
> better these days and frankly I don't think the average wargamer's
> expectations are high enough to cause a conflict really.
As important is the project management trade-off between "graphics vs.
number crunching". Simply put, there is a finite amount of time
available for the development of any wargame and time put into
graphics is time taken away from model (in the logical sense of the
word) development and implementation; this is all the more pertinent
when we are talking about a 1- or 2-person development project.
Also, graphics seem to require a lot more in the way of equipment
compatility and suck up a lot of effort into nailing down post-release
issues. Compare that with WCNAW, where instead of trying to get
things working with the latest NVIDIA driver the focus is on adding
wargaming functionality.
Bloodstar
OK...
But let's say that I am interested in the game.... Where are the reviews
with GOOD SCREENSHOTS?
And also you as operation at Naval Warfare Net still maintains very spartan
way of presenting your games on your website via some kind of forums,
clumsy, not informative, in one word ugly...
Sorry but everything is messed up on your website and some could get
impression that you are trying to hide your game from the public.
Maybe you have excellent game and if Mike Kreuzer have given it 5 star then
that is telling something but you gotta work on business side of selling
game as users want user frendliness esp. on the site with the game they are
interested to buy....
But Mike has also a strange way of reviewing games like Jutland (demo!) -
now aside from DRM etc... it certanly is not 1 lemon or something because
then all other reviewers are fools and he is very smart hmmm...
Mario
Mike Kreuzer
news:MPG.25677909d8c160c99896d9@localhost...
> In article <5200ae50-8db3-413c-8139-
> d004ff...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>, Wars...@yahoo.com says...
>
>> > I prefaced my comments with the caveat that they were gut-feel
>> > comments and that based on my own reading of naval history the gunnery
>> > experience "feels" right. That's as far as I could go because I am
>> > not a gunnery expert nor do I have to hand any kind of data or
>> > statistical model to validate game experiences. It "feels" right
>> > because of the validity of the underlying gunnery model (which I
>> > referred to subsequently). Never meant to imply that the underlying
>> > model was based on hunches, as it were, and if that came across that
>> > certainly wasn't my intention.
>>
>> I understood you comments and took them entirely as being very
>> constructive and positive. I was only re-emphasizing to readers the
>> directives that we have had here at NWS since we first opened our
>> operations.
>>
>> Again, thanks for the positive comments. I added them to our "player
>> comments' thread on our WCNAW website.
>
> I think also that the degree to which these ongoing threads about WCNAW
> focus on strategy and tactics and the real world - rather than quibbling
> about bugs or interface issues or "graphics" - is indicative of the
> *huge* success of the design.
>
Big +1
> Arjuna and Mr. Walker had better be including stuff like, "oral sex from
> Heidi Klum" if they even wanna *think about* getting my vote for WOTY.
>
LOL, I think you just delayed the damn game again. Though ... (no, better
not go there.)
> [But yeah, I know, The Prestigious Charles S. Roberts Award for PC
> wargame of the year will go to "No winner." Again.]
>
Probably.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Giftzwerg
says...
> > I think also that the degree to which these ongoing threads about WCNAW
> > focus on strategy and tactics and the real world - rather than quibbling
> > about bugs or interface issues or "graphics" - is indicative of the
> > *huge* success of the design.
> Big +1
>
> > Arjuna and Mr. Walker had better be including stuff like, "oral sex from
> > Heidi Klum" if they even wanna *think about* getting my vote for WOTY.
> LOL, I think you just delayed the damn game again. Though ... (no, better
> not go there.)
WCNAW is one of those rare efforts where the more I play, the better I
like it. On a scale of 1-10, I started out giving it a 9.1 ... now I'm
giving it a 13.7.
The crucial point is the "gimme." I'm practically playing this game in
my sleep.
old....@cmaaccess.com
Not to wargamers, the AI and historal feel of the game is
what's important. I would take this game over any 3D eye candy one,
that plays like a unrealistic kiddy game.
--
We're in a war dammit. We're going to have
to offend somebody. - John Adams
old....@cmaaccess.com
<holdit...@indigoTHE.CAPSie> wrote:
>From personal experience, the novelty sets actually make it harder.
Agree completely.
Vincenzo Beretta
> with GOOD SCREENSHOTS?
A review that says "immense database and scenario editor" with this kind of
graphics in the screenshots has GOOD SCREENSHOTS to me.
Bloodstar
Gee, OK... but you miss my point obviously and go for some cheap points...
Maybe I will buy this game later but I don't like how they are presenting
their products to the public. But that's just me...
Now they will say like all merchants liars how they sell enough copies
(which would be a lie :) and they will defend this lousy approach. And even
at that Battlefront.com also has lousy website which is not very good on all
browsers... Their business, I am not gonna flame about this - but they will
see my money next year then. :)
ryand...@yahoo.com
> not overly fancy or complicated. The BMI is to the point and it does
> the job required, anything beyond that is, IMHO, superficial. I will
> make improvements to the BMI (battle management interface - more
> important to a wargame then a typical GUI for a variety of reasons) as
> needed and with a purpose, not just to make WCNAW "fancier".
You do break a few ergonomic rules in the interface: for example, the
small mouse pointer aiming targets in the menus increase the fine
motor control demands of the user. It might be worth taking a look at
the objective HCI transgressions in the interface, they will allow the
user better access to the software. Nothing to do with being fancy.
Jim Cobb
I'm an actual quad spastic. I have no difficult targeting. If I don't,
anybody less than a spinal cord quadriplegic or a person with extreme
tremor should have no real troubles.
Ok, let the "spastic" jibes begin.
ryand...@yahoo.com
> anybody less than a spinal cord quadriplegic or a person with extreme
> tremor should have no real troubles.
Targeting in the game is well done IMHO.
Assuming that a disabled person is the acid test of a UI is of course
a mistake. Many HCI issues are about fatigue caused, for example, by
the requirement for repeated, extreme eye movements and UI bugs
causing concentration impairment and subsequent errors.
Jim Cobb
I take your point but don't believe WCNAW requires extreme eye movement.
I can see how an RTS could cause such problems.
>
ryand...@yahoo.com
> I can see how an RTS could cause such problems.
RTS games are not necessarily a bigger eye-fatigue issue then a menu
system. A series of badly designed menus - with focus items and aim-
points poorly sited for example - that need to be repeatedly used
makes you use the same group of eye muscles for a long period and that
leads to fatigue very quickly, while in an RTS with action happening
all over the view area, which in many cases is moving itself, there
can be very healthily randomised eye movements and little fatigue.
Jim Cobb
So it's a matter of repetition, just like some problems with manual
labor. I learn something new everyday. I'll bear that in mind for
reviews. Thanks.
Wile E. Coyote
> That is my personal opinion, sorry if you disagree.
That's ok, it's your game after all but I see many good programmers out
there who have no concept of good and attractive GUI design and you are
one of them. Just know that I will only buy your game when I see it
updated to 2009 graphics and GUI design quality and not 1995 quality as
it currently is.
Wile E. Coyote
>
> <applause>
>
> Would that more wargame designers had this kind of focus on what's
> important, and not waste precious programming time on cutesy-pooh
> "graphics" ... or - worse - some fucking Nazi eLicensensing scheme.
Let's say 2 woman were equal in intellectual level but one was drop dead
gorgeous and the other looked like your wife. Which would you rather fuck?
Jim Cobb
My wife
Wile E. Coyote
> My simple anology.. no matter how pretty you make the chess pieces or
> the game board - chess is designed screw with your brain.. same with a
> wargame. So long as you know where the pieces are and what they are
> intended to do that is what matters most.. all else is superficial and
> teaches you nothing.
Come on man, I find that excuse a bit of a cop out. Your game doesn't
even support widescreen monitors and according to the specs on your web
site is stuck at 1024x768 res. That makes Gifzstain a complete hypocrite
because I have seen him here deriding other game developers for not
supporting widescreen res. I don't buy any games that are recent
releases that don't support widescreen monitors. That includes 50% of
the games Matrixgames sell. I have games that are ten years old that
support widescreen res so there is no excuse not to except lack of
knowledge on how to make scalable graphics.
Wile E. Coyote
> From personal experience, the novelty sets actually make it harder.
>
> Holdit
>
For chess I will agree and I play my computer chess games from top down
view with 2D chess board and set but we are talking about a naval
wargame simulation and not chess. Still, I prefer it if my chess
computer games do have attractive graphics, good GUI design and support
widescreen res.
I knew knobs like Giftzstain would distort what I actually meant into
cutesy graphics for the teen set but that is not what I meant at all so
try not to fall into the trap of giving Giftzstain any credibility
because what he posted was character assassination and not an open
minded point of view.
Wile E. Coyote
> "From personal experience, the novelty sets actually make it harder. "
>
> Interesting how "novelty" graphics can also make PC wargames more
> difficult to play - art without function is nothing more then eye
> clutter.
Yes, but the successful marriage of art and function is the holy grail
you should try to achieve. I'm just giving constructive criticism here
so if you choose to go bury your head in the sand and claim it is
insignificant to the success of your game then be my guest.
Wile E. Coyote
> Gee, OK... but you miss my point obviously and go for some cheap points...
It's called character assasination, they are trying the same tactics
with me for the same reason. I agree that even the navalwarfare.org
website looks like a dinosaur from 1995 and could do with a modern overhaul.
Giftzwerg
says...
Mrs. G. *is* drop-dead gorgeous, and I'm waaaay better looking than
Juarez's boyfriend.
Wile E. Coyote
> As important is the project management trade-off between "graphics vs.
> number crunching". Simply put, there is a finite amount of time
> available for the development of any wargame and time put into
> graphics is time taken away from model (in the logical sense of the
> word) development and implementation; this is all the more pertinent
> when we are talking about a 1- or 2-person development project.
There are lots of talented graphics modders out there who will work for
cheap, sometimes even free.
Wile E. Coyote
> You do break a few ergonomic rules in the interface: for example, the
> small mouse pointer aiming targets in the menus increase the fine
> motor control demands of the user. It might be worth taking a look at
> the objective HCI transgressions in the interface, they will allow the
> user better access to the software. Nothing to do with being fancy.
Exactly what I meant, I said attractive and good GUI design and
Giftzstain deliberately interpreted that too pooh-pooh graphics for
children.
Wile E. Coyote
> Targeting in the game is well done IMHO.
>
> Assuming that a disabled person is the acid test of a UI is of course
> a mistake. Many HCI issues are about fatigue caused, for example, by
> the requirement for repeated, extreme eye movements and UI bugs
> causing concentration impairment and subsequent errors.
>
While we are on the subject and because you know what my point was I
have to say Norm Kroeger is another good wargame programmer that could
use some lessons in good GUI design.
Wile E. Coyote
> Not to wargamers, the AI and historal feel of the game is
> what's important. I would take this game over any 3D eye candy one,
> that plays like a unrealistic kiddy game.
Another person misinterpreting what I actually meant. How does
attractive graphics and good GUI design get interpreted to mean,
"3D eye candy one,that plays like a unrealistic kiddy game.".
Wile E. Coyote
> Again, thanks for the positive comments. I added them to our "player
> comments' thread on our WCNAW website.
Did you add mine? ;)
Wile E. Coyote
> WCNAW is one of those rare efforts where the more I play, the better I
> like it. On a scale of 1-10, I started out giving it a 9.1 ... now I'm
> giving it a 13.7.
>
> The crucial point is the "gimme." I'm practically playing this game in
> my sleep.
>
What a fucking whore you are.
Bloodstar
> me for the same reason. I agree that even the navalwarfare.org website
> looks like a dinosaur from 1995 and could do with a modern overhaul.
With that we agree :)
Website looks like MSDOS era to me. Like that it is really expensive to make
something much more user friendly...
Gee, they should take a look at Order of War website... but then I realized
that my IE bloody hell is not working good - annoying pop ups to save some
music files !!! And on facebook as well when you chat.... Anyone knows is
Bill Gates drunk or why is this happening to INTERNET BLOODY EXPLORER?????
Can this be fixed somehow?
ryand...@yahoo.com
> use some lessons in good GUI design.
I would tend to agree to some extent, getting at important game
information in some of Norm's games was a lot of work, usually you had
to click a couple of small buttons to get at some really small text in
a bizarre font and colour. I haven't touched his post-TOAW work.
One of my favourite UIs in a computer game is not in a wargame: it was
in a space 4X called Stars! I guess that's probably dead now. The
Panther guys do really good UI work IMHO, I admire them very much for
that.
Wile E. Coyote
> Can this be fixed somehow?
Yes, use Firefox with Adblock+ adn noscript. In IE you can block ad
domains or use the hosts file to block servers that host the ads.
Install Spywareblaster as that pre-emptively blocks bad sites too.
Wile E. Coyote
> My wife
I meant Giftzstain's wife and not yours. It's possible your wife is a
beauty but there is no way any beautiful and intelligent woman would
marry a shit like Giftzstain.
Wile E. Coyote
> I'm waaaay better looking than
> Juarez's boyfriend.
>
That's impossible because I am a born again virgin and practice celibacy.
Vincenzo Beretta
It is spelled "s-u-i-c-i-d-e".
Vincenzo Beretta
> gorgeous and the other looked like your wife. Which would you rather fuck?
My wife.
Wile E. Coyote
>
> I would tend to agree to some extent, getting at important game
> information in some of Norm's games was a lot of work, usually you had
> to click a couple of small buttons to get at some really small text in
> a bizarre font and colour. I haven't touched his post-TOAW work.
Jutalnd has better GUI than TOAW but still has some bizarre design going
on. The fonts they used on the main screen are horrible and jagged.
Probably designed it in Photoshop instead of Illustrator. Photoshop uses
raster graphics and Illustrator uses vector graphics which gives you
much smoother font edges.
> One of my favourite UIs in a computer game is not in a wargame: it was
> in a space 4X called Stars! I guess that's probably dead now. The
> Panther guys do really good UI work IMHO, I admire them very much for
> that.
I have a turn based 4X space game called 'Sword of the Stars' and they
make use of tabs just like a web browser instead of having to dig ten
layers deep to get the info you want like some games do, <cough> MOO3
<cough>.
Wile E. Coyote
> My wife.
>
>
Most men lie about how attractive their wife really is.
Wile E. Coyote
> It is spelled "s-u-i-c-i-d-e".
>
>
Yes, the sooner Gifty is gone the better for all of us.
Wile E. Coyote
>
> Intentionally ?
No, my age dictates that it is preferable to fucking some rancid old 50
year old woman with a pussy that smells like a can of sardines. :)
Giftzwerg
th...@isfalse.com says...
> >> I'm waaaay better looking than
> >> Juarez's boyfriend.
> >That's impossible because I am a born again virgin and practice celibacy.
> Intentionally ?
"Necessity is the mother of invention."
Of course Juarez is a virgin. By definition.
Mike Kreuzer
news:MPG.2567cc57537a1fd39896e2@localhost...
> In article <4afdf74a$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>, mi...@FIRSTNAMEkreuzer.com
> says...
>
>> > I think also that the degree to which these ongoing threads about WCNAW
>> > focus on strategy and tactics and the real world - rather than
>> > quibbling
>> > about bugs or interface issues or "graphics" - is indicative of the
>> > *huge* success of the design.
>
>> Big +1
>>
>> > Arjuna and Mr. Walker had better be including stuff like, "oral sex
>> > from
>> > Heidi Klum" if they even wanna *think about* getting my vote for WOTY.
>
>> LOL, I think you just delayed the damn game again. Though ... (no, better
>> not go there.)
>
> WCNAW is one of those rare efforts where the more I play, the better I
> like it. On a scale of 1-10, I started out giving it a 9.1 ... now I'm
> giving it a 13.7.
>
> The crucial point is the "gimme." I'm practically playing this game in
> my sleep.
>
> Giftzwerg
> ***
> "Surprise, surprise - that somebody who shouts 'Allahu Akbar' as he
> shoots up a room of soldiers might have Islamist motives in doing that."
> - Charles Krauthammer
This game has sent me scurrying back to my bookshelf more than any other
game I can remember.
An operational game that sat on top of it, & wrote imitation saved game
files & read back the AAR/game log after combat would be icing on the cake.
SAS isn't going to be that icing I don't think, but maybe someone else could
write one. Movement, fuel & detection would be all it had to do. Air attack
for WW2 ... I wonder if WCNAW will accept command line switches? (To save
the player having to enter WWI, yes, no etc to start the thing.)
LOL, always looking for the next game. <g>
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
old....@cmaaccess.com
To a wargame it is insignificant. Most if not all eye candy
games, take up most of there code and CPU time with grafix. In a
wargame you want AI and number crunching to be the main part of the
code and CPU time.
--
We're in a war dammit. We're going to have
to offend somebody. - John Adams
old....@cmaaccess.com
What is unattractive about the graphics in the game? While
plain and simple, it is NOT unattractive, it isn't yellow and neon
green.
Wile E. Coyote
> To a wargame it is insignificant. Most if not all eye candy
> games, take up most of there code and CPU time with grafix. In a
> wargame you want AI and number crunching to be the main part of the
> code and CPU time.
Bollocks. That's just a poor excuse for people who can't create a slick
and pretty GUI.
Wile E. Coyote
> What is unattractive about the graphics in the game? While
> plain and simple, it is NOT unattractive, it isn't yellow and neon
> green.
Looks like Windows 3.1 to me and does not support any other res besides
1024x768.
old....@cmaaccess.com
No the only bullocks is your view, thinking WCNAW isn't good
looking. Is it the top as far as grafix, no, but it is good enough
for the game.
old....@cmaaccess.com
So what.
eddys...@hotmail.com
wrote:
> > Sorry, but I think the WCNAW graphics and interface work as intended..
> > not overly fancy or complicated. The BMI is to the point and it does
> > the job required, anything beyond that is, IMHO, superficial. I will
> > make improvements to the BMI (battle management interface - more
> > important to a wargame then a typical GUI for a variety of reasons) as
> > needed and with a purpose, not just to make WCNAW "fancier".
>
> You do break a few ergonomic rules in the interface: for example, the
> small mouse pointer aiming targets in the menus increase the fine
> motor control demands of the user. It might be worth taking a look at
> the objective HCI transgressions in the interface, they will allow the
> user better access to the software. Nothing to do with being fancy.
I agree - the current UI is functional, but reminds me more of a DOS
program than of something designed this century. In fact, I'd have a
real hard time re-creating the NAW UI in my curent development
environments, it's *that* out-dated.
That list of Y/N and pick a value choices at the start of the game
could almost trivially be replaced by a single selection panel with
radio-button groups and some check-boxes.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> ryandyl...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Sorry, but I think the WCNAW graphics and interface work as intended..
> >> not overly fancy or complicated. The BMI is to the point and it does
> >> the job required, anything beyond that is, IMHO, superficial. I will
> >> make improvements to the BMI (battle management interface - more
> >> important to a wargame then a typical GUI for a variety of reasons) as
> >> needed and with a purpose, not just to make WCNAW "fancier".
>
> > You do break a few ergonomic rules in the interface: for example, the
> > small mouse pointer aiming targets in the menus increase the fine
> > motor control demands of the user. It might be worth taking a look at
> > the objective HCI transgressions in the interface, they will allow the
> > user better access to the software. Nothing to do with being fancy.
>
> anybody less than a spinal cord quadriplegic or a person with extreme
> tremor should have no real troubles.
>
> Ok, let the "spastic" jibes begin.
This is the first time you ever mentioned this anywhere - I guess even
you think we're a bit more grown-up than most other forums when it
comes to these matters.
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <LZBLm.26615$Wd1.23...@newsfe15.iad>, bismarc...@charter.net
> says...
>
> > >> <applause>
>
> > >> Would that more wargame designers had this kind of focus on what's
> > >> important, and not waste precious programming time on cutesy-pooh
> > >> "graphics" ... or - worse - some fucking Nazi eLicensensing scheme.
>
> > > Let's say 2 woman were equal in intellectual level but one was drop dead
> > > gorgeous and the other looked like your wife. Which would you rather fuck?
>
> > My wife
>
> Juarez's boyfriend.
I'm not picking a side here until I've seen pictures of both :)
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
eddys...@hotmail.com
> In article <bo1uf5dqp0amuu9rlfe5tmkvvn9stm5...@4ax.com>,
> t...@isfalse.com says...
>
> > >> I'm waaaay better looking than
> > >> Juarez's boyfriend.
> > >That's impossible because I am a born again virgin and practice celibacy.
> > Intentionally ?
>
> "Necessity is the mother of invention."
>
> Of course Juarez is a virgin. By definition.
Ain't it wonderful how evolution tends to weed out the George's from
the gene pool .
Greetz,
Eddy Sterckx
ryand...@yahoo.com
> labor. I learn something new everyday. I'll bear that in mind for
> reviews. Thanks.
I have often wondered how much reviewers are impacted by unconscious
UI issues. I was involved in some laboratory-based HCI research years
ago where we had a simple application built, with a good UI and good
functionality and access to data. We had a group learn and use the
application and as we expected the application scored well on the
three main categories (UI, functionality, access to data).
Then we took the UI and added in some subtle HCI errors - for example,
slightly increasing eye and mouse movement effort required, slightly
upping the concentration required by small changes to the locations of
functionally-similar items on different screens. Basically to
introduce some level of user fatigue. We didn't touch the
functionality or how data was accessed.
The UI still scored well but users marked the functionality down even
though it had not changed. The more they used the application the
more they complained about the functionality. What was happening of
course was that as they grew more fatigued (and the level of fatigue
we are talking about is largely unconscious to the person suffering
from it) the same functionality seemed harder to use; as the fatgue
grew emotional responses such as frustration began to make themselves
apparent. All users still thought the UI was fine.
So I have wondered how such UI errors impact games reviewers. I have
sometimes impulsively bought a game on release and have seen the UI
errors in it, but then have read reviews criticising other elements of
the game which I thought were quite well done while ignoring the
technical HCI issues.
Anyway, thought I'd mention this given your background as a games
reviewer. That and I have a bee in my bonnet about HCI LOL.
Vincenzo Beretta
> and pretty GUI.
Somehow I think that the above is a poor excuse for people who can't get a
clue.
Vincenzo Beretta
"Wile E. Coyote" <coy...@ACME.invalid> ha scritto nel messaggio
news:fIDLm.6865$cd7....@newsfe04.iad...
> Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
>
>> My wife.
>
> Most men lie about how attractive their wife really is.
Because they want to avoid competition ^_^
finbogey
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 09:32:20 -0600, Jim Cobb <bisma...@charter.net>
wrote:
<snip>
>I'm an actual quad spastic. I have no difficult targeting. If I don't,
>anybody less than a spinal cord quadriplegic or a person with extreme
>tremor should have no real troubles.
>
>Ok, let the "spastic" jibes begin.
No jibes, but I do have difficulty selecting my divisions sometimes if
they get too close together. A little zoom on the tacmap would help in
this case.
Jim Cobb
> Yeah, I recommended that in my review.
Vincenzo Beretta
> files & read back the AAR/game log after combat would be icing on the
> cake.
> SAS isn't going to be that icing I don't think
I'm not so pessimistic re: SAS, if NWS continues to refine it. However, for
a simpler operational interface, Chris could consider a conversion of
"Thunder at Sea" (the operational interface for "Fightning Steel"). I have
it, and it works beautifully.
http://forums.navalwarfare.org/forumdisplay.php?f=8
Wile E. Coyote
> No the only bullocks is your view, thinking WCNAW isn't good
> looking. Is it the top as far as grafix, no, but it is good enough
> for the game.
Does it support widescreen resolutions? The website only lists 1024x768.
Wile E. Coyote
> Somehow I think that the above is a poor excuse for people who can't get a
> clue.
>
>
You're the one that needs a clue - it's now 2009 and not 1995.
Wile E. Coyote
> So what.
I have a widescreen monitor that only looks sharp at native res of
1680x1050, that is, "so what". I see many games sold at matrixgames are
fixed res of 1024x768 too. If the wargame programmers don't know how to
create scalable graphics then I suggest they take some course and get up
to speed because I, and many othe people, won't buy any game in this day
and age that do not support widescreen res.
Jaz
news:6cCLm.32568$1g6....@newsfe10.iad:
> Bloodstar wrote:
>
>> Gee, OK... but you miss my point obviously and go for some cheap
>> points...
>
> It's called character assasination, they are trying the same tactics
> with me for the same reason. I agree that even the navalwarfare.org
> website looks like a dinosaur from 1995 and could do with a modern
> overhaul.
I bet you only read books with color pictures.
Vincenzo Beretta
And Flight Commander II from 1994 is a bad game... why? Get a grip.
old....@cmaaccess.com
So what, it isn't a first person shooter.
old....@cmaaccess.com
So your saying a widescreen can't handle res of 1024x768 with
out making it look ugly? Maybe you got your self the wrong
widescreen monitor.
Mike Kreuzer
news:s64Mm.36411$813....@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
Is there a screenshot somewhere? I was thinking something like CAW.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Giftzwerg
old....@cmaaccess.com says...
> >> So what.
> >
> >I have a widescreen monitor that only looks sharp at native res of
> >1680x1050, that is, "so what". I see many games sold at matrixgames are
> >fixed res of 1024x768 too. If the wargame programmers don't know how to
> >create scalable graphics then I suggest they take some course and get up
> >to speed because I, and many othe people, won't buy any game in this day
> >and age that do not support widescreen res.
>
> So your saying a widescreen can't handle res of 1024x768 with
> out making it look ugly? Maybe you got your self the wrong
> widescreen monitor.
I often make the same complaint - and it's usually a valid one; game
designers need to lose their insane longing for XVGA.
But with WCNAW, as I pointed out previously, native support for larger
resolutions is pointless; all you would gain is bigger empty areas
around the fixed-size tactical map ... and more empty blue water around
the division display ship icons.
If you're going to be looking at empty areas, they might just as well be
*outside* the game windows.
Vincenzo Beretta
I like it better than CAW: the layout resembles an Admiral's planning map.
Here are some screens:
http://navalwarfare.info/files/FSP/TAS%20screenshots.zip
And there is a demo at
http://navalwarfare.info/files/FSP/NWS-TAS_Demo140.exe
You can check the demo even if you don't have Fightning Steel (just ignore
the requests for where the game is located). Of course this way you can't
fight any battles, but it is easy to see how it could work as an operational
game for WC-NAW too.
Mike Kreuzer
>> Is there a screenshot somewhere? I was thinking something like CAW.
>
> I like it better than CAW: the layout resembles an Admiral's planning map.
> Here are some screens:
>
> http://navalwarfare.info/files/FSP/TAS%20screenshots.zip
>
Exactly what I had in mind.
> And there is a demo at
> http://navalwarfare.info/files/FSP/NWS-TAS_Demo140.exe
>
> You can check the demo even if you don't have Fightning Steel (just ignore
> the requests for where the game is located). Of course this way you can't
> fight any battles, but it is easy to see how it could work as an
> operational game for WC-NAW too.
>
Fighting Steel was my favourite naval game for a long, long time, and I do
indeed have it installed on this machine though maybe I've got it setup
wrong, or maybe loading the battle's disabled in the demo cause that
wouldn't work for me ... but this would do nicely. Integrating this with
WCNAW is a much better idea than using SAS.
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Vincenzo Beretta
> indeed have it installed on this machine though maybe I've got it setup
> wrong, or maybe loading the battle's disabled in the demo cause that
> wouldn't work for me ...
You have to patch "Fightning Steel" to the latest version of the "Figthning
Steel Project" on NWS website if you want to use it with TaS.
http://forums.navalwarfare.org/showthread.php?t=6
Actually, just talking about it made me willing to play it again. A couple
of years ago I literally burned out by playing some Med campaigns. Now I
could try Guadalcanal. LOTS more fan made campaigns to try, too...
Mike Kreuzer
Patched, but FS's 3d doesn't work on my machine. Pity. TaS didn't work
before cause I was an idiot - I'd renamed the FS exe. Interaction with FS
seems fine, pretty much what I was hoping for with WCNAW.
Selecting a fleet's a bit iffy, sometimes it takes several clicks cause the
area to click's too small, but that's the only problem I have. This combined
with WCNAW is just what I'm after. NWS should put SAS on the backburner &
sell me this now ...
Regards,
Mike Kreuzer
www.mikekreuzer.com
Graham Thurlwell
<snip>
> I think it's been observed about fighter planes that, "If it *looks*
> right, it probably *is* right."
Same phrase is popular in railway modelling over here, although most
of the time "probably" is omitted. My Dad and I sometimes add "until
it's proved wrong. And we want to see the photos!" ;-)
--
Jades' First Encounters Site - http://www.jades.org/ffe.htm
The best Frontier: First Encounters site on the Web.
nos...@jades.org is currently broken, please reply on group!