Interface Improvements

[Konrad_Novak]

4.1. Task Edit dialog (again, where you chose formations, routes and aggro/supply settings of the order) must be updateable. Current state is probably a bug and I think Dave has already told that it'll be corrected soon.
Not sure I fully understand either.

I meant a situation when an already opened "Edit Task" dialog doesn't affect currently selected Task and you have to manually close it and open again via "Edit Task" dialog. I couldn't reproduce the situation since the first post and Dave is probably right - I could "Shift-Click" an old "Edit Task" dialog. "Shift-Clicked" dialogs change only the task which was active when you "Shift-Clicked" them. I'll just delete the suggestion so it wouldn't confuse others.

But it leads me to another suggestion to Dave - please somehow mark such "Shift-Clicked" dialogs. Currently you don't know which of them is updateable (i.e. which will change when you select another unit/task) and which is non-updateable (i.e. which will stay the same if you click anything).

I would be happy if the game just remembers where I place all my windows so that they always open up in the same place.

But doesn't it remember them now? I've just checked the Demo - if you close the dialogs and then open them, they open in the same place.

Personally, I think some of this Overlay information is very important and needs constant access. There is so much space along the bottom task bar of the game I think it would be better if each overlay type was given a button of it's own. Clicking on one will deactivate the one currently selected. At least the player would always be able to access the overlay they want with ONE click and not up to 9!!! A step down from that is to perhaps have similar multiple overlay buttons but perhaps group the overlays eg. the Enemy APer, AArm, Armour on one button, Friendly APer, AArm, Armour on another.

BTW what about a drop-down menus? I've completely forgotten about them, but I think they could be tremendously useful in this situation. If Dave could just put them into all filters (and unit infobox), so player had to make only two clicks (one to open drop-down menu, another - to select the needed item) it could improve the gameflow IMO.

A question to Dave - let's say you've implemented at least some of these interface suggestions. Will they be considered "new features" and be in paid engine updates or will they be released as free patches and affect all previous game engine releases?

 

[Bullman]

Hi Dave,

I just did not want the importance and need of a good GUI in a game like this to go understated.

I don't want to give up on this game on account of the GUI being more challenging and time intensive than playing the game itself.
eg. there is no fun trying to play this game intelligently in real time knowing that if i want to look at the Control Overlay, I must press the Pause button in the Controls dialog once then press the Overlay button 9 times (and press another 8 times if you press one too many), and then another click to unpause the game and resume playing. That is at least 10 clicks just to view one bit of information.

Which funnily enough reminds me of another issue with the way the Overlap button works.

Why doesn't the game AUTOMATICALLY pause when you press on the Overlay button? The overlay only shows when the game is paused so if a player wants to view an Overlay, they are already agreeing to pause the game. Why make them manually pause the game first? (Unless you think players like mouse clicking many times just to access basic information) Make the Overlay button automatically pause the game.

I would also go so far as to suggest that a quick and ready indicator of how efficient a GUI is (no it is not subjective) is to count the number of clicks and number of menus a player needs to do anything.

PS: The point I forgot to make: Please do not under estimated the large gains to be had by making what are really trivial/simple (perhaps sometimes seemingly inconsequential) changes to the way some of of the GUI works.

 

[Bullman]

But doesn't it remember them now? I've just checked the Demo - if you close the dialogs and then open them, they open in the same place.

Some do (most?) but definitely not the Force dialog box when you right click and open it.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Actually the Force Data dialog position is remembered for the first instance but not for the additional ones. The additional ones just appear offset from the position of the first one.

 

[Johannes82]

I have to agree with the previous posts. The game logic is wonderful, but the interface is a disaster. So much could be done here to make the game more accessible, and thus attract a huge amount of new players. To me, the game is stuck in the nineties graphically and from a usability standpoint. If I were in charge of further development, then the priority would be clear. Because wargamers over 70 are getting fewer and fewer and everyone under 50 has clear ideas about usability and accessibility of information. So if the game is still to be played in 10 years' time, then work is urgently needed.

 

[Johannes82]

Even the developers of Dwarf Fortress realized this at some point.

 

[Dave 'Arjuna' O'Connor]

Johannes82,

I agree it would be great to have a new interface. Why haven't we done this already? I'm an AI programmer not a UI programmer. I can manage to fix a bug and make some minor changes in the existing UI code. But it's not my forte. I don't have the money to hire a UI programmer - Cmd Ops is a niche product and doesn't make a lot of money. I know that may be turned around with a new interface. But I'm at retirement age and I'm not about to take on a loan to finance such an investment.

What I would be prepared to do is to hive off the AI into a standalone DLL that can be accessed by a game interface. I would want to get some upfront money for that, along with a share of ongoing royalties.

BTW, up until you mentioned it, I was blissfully unaware of Dwarf Fortress. Hopefully others on the forum will get the reference.

 

[Johannes82]

Hi Dave,

I understand the problem very well. In a way, the situation is similar to that of Dwarf Fortress, which is why I mentioned the game. The difference, however, was that DF offered modding interfaces early on, allowing the community to improve the graphics. What I would really hate to see is if we get to a point where CO2 is no longer being developed by you guys and the truly unique AI engine is eventually forgotten. There is no comparable game on the market and CO2 clearly deserves more attention.

A solution like the one you suggested with the AI module as a shared library would be a very good first step. It might even be possible to raise money for further development of the graphics engine and the interface via Kickstarter. This is often a viable option for niche products in particular.

I happen to work in software development myself and also have over 20 years of experience with C++ in an embedded context. I would therefore be personally interested to know whether the AI engine is already designed for multiprocessing? This could certainly lead to a significant optimization of performance. In my opinion, the biggest need for change is on the interface side. Map overlays, better LOS tools (see Steel Division Engine, for example), reduction of the number of clicks through context-sensitive menus, more information on units and commands, etc. In terms of graphics, I think it would make sense to switch to a 3D engine, but without throwing the counters overboard. It is much easier to assess terrain features in 3D, but I would still provide a switchable 2D mode in which you can view the map as a 2D projection. The challenge will be to translate the obviously vector-based existing maps into the 3D representation. But that should certainly be possible.

Best regards,
Johannes