Interface

[GlobalExplorer]

I consider myself a very seasoned AACW player and loved the interface. I have criticized some interface changes over the years, but could handle them somehow.

But today I ragequit CW2 because the changes have made some things too bad. The stupidity (sorry but I have no better word) of the recruitment interface has reached a point where I realized I should stop playing right away.

2000$ or so, tons of manpower to spend, time to build an army. How much fun this this was in AACW!

The panel contains 133 units of which only 10 can be visible.

Do you want me to calculate how many clicks this means for an average campaign?

I could scroll through the list but scrolling on that scale will kill my middle finger.

I know there are filters, but a system that overloads you with repeatedly scrolling lists with 133 entries, does not get better by overloading you with enabling and disabling the same filters over and over.

There is no excuse that the panel does not stretch out vertically like in AACW. The icons could also be smaller, so they fit on one or two pages.
All would be fine if the panel had 5-10 vertical rows, like in AACW.

But no, the icons get enlarged 2 times, and we must still peer through the same hole.

This reeks of really bad design, and it's not like people have not expressed concern when there was still time.

The regional decision mode is not much better. I hate using it, because it is so painful.

I'm giving up on this. The recruitment screen in AACW was good, RuS was two steps down and CW 2 was another step down.

[tripax]

I saw your comments on the mod forum, and I hope they are read by others (Fred_zepplin's thread on his flag mod does suggest a way to make the flags less distracting, but I think that it isn't the fix you are looking for). While I agree somewhat with your complaints about the overall look of the game, I also agree that issues with the look pale in comparison to the issues you bring up with recruitment.

I believe the size of the panel can be modded by editing files in the "FronEnd" folder, the file is called "GUIRecruitPanel". With my resolution/screen size, I get to choose between 7 units when recruiting (yours gives 10? if so, be thankful to get that much), I'm not sure if I want to modify resolution given my screen size, or if trying it would mess anything up. In any case, perhaps the buttons could be made smaller and more can be included, even with a second row. Has anyone modded this file? I played with a bit just now, but didn't try to hard and certainly didn't figure it out. But I was able to break things a bit, and I imagine if somebody (preferably somebody at ageod) worked at it, smaller buttons and multiple rows could be implemented. Even if the buttons were simply cut in half it would quadruple the number of buttons that would fit on the screen without changing the amount of screen real estate used.

[John S. Mosby]

I have to agree the extra scrolling and clicking is bothersome especially considering how well AACW was in this department. This feature was definitely not an improvement.

[Durk]

I strongly disagree with the discussion on this thread about the take on the recruitment interface. While there was a logic to the old AACW interface, you still needed to click through a dozen panels to get to specific units to build. I would contend you had learned how to simplify this, not that it was easier to use.

I reduce the screen to infantry or special units and such. Even the largest category, infantry, is simple. Do I want the super units or the cheap ones.
I think I click seven or eight times a turn to build. About the same as the old game. Where the real improvement comes in, when I double click on a unit I am presented with a region where it can be built. What a delightful simplification of this interface.

It is more elegant than the old interface and much easier to access.

[Ace]

Using the mouse scroll instead of clicking right or left helps a bit. Also, in 1.04., filters are memorized, so you do not have to select them again.

[GlobalExplorer]

I strongly disagree with the discussion on this thread about the take on the recruitment interface. While there was a logic to the old AACW interface, you still needed to click through a dozen panels to get to specific units to build. I would contend you had learned how to simplify this, not that it was easier to use.

This is (at best) vague and misleading, assuming that you have played AACW first hand.
Assuming that you have not, simply don't say such things ok?

A maximum of 3 user inputs is required to build 1 unit in AACW, with the resulting clicks much less than 3*n if you build more than 1 unit. Because the F2 and unit tab are only necessary a few times.



(1) you hit F2 to open the recruitment panel (if you have it already open) --> (2) you click once to select the tab for the unit category you want --> (3) you click the unit

That's all, without any "sleight of hands" involved.

In the new system you must move a 10-unit-loophole over a 100+ unit list (either by repeated clicking or by scrolling for several seconds).

That's not good, but what's really worse, you must repeat this for every subsequent unit, whereas in AACW the screen would just stick.

Because your above statement is such a gross mistake, I have calculated the number of clicks in both systems.

The result is that to build 20 units the old system I would need no more than 41 clicks, in the new system it will take between 41 and 2661 !

u is the number of possible units, defining the length of the list
n is the number of units I want to build
the number u = 133 was chosen because that's the first number I encountered (initial number of units available to the US player),
the number n=20 is arbitrary, I think it's reasonable that I need to build that many units at the start of the campaign

The minimum case is when the chosen unit is already on screen, for example one of the first 10 in CW2, or an infantry unit in AACW (default tab)
The average (and most likely) case, is that for u units you must on average move u/2 times
The maximum case is an estimation that for u units you must move to the bottom of the list



I don't get into the discussion of the filters. They reduce the number of clicks, but are nothing but an awful crutch.
The buttons are placed awkwardly, player must go back and forth bewteen the filters, cognitively it's a very demanding and uneccessary task.

UI wise, tab controls and multi-row are the key, not arbitrary filter buttons in flyouts that are hidden somewhere.

To sum up my opinion. In the old interface (AACW) the UI elements were right where you needed them, right from the start. The new interface in CW2 repeats the same mistakes as the modern tablet inspired UI. It is a failed attempt to make everything more streamlined by hiding as many things from the user as possible, then repeatedly let him search for functions that are needed in every game. This has the effect that Joe tablet gamer does not get a heart attack when he first sees the interface. Later on there will be a large number of unnecessary steps to unearth the many hidden options which will be need in every game anyway, and in most cases this must be repeated time and time again.

So you have increased the workload by a lot of unnecessary steps, in order to make it less intimidating on first contact. It looks more pleasant to people who just look at it but do not play it, or who have no experience with a more direct interface, but not when put it under heavy use, a very bad design principle.

I hope a few corrections are considered, especially for the coming games.

Here is my preliminary rating of UIs used on the AGE engine so far:

AACW 9/10
RuS and others 8/10
CW2 4/10

[Jim-NC]

The biggest difference is you get to place your units where you want. That was not possible in AACW. Do you want to go back to that? Your right, decisions were made in Beta that not everyone agrees with. But I remember there being a lot of chatter on the AACW boards about wanting to be able to place units where you want, not where the engine placed them. Could it have been done differently? Yes, but the CW system is the same as the PON system. So this is a system that has been around for awhile.

Yes it takes more effort. Most players don't mind. I personally prefer the new method, as I have a choice on where to place.

[Captain_Orso]

8<
I don't get into the discussion of the filters. They reduce the number of clicks, but are nothing but an awful crutch.
The buttons are placed awkwardly, player must go back and forth bewteen the filters, cognitively it's a very demanding and uneccessary task.

UI wise, tab controls and multi-row are the key, not arbitrary filter buttons in flyouts that are hidden somewhere.
8<

The filters on the new UI are tools, not crutches. They are logically conceived. I will not disagree that having tabs instead of "flyouts" might be a little simpler, but that's the only point of your arguments I can agree with.

There are a couple of points you have not mentioned which I find even more important than tabs instead of flyouts:

- The units are not sorted by state within their departments. If I know I want to build only units in Pennsylvania, then I don't need to see units from NY, CT, MA, etc, etc. A sub-filter for states would be a nice addition tool.

- The units are not sorted in a logical order, like most expensive to cheapest, and the order in which they are presented can and will change from turn to turn. I would also not be disappointed if there were a separate filter each for Sharpshooters and Militia. I know when I want to build these and don't need to have them on the main-infantry filter. I can use my "cognition" (intelligence) to choose when to use which filter.

I would prefer to see those "fixed" first before tabs being implemented, as at least I find them to be more useful.

If you refuse to use the filters because they are too demanding on you, then please don't complain about how many clicks and scrolls you have to use to purchase your units. The only filters available at this time are department and unit type. I don't think that is too demanding on any player to figure out how to use these to their own advantage.

Another point you have completely missed is that in AACW once you've purchased your units, the next turn after they have arrived, you can go filter through the unit's-have-arrived message to see which unit have been placed where. Since in general you purchase large numbers of units at about each half-year because that is when raising bonds and calling for volunteers regenerate, you can spend a lot of time looking for which unit has been placed where, and if you have a plan as to which division each unit will belong to or where you want to deploy it, as I do, then you can write down not only where they spawned, but also to which leader or region they should move once their training is completed and where those leaders are. With the current UI I can place new units in logical training areas and know where they are without having to search for them.

If all you are doing is throwing out any bunch of units willy-nilly, then I can see why you have those issues with the new UI.

Since you get to place the units on to the map at a point of your choosing, you must also have a reasonably sized portion of the map on which to navigate to pick each unit's build location. Since the game must be configurable to monitors of many different sizes the smallest size being, AFAIK, 1024x768, if multiple rows of units were opened on the Recruitment screen, there wouldn't be much room left for displaying the map on such small resolutions. That's one reason why there cannot be multiple rows of units on the Recruitment screen.

It's okay if you vent your frustration a bit, within reason, with learning to use the new UI. Getting used to change can be frustrating and old loves can be hard to let go. Sometimes it's good to take a deep breath and count to 10 (or more, depending on your frustration level ) and then put your mind to seeing what you can get out of the changes.

I hope you can find the patience to learn how to get along with the UI a bit better, pick up some tips from others, and start to enjoy the game a bit more .

[Ace]

Globalexplorer, my first impression was similar to yours. But in the beta stage majority had different opinion, saying the choice of placement was more important than fewer clicks. All I can say I eventually got used to it and it doesn't bother me anymore, and I get to place units where I want them.

[Captain_Orso]

Damn you Ace, you always say things in few words than me

[GlobalExplorer]

*What I am going to write now is not meant as a personal attack on anyone, but I already know I will step on some peoples toes now.
If anything I am going to write is insulting you, feel free to fire back. But I think it is about time that someone writes this.

I already said that I am not willing to "learn" the new system, because I can demonstrate that it is bad. I am not going to learn things that are worse than things I already know.

What I write is meant as free advice, not begging for affirmation.
If the Ageod and the beta testers that brought us this UI want to go "lalala I can't hear you", that's your business.

I am a designer of user interfaces for a very input-heavy CAD application, for 15 years. Even if we're a smallish company compared to Ageod, my users have made millions of inputs with my interfaces, and we reached a point where we have become very productive, so I think I have an idea what I am talking about.

Some important lessons learned were:

Flyouts were tried at some point and have been totally rejected by our users.
Flyouts are fine if you open them once or twice, but no one wants to open the same flyout 20,000 times, the widgets must simply stay in view in that case.

It is true that the users only want to see what they are using at a time. But they also - and this is very important - don't want to be forced to tell the system more than once what they want to see.

That reminds me of those ticket machines, that require you go through the same process for every ticket you buy. This works fine if you buy one ticket, but if you need 250 tickets it's going to become so frustrating, you will look for another way to get the tickets. Decide for yourself which scenario is more suited for a game like CW2, 1 ticket or 250.

To sum up my experience, every unnecessarily repetitive process was rejected by our users, because repetition costs time, and time costs money.

Since you get to place the units on to the map at a point of your choosing, you must also have a reasonably sized portion of the map on which to navigate to pick each unit's build location. Since the game must be configurable to monitors of many different sizes the smallest size being, AFAIK, 1024x768, if multiple rows of units were opened on the Recruitment screen, there wouldn't be much room left for displaying the map on such small resolutions. That's one reason why there cannot be multiple rows of units on the Recruitment screen

The argument that you could not see the map is silly. You would just see less of it. What about 50% map / 50% unit panel? Now it's 95% map, 5 % unit panel.

The biggest difference is you get to place your units where you want. That was not possible in AACW. Do you want to go back to that? Your right, decisions were made in Beta that not everyone agrees with. But I remember there being a lot of chatter on the AACW boards about wanting to be able to place units where you want, not where the engine placed them. Could it have been done differently? Yes, but the CW system is the same as the PON system. So this is a system that has been around for awhile.

Yes it takes more effort. Most players don't mind. I personally prefer the new method, as I have a choice on where to place.

So you even agree that it takes more effort .. Yes, it could have been done differently that work much better. For example: the old system with a toggle for the state then city etc. Rally points. Or the new recruitment panel with smaller graphics and several rows, allowing you to see most of the available units AND the map.

[John S. Mosby]

The biggest difference is you get to place your units where you want. That was not possible in AACW. Do you want to go back to that? Your right, decisions were made in Beta that not everyone agrees with. But I remember there being a lot of chatter on the AACW boards about wanting to be able to place units where you want, not where the engine placed them. Could it have been done differently? Yes, but the CW system is the same as the PON system. So this is a system that has been around for awhile.

Yes it takes more effort. Most players don't mind. I personally prefer the new method, as I have a choice on where to place.

I agree Jim. Being able to place the units is a great improvement. I suppose in order to facilitate this the more difficult selection process was created. Taking the good with the bad but I wish we could have had the best of both worlds.

[GlobalExplorer]

I am not criticizing that Ageod changed the system to allow us to place the units, I am criticizing that they did it in a suboptimal way in RuS, and then made it even worse in CW2.

I am tempted to write you a little program that shows you that the selection can be done with just two simple toggles, one for the state, the other for the city.
Or, if you want to stick with the solution, simply imagine the same panel with 5 vertical rows (the panel could be manually extended in the vertical) and units graphics that are the same size as AACW (i.e. smaller).

[Ace]

This reminds of some discussions we had in early beta, not just for unit recruitment

But, some things, like overall interface look, for good and bad, were ageod decisions. It seems, old interface was scaring the new players with way too many buttons. As you say flyout is not good for repetitive use, but it looks cool the first time you use it. The decision who to please was theirs alone...

BTW, system is better than in RUS, with larger unit display, double click to get to a region, and in game filters.

[GlobalExplorer]

This reminds of some discussions we had in early beta, not just for unit recruitment

As it is my intention to criticize a number of decisions, not just recruitment. Flyouts, regional decisions, recruitment, replacement screen, lack of keyboard shortcuts, lack of sticky decisions == general lack of direct control

But if the "streamlined" UI does indeed fulfill it's purpose, i.e. to attract lots of new players while keeping the old ones, the decision was a success.
I am just saying I am highly sceptical, and that problems are not solved by replacing a good UI that looks initimidating with a bad one that looks harmless.

[GlobalExplorer]

As you say flyout is not good for repetitive use, but it looks cool the first time you use it. The decision who to please was theirs alone...

Honest. But if the interface was just optimized to "look cool the first time you use it", that would be really bad ...

[GlobalExplorer]

And if that was not clear before: the argument that the new interface is better than the old one because it allows control of the province, is non sequitur, because the old interface (or a third) could do that just as well, with minimal changes.

[Ace]

Honest. But if the interface was just optimized to "look cool the first time you use it", that would be really bad ...

You are perfectly right if you talk about CAD software (I use one every day) where "cool" doesn't mean anything. In gaming industry "cool" is a very important word - it's a game seller. Don't get me wrong. I am with you on the issue, but I can fully understand why they made the decisions they did.

And BTW, if you are scrolling the unit lists with clicking the arrows, it is really PITA. I always scroll with my mouse wheel, it will get you to the unit you want pretty fast.

[tripax]

I'm on a laptop and scrolling with the mousewheel is pretty difficult (that region of the mousepad-thingy is pretty hard to use with regularity). Is there a keyboard based way to do this? Is it possible to reassign controls so that this action is given to something on the keyboard?

[soundoff]

but I can fully understand why they made the decisions they did.

So can I Ace, so can I. After all its the Phils livelihoods. Having said that I'm firmly with GlobalExplorer. My personal view is that CW2 is a sad reflection of AACW. The latter was superb whilst the current leaves a nasty taste in my mouth but that's just me and I'm certainly no barometer for what sells.

[Ace]

Well, I have a laptop too, I just plug the mouse to it )
Seriously tripax, I do not know how to assign wheel function to keyboard, try googling it, maybe someone knows how.
Soundoff, we may be getting too old for the new "smartphone and tablet" generation

[GlobalExplorer]

Re: mouse scrolling, I am aware of that, but it takes several seconds = too long. Any UI control that does not respond in fractions of seconds is awkward.

There are UI best practice rules that say the number of items in a scroll list should not exceed a certain number, for example 30, or four times the visible size.
What we have now is 7-10 visible out of 130+, a gross mismatch. So this problem is not new. Instead of simply using a non-scrolling solution (multiple rows), filters were introduced.

Ok, where I kind of agree is that the hierarchical selection is logical:

Department <--- All
Unit Type ------>

But better (imo) would be:

Department
State
Unit Type

or

Unit Type
Department
State

I can only judge the version I have (1.03), and the filters in 1.03 are still nothing but a crutch:
-The buttons for the filters are very badly placed and small. They should be larger and easier to read, ordered logically, and without acronyms (how does that go down with the "new" users btw)
-The unit type level uses a completely different format = inconsistent.
-In my version flyouts do not stick, so whenever I want to change the filter I have to repeat the same steps again, i.e. two unecessary clicks just to open the flyouts.

Suggestions:

The controls for all levels of hierarchy should be sticky, not in flyouts
The selection should be ordered hierarchically: Department/State/Unit type
The controls on all levels should be consistent and use the same widget, for example (three levels of) tabs

This would be not a great, but a more workable solution. However one thing we are also forgetting is that while the filtering system is workable when you already know exactly what you want to select, we also often want to see all available options side by side. And the filters do not help with this at all, at most we can see 10 (or 7 in tripax case) items at a time, also most of them same/same units, cognitively a very poor solution.

That's why I suggested the panel should have multiple rows (sizeable) because this solves the problem of seeing units side by side, and also makes filters obsolete. (we could do with just 1 filter "unit type" as in ACW)

Ironically, that was the solution in AACW, just with the poorly implemented (=non-existing) province selection.

[GlobalExplorer]

Don't get me wrong. I am with you on the issue, but I can fully understand why they made the decisions they did.

Hm well, I have already counted to 10

[GlobalExplorer]

I'm on a laptop and scrolling with the mousewheel is pretty difficult (that region of the mousepad-thingy is pretty hard to use with regularity). Is there a keyboard based way to do this? Is it possible to reassign controls so that this action is given to something on the keyboard?

Yes, like left/right pageup/page down, though some of that is already used by the map another key could be found. I agree, the lack of keyboard commands makes this a lot less workable.
That was one of the first things I noticed, that many useful keyboard commands were removed from AACW, for example left control = show number of men / cannons / horses.

[GlobalExplorer]

You are perfectly right if you talk about CAD software (I use one every day) where "cool" doesn't mean anything. In gaming industry "cool" is a very important word - it's a game seller.

Ok, maybe not a good idea comparing CAD applications with games, but I believe the principles are the same = avoid workload, optimize for speed and non-repetition.

[Captain_Orso]

I'm trying to understand what the real issue is; why the UI should be so difficult to use for some players.

I can think of no reason to not filter the type of unit I want to buy. In AACW you was actually had no option for this. You picked a unit type to pull up the Ledger Page of that type of Reinforcement. There was no ability to look at, for example, Artillery and Infantry units at the same time.

The unit type with the most units from which to select is Infantry with about 66 different brigades/regiments in all departments. If I had to scroll through all 66 to get an idea of what I want to build... well I would be pretty frustrated too; especially since the units are not sorted in any special fashion.

Okay, I've been playing AACW and CW2 for nearly 5 years. Not THAT much has changed in available units from then until now. Basically when I hit F11 to open the Replacements UI I've already got a good idea of my plan in my head. Would it help, if I didn't have nearly 5 years experience, if I had an over-view on one singe page? Maybe. Then again, even on the AACW Reinforcements Ledger you had to hover the pointer over one of the units to actually see of what each unit consisted, so it's not like there was one full picture on one page. Also there was a separate tab for Irregular and Militia units and Naval was divided between Riverine and Oceanic.

But I don't think there is a one size fits all solution. As I stated before, there is not enough room for putting 66 units onto the screen at once at the lowest resolution. This is what that looks like.




There is only room for 5 units across. Even if you squeezed in 6 units, which would start to get ugly, you would need 11!! rows of units. That's just not possible. Even if you filter for the Mid-Atlantic department there are 16 units and they would cover at least half the visible map. If that were done, we would hear players screaming bloody murder that they couldn't reasonably navigate the map to find places to build their units, and that rightfully.

Again, Tabs for the filters: OK. Add Irregular and Militia to their own tabs: OK. Maybe even add state filters. But probably a selection to sort by unit size or state of origin would be just as usable.

Yes, there is room for improvement, but going back to the old system would be a huge step backwards for a number of reasons.

There are and will always be things that if the player learns them will help him in play. One of them is having a good idea what units can be built where. There are not that many different types of infantry units. They mostly are the same when looking from state to state. Another is to have a plan.

[GlobalExplorer]

Captain_Orso, if you just half the size of the icons in your lowest resolution example, and arrange them in two rows, there would be 20 units visible without even changing the size of the panel one bit.

In my case /1680*1050) it would be 40 instead of 10.

Now add the option to expand the panel to twice it's height in the vertical (as an optional toggle) and we have 40 to 80 units visible at a time depending on the screen size, instead of 5 to 10, and it would not take away more than 10% of the map. Add three lines of tabs on top of the panel, one for department, another for state, another for unit type, and we have perfectly manageable recruitment panel, with still more of 50% of the screen showing the map,

[tripax]

I agree, and again note that I think this could be done by a clever modder. Further, I think that historically there was less variability of brigade compositions across states (see discussion here, I'll be implementing something like this in my mod). With more uniform brigade compositions across states, some of this problem is lessened as well (especially for low resolution players like myself).

[GlobalExplorer]

Looks like you're doing some good work there!

[GlobalExplorer]

This reminds of some discussions we had in early beta, not just for unit recruitment

And were the arguments listened to, or did everyone just give in?

Your right, decisions were made in Beta that not everyone agrees with.

I see. In my opinion, these were very bad decisions.

Globalexplorer, my first impression was similar to yours. But in the beta stage majority had different opinion, saying the choice of placement was more important than fewer clicks.

But then something has gone terribly wrong in the beta test, because those two things have nothing to with each other. The number of clicks does not have to go from 41 to 1300, just for 1 extra input value (province). I cannot believe computer savy people actually became convinced by this argument.

Yes it takes more effort. Most players don't mind.

Could be, but it could also be you underestimate the number who DO mind .. So far I only hear the opinion of beta testers that they finally agreed with this.

But what about "normal" people? I just started to dig. Not surprisingly, many players at Matrix have already come to similar conclusions, though not always very substantiated:

"the worst interface of any computer wargame I've played"
"I must agree with the OP that the interface on this game is horrible--especially unit management !! "
"for me it was an exercise in frustration and I will never buy another game from this developer if it is still using this terrible GUI."
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3587974

The more I read, the more my impression is that the beta testers were expressing the same problems with the interface that I have, and that many players are expressing them now everywhere the game is sold. Simply because the problems are very real. But no one listened or is listening now. The only priority was that the game was to resemble something made for Tablets, and that was that.