UI suggestions

[kronenblatt]

5. Hotkey or button to reset camera to default position - easy to move accidentally, impossible to get back

This, plus also for the player to be able to specify and store camera's default position in-game.

[SnuggleBunnies]

Being able to type values into custom scenario Advanced Options, search bar for army lists.

Edit: I was thrown off in a recent Mongol match because most dismountable units have the ability their description - ie, knights dismount with spear, lithuanians dismount with bow, etc. However, I only realized Mongols could be dismounted because harvey pointed out that the option exists in deployment, but nothing in their unit description says they can do so. Maybe the description is only for when the armament differs from that used when mounted? But it's kind of confusing because other units of course can't be dismounted at all.

[rbodleyscott]

Being able to type values into custom scenario Advanced Options, search bar for army lists.

Edit: I was thrown off in a recent Mongol match because most dismountable units have the ability their description - ie, knights dismount with spear, lithuanians dismount with bow, etc. However, I only realized Mongols could be dismounted because harvey pointed out that the option exists in deployment, but nothing in their unit description says they can do so. Maybe the description is only for when the armament differs from that used when mounted?

That was the convention, yes.

But it's kind of confusing because other units of course can't be dismounted at all.

I will give it some thought. It does sometimes make the descriptions to long to fit.

[SnuggleBunnies]

I will give it some thought. It does sometimes make the descriptions to long to fit.

It can be especially difficult because you don't know which units can dismount until you have finished force selection and moved into the deployment screen. What if there is some ground that would be good to be able to take with some Bow/Swordsmen? Well, no way to know until you've already paid the points cost. Not a big deal for SP but pretty tough for MP.

What if dismountable was indicated with a simple (D) ?

[rbodleyscott]

I will give it some thought. It does sometimes make the descriptions to long to fit.

It can be especially difficult because you don't know which units can dismount until you have finished force selection and moved into the deployment screen. What if there is some ground that would be good to be able to take with some Bow/Swordsmen? Well, no way to know until you've already paid the points cost. Not a big deal for SP but pretty tough for MP.

What if dismountable was indicated with a simple (D) ?

Yes, that is a good idea. It could be coded from data so that we don't have to go back and alter all the existing strings.

[Atherys]

I would like a dedicated keyboard button for mark wait/skip unit. It's not too necessary, but it'd be helpful when I press TAB to search for inactive troops and not selecting the ones I want to stand by. I don't have any idea where and how to put the button in the UI part, but not putting any is also an option if you don't want to clutter the UI.

[rbodleyscott]

I would like a dedicated keyboard button for mark wait/skip unit. It's not too necessary, but it'd be helpful when I press TAB to search for inactive troops and not selecting the ones I want to stand by. I don't have any idea where and how to put the button in the UI part, but not putting any is also an option if you don't want to clutter the UI.

Noted, and will consider it.

[fogman]

I don't know if this has been suggested elsewhere already but it'd be great if there was an alternative view with bases instead of banners. I find banners detract from the miniatures look and make it harder to find your units in a dogfight melee.

[rbodleyscott]

I don't know if this has been suggested elsewhere already but it'd be great if there was an alternative view with bases instead of banners. I find banners detract from the miniatures look and make it harder to find your units in a dogfight melee.

I know what miniatures bases are, of course, but what exactly do you mean by bases in this context?

[fogman]

I don't know if this has been suggested elsewhere already but it'd be great if there was an alternative view with bases instead of banners. I find banners detract from the miniatures look and make it harder to find your units in a dogfight melee.

I know what miniatures bases are, of course, but what exactly do you mean by bases in this context?

Something like in FoG1, where units don't have banners but coloured bases, but better looking. Something like this:

miniatures.jpeg (334.39 KiB) Viewed 2159 times

[rbodleyscott]

I don't know if this has been suggested elsewhere already but it'd be great if there was an alternative view with bases instead of banners. I find banners detract from the miniatures look and make it harder to find your units in a dogfight melee.

I know what miniatures bases are, of course, but what exactly do you mean by bases in this context?

Something like in FoG1, where units don't have banners but coloured bases, but better looking. Something like this:
miniatures.jpeg

The thing is that the banners in FOG2 carry far more information than just which side the unit is on.
1) Whether steady/disrupted/fragmented or broken.
2) How much damage the unit has already suffered. This is particularly important for units that only have 1 or 2 models, who don't lose any models before they autobreak.
3) Whether they have moved this turn.
4) Whether they include a general.

[Oster]

I agree with Fogman about the banners size : it was a real problem for me as ( in my view) they detract from some of the gorgeous aspect of otherwise splendid graphics....
Their ominous presence is even sometimes ridiculous -for instance two or three Light irregulars running with a banner larger than miniatures !!!
I wondered longtime why the system of FoG I was discarded on this ?
At least, it'ld be great to keep the conspicuous banners if mandatory , but give an option to dispense with them....or make the banner only visible when unit is activated (mouse move ?) or by player will with a hotkey ?
I'm sorry to be not more technically expert, but if it was possible on FoG 1, why not on FoG 2 ?
To be honnest I must add that I am a solo gamer, I don't play competitive games and I mostly enjoy creating scens, landscape, and watch your amazing miniatures in action....
True Wargamers are certainly more interested in playability than aesthetic considerations, I understand it but regret the options offered on FoG1 to customize the game !
Hope the Gods of (War) DBA, DBM etc... will continue to offer wonders in the Middle Age as well as in the remote Era of Bronze and Sumerian capes ...

[fogman]

The thing is that the banners in FOG2 carry far more information than just which side the unit is on.
1) Whether steady/disrupted/fragmented or broken.
2) How much damage the unit has already suffered. This is particularly important for units that only have 1 or 2 models, who don't lose any models before they autobreak.
3) Whether they have moved this turn.
4) Whether they include a general.

I understand that but I don't think it is essential. That kind of information can be found in other ways. And I find FoG 1's solution to be much less intrusive and as efficient (banner for generals only, and 'D' or 'F' for combat status, and *, **, for heavy losses). I don't think there's any harm, or excessive expenditure in ressources, in making banners optional, toggle on, toggle off.

Now, as for bases for identification, this is what I have in mind, though can be greatly improved. Much clearer to figure out when there's a big melee. Somehow, that 1995 Talonsoft game is still the best looking tactical wargame, probably because the map was hand painted. Mind you, I still prefer the painted miniatures of FoG 1 too...

talonsoft.png (678.57 KiB) Viewed 2092 times

[Paul59]

I understand that but I don't think it is essential. That kind of information can be found in other ways. And I find FoG 1's solution to be much less intrusive and as efficient (banner for generals only, and 'D' or 'F' for combat status, and *, **, for heavy losses). I don't think there's any harm, or excessive expenditure in ressources, in making banners optional, toggle on, toggle off.

Now, as for bases for identification, this is what I have in mind, though can be greatly improved. Much clearer to figure out when there's a big melee. Somehow, that 1995 Talonsoft game is still the best looking tactical wargame, probably because the map was hand painted. Mind you, I still prefer the painted miniatures of FoG 1 too...


talonsoft.png

The old Talonsoft games were great for their time, I played (and modded) them a lot. But the first thing I did with them was turn off those bases!

Which goes to prove two things of course; a) one man's meat is another man's poison, and b) it's good to have options.

I didn't like the Fog2 banners much either initially, but now I appreciate them for the wealth of detail they provide at a glance, so much better than having to click on every unit to check it's status.

[fogman]

Agreed. All I'm asking is having the option to turn off the banners. And if they could add more natural looking bases, that would be bonus.

[MVP7]

Agreed. All I'm asking is having the option to turn off the banners. And if they could add more natural looking bases, that would be bonus.

"Natural looking base" sounds a bit self-contradicting . I wouldn't mind a more easily visible color coded option for the tiles that have units on them as sometimes the banner (which I do like as on UI element) can be at 90 degree angle to the camera and easy to miss and hard to recognize.

[fogman]

Show path of possible movements, and orientation at the end of movement.

show path.png (632.76 KiB) Viewed 1857 times

[rbodleyscott]

Show path of possible movements, and orientation at the end of movement.

show path.png

The game already shows the path with dots in the squares, and the end facing will always be the facing from the penultimate square to the final square.

[Oster]

Just begin to play a quick battle from the last Medieval ...
Just one word : splendid !
The large banners here are no longer a problem as they are -almost- historical , at least for the size, ( some variety in shapes and colours welcome for eyes only ...)
As for the bases -my opinion- FoG were more naturals and discret , here also Fog offers more options lacking in FoG II_ The Squares give more infos but are too conspicuous to my taste. here also there is probably the contradiction between competitive playability and miniature collector taste for aesthetic considerations, the options given in old FoG satisfied both ...within the limits of tech capacity 20 years ago.
When looking at the splendid living miniatures of now , I can just congratulate and pray for some "minors ?" adjustement !

[fogman]

Show path of possible movements, and orientation at the end of movement.

show path.png

The game already shows the path with dots in the squares, and the end facing will always be the facing from the penultimate square to the final square.

Right, for some reason, I never noticed the dots.