Large numbers of forces

[IanMayo]

For the next wargame, the Game Designer wants lots of people driving ships.

Since we have one "driver" per force, that means we have lots of forces. So, lots of Blue Forces with one player each, and lots of Red Forces with one player each.

This could introduce problems in these areas:

• In the mapping window Umpire forces can choose which force to view the map as. This will become a really tall list once we have 20 forces. So, if there are a large number of forces it should turn into a drop-down list
• In the "Perception" dialog the Game Controller specifies which forces can see an asset. Once we have more than, say, 6 forces we should switch to a drop-down list of toggles, one per force.
• In the Message Channel for custom messages we show an icon for each member force at the top. This may need to scroll/wrap once there are a lot of them
• Since all blue forces will have a similar shade, it may become difficult to spot which are a players own asset(s). So, we could do with introducing some other styling for "own" assets on the map.
• We currently use color to to indicate which force a message comes from. But. if there are lots of blue forces we will need the force name in the message somewhere.

We probably need to create a wargame with, say, 10 blue forces and 5 red forces, and see where the bottlenecks/problems arise.

[IanMayo]

@ShendMikullovci - I could do with your support in this, please - both in spotting the issues, and in coming up with solutions to them.

[ShendMikullovci]

Sounds very exciting! I'll do some research on the consensus among strategy wargames and get back to you ASAP.

[IanMayo]

Aah, a related fix, please @lebaphi For the admin pages that have a list of entries, the height of the left-hand column is smaller than it could be. This will be a pain if/when we have lots of forces. It already can't show all of the platform types.

So, the admin pages with a list of entries should use the full height of the left-hand column.

[ShendMikullovci]

... the height of the left-hand column is smaller than it could be.

This is also relevant for the Game Selection Page :

If we could show the entire list of the games we host, we'd eliminate the scrollbar entirely and the screen would look smoother and more fluid.

[ShendMikullovci]

Quite a few things not allowing me to advance with this issue. First, the wargames seem to only be saved for a short period of time, even after having been initiated. Coming back to the game, I find that I've lost all of my progress. Furthermore, the admin page is often dysfunctional, with the channel page presenting most bugs so far. Here's a recap:

https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/85491794/158907995-bf887e47-7465-44c5-9ae9-b20f012517c2.mp4

[IanMayo]

Hello @ShendMikullovci - sorry if losing the created game is frustrating.

One shortcoming of our heroku hosting is that it wipes the data after 30 minutes of inactivity.

Thanks to @lilitkarapetyan we'll soon have a persistent database. So, while Heroku will still get wiped, we won't be storing our data in Heroku, Serge will be storing its data in an IBM database that doesn't get wiped.

You're right - the channels are quite broken. @lilitkarapetyan - could you work on the admin - channels page please?

[IanMayo]

Hello @ShendMikullovci - today I learned the WATU wargame is going to use one force per player/asset, in order to allow the visibility status on a per-ship basis (we currently only allow per-force).

Could you do some fresh inspection on where the issues are, and how we can potentially overcome them?

One thought. Here is the game admin column:

It shows we have a message from Blue. But, we may have, say, 10 blue forces. So, I think we have to include "Blue-2" vertically in the blue tab. Aaah, or we just include it in the message as plain text somewhere. Aah yes, in your Game Admin redesign you did have the role as plain text. Maybe it would be Force - Role.

[ShendMikullovci]

Hi Ian! How many Forces are we talking about approximatively? Are all of these Forces going to have their own logo/icon?

[IanMayo]

8 forces for the test, maybe 20 for the real game.

Probably not an icon per force. May have to rely on abbreviated name (letters).

[ShendMikullovci]

We could also show messages something like the Messenger app:

Here, on the left, we have our current message layout. As you can see, the only association between the force and their color is made on the left of the message chip where we use color to indicate the force sending the message. We also include the force and role inside the message chip, eating up some space in there.

Messenger uses a design similar to the right hand side. The picture (or in our case, logo/icon) on the left, next to the message chip. The curvature of the chips adapts to the quantity of the messages to emphasize the message comes from the same person, and avoid repeating the picture (logo/icon) multiple times. Here, force and role are outside of the message chip, leaving all the space to the content being sent.

The benefits this could have for us are a start to decoupling from this connection we've made between force - color. We could add the force label inside the logo/icon or color sphere. The role would always be shown above the message that's been sent out. In a game like WATU, where a large number of forces will be operating, without all of them having logos/icons, this might be a good alternative. And it's pretty standard!

[IanMayo]

Thanks for that fresh thought.

One observation - we need the "time sent" in the message. Our current implementation may not be enough. Some wargames span multiple days - so we'd need to display date and time for each message. Hmm, this should probably be a setting in the "Overview" panel - since the Game Designer will know if the game is to span whole days or not.

The pattern of curves for multiple messages is an interesting one. It's a real advantage when one role sends multiple messages - less when conversation flow bounces between 2 or more players.

It "happens" that "RED 2" neatly spans two rows in your example, but once the force is named "BLUE 2" it may not work as well - unless we consciously trim the force name.

It does feel that putting force, role and date-time in 3 corners of the shape spreads them around (to reduce change for word-wrap or overlap), and puts them in predictable locations.

[ShendMikullovci]

Added the time stamp inside the message and Force + Role above it. A logo to the side of the message to maintain awareness. It looks and feels much more like a chat window here. Also, the messages would be separated depending on when they've been sent (date wise).

The pattern of curves for multiple messages is an interesting one. It's a real advantage when one role sends multiple messages -

Yes, the idea behind it is to make multiple messages from the same person more compact to keep context as well as use up less space. Whenever the conversation flow bounces between 2 or more people having sent singular messages, the message chips don't curve.

Hmm, this should probably be a setting in the "Overview" panel - since the Game Designer will know if the game is to span whole days or not.

What exactly? Specifying game duration?

[IanMayo]

Hmm, this should probably be a setting in the "Overview" panel - since the Game Designer will know if the game is to span whole days or not. What exactly? Specifying game duration?

I was referring to whether date was shown against each message. But, your "new day" marker does the job perfectly well. I know it feels excessive, but I think we do need the year in there. The last wargame did span 2021/2022.

[ShendMikullovci]

I know it feels excessive, but I think we do need the year in there. The last wargame did span 2021/2022.

Haha! That's the reason I didn't add it in the first place. Here we go:

[IanMayo]

Thanks Shend. Would you propose that we extend this strategy to "Chat channels" in the left-hand side of the UI? I think it could work. But, originally I think there was some conscious intention to style the "Game Admin" channel differently, as a visual reminder that it's "out of game" messages on the right, and "in game" messages on the left.

[ShendMikullovci]

Thanks Shend. Would you propose that we extend this strategy to "Chat channels" in the left-hand side of the UI? I think it could work. But, originally I think there was some conscious intention to style the "Game Admin" channel differently, as a visual reminder that it's "out of game" messages on the right, and "in game" messages on the left.

I think if it's absolutely necessary, then yes. We could format the date/time differently (use numbers only). Though I do agree with you that it goes against our conscious intention to style them differently. We can also try and see how it feels to look at them.

[IanMayo]

One query on the layout @ShendMikullovci

Shouldn't there be a right-angle corner on the right of the adjacent messages, too?

[ShendMikullovci]

One query on the layout @ShendMikullovci

Shouldn't there be a right-angle corner on the right of the adjacent messages, too?

The reason Messenger went with only the left side curving is because that's the "identity" side, meaning that's the side that pertains to the interlocuter or the person we're talking to. That way, we perceive not only that the messages are tied together (part of a larger context) but also that they are tied to 1 person (so we wouldn't have to repeat the icon with every message, we'd either keep it by the 1st message or drop it down to the last one).

So, I think we should stick to only the left side having angle curvature.

[IanMayo]

Sure, ok.