Color Coded Strength Number

[Kerensky]

I wanted to make a new thread for this topic, because although it is related to the topic of unit status indicators, I feel that thread is already becoming fairly large and unwieldy and I don't want two separate topics in the same giant thread.

To bring people up to speed adherbal posted:

and

and


My issue with this:
With regards to unit strength number coloring to show relative strength:
So what do auxiliary units look like in this scheme? Instead of that solid black background behind the number, that background is grey? I ask because currently the difference between core and auxiliary is a black or white number.

Also, this representation is a fairly common theme in video games, but I'm not sold on it's place in Panzer General. For instance, I would say the industry standard is green represents the healthy end of the spectrum, and red represents the injured end, but clearly you have used white as the base for full strength. It does occur to me, perhaps, that you are saving the healthiest 'green' for over-strengthed numbers?
Additionally, games that typically use this do so because their health values are wildly scattered. 5500 hp can easily be critical red in some games, or medium yellow in others. Panzer general though... the numbers are simply not that extreme. 1-10(15 over-strength). The colors add value to otherwise arbitrary numbers, red 5500 is bad, green 4500 is good. These are very large numbers though, where as PzC maxes out at 15.

I mostly bring it up because in your picture, I assume Black is going to mean German, Grey Auxiliary, Green Allied. I would much rather see varied allied colors backgrounds than I would color health indicators. For example, Russian backgrounds are crimson or some shade of red instead of Allied Green. British units are brown/tan instead of Allied Green. Obviously red health unit indicator on red background is going to cause a conflict.

[adherbal]

Actualy the first screenshot shows health state colours (white > yellow > red), but the other two were ment to suggest a different use:

white = "can still do anything" + shining border
red = "can still attack" + shining border
green = "can still move" + shining border
black (dark grey) = "all actions depleted" + static border

Core/Aux would be displayed with a Gold/Silver border of the strength box.

And red on red for soviets wouldn't be a problem if the background is dark and desaturated red. Which it should be in order not to be ugly

[Kerensky]

Alright then, focusing on the top picture and not the two animated ones.
I personally don't like the scheme of (White > Yellow > Red) Unless you make it (Green over-strength > White > Yellow > Red). Even so, I feel the colored number is too reminiscent of previous PG titles, where that color has already meant 'core or auxiliary' That's my opinion though.
If the new standard for PzC to differentiate core from auxiliary is the border, and it's strong and obvious to be effective, then I would be on board with this. However it has to be very strong, because how much I care about auxiliary units vs core is gigantic. For example, and this may just be me, but if I have a 3 strength auxiliary infantry unit, I will gladly attack an entrenched opponent with that unit. Why? Because I want it to reduce the enemy entrenchment, but I also want my unit to die because if it does die, I can now bring in another unit to that exact same hex and continue the assault. The crippled aux unit doesn't become a roadblock.
And if you can make Red on Red work, I would also no longer have a problem with that. I just don't like the idea of all Allied being the same green color. Too bland.

Again, just my opinions, what does everyone else think?

[adherbal]

how much I care about auxiliary units vs core is gigantic.

AFAIK aux units are there to allow larger scenarios, without having a permanent large core army. Perhaps there should be a bonus for treating these units with some more respect? For example surviving aux units get turned into additional prestige when the campaign ends. After all, any losses should have an impact of the war. Having the aux units turn into prestige means they can be used to replenish losses to your core units in later campaigns. If you lose too many of them you'll end up with manpower shortages just as much as when you lose core units.

[boredatwork]

As far as colour coded strength goes IMO I think it's not entirely necessary - it was never, IMO, difficult to tell at a glance the difference between a "2" or a "9" in the previous games.

As for aux units I'm less sacrificial than K - if they die, they die but if they can be saved without spending prestige then I pull them back, even if only to sit around and do nothing for the rest of the game.

However for identification my needs are less demanding - in most of the scenarios my core units do not intermingle anyways which makes keeping track of them simple. The core units are organized into objective orientated battlegroups to do most of the fighting and hence maximize their XP. Auxilliary land units on the otherhand either guard the flanks (from the non-existant threat of counterattack) or are deployed completely independently against their own objectives - ex Tula in Moscow42 & 43. Only air units where I use aux fighters to escort my bombers while my core fighters go on sweeps is there much intermingling.

I would be happy with an alternative means of displaying the difference if it meant using the white/black number combo to denote movement instead.

Suggestions include:
- underlining - not well received
- shape change to the str box - ie adding a bit of curvy flourishes to the gold frame to make it look richer
- a colour coded symbol within the str box - though at that point you might as well keep the numbers for aux/core and use the symbol for movement
-changing the colour of the frame - though in my photoshop tests I think it would also need to be made thicker to be clear
- adding flourishes to the units themselves - perhaps tank commanders or aerial identification flags/markings to tanks, crew to artillery, nose colours for german planes or stripes to allied ones - though such touches could also be used to denote leaders

[Kerensky]

Revisiting this topic after the new Beta.
One thing I noticed about the Beta... all the AUX units seem to have disappeared? Upon closer inspection, I found this wasn't the case.

There's a AUX unit in this picture. Do you know which one it is?

If you assumed bottom right because that's an AUX unit in the original campaign, nope you're wrong. It's a gold border core unit. You're now doomed to waste prestige giving elite replacements to the wrong infantry unit.

How about now, can you tell which one?


My case and how little I care for AUX units may be unique, but even if it is, I can't begin to believe the difference between CORE and AUX should be as weak as it is.

[boredatwork]

My case and how little I care for AUX units may be unique, but even if it is, I can't begin to believe the difference between CORE and AUX should be as weak as it is.

I certainly agree that it should be more pronounced than it is now, hence my suggestions to improve the visibility:

- shape change to the str box - ie adding a bit of curvy flourishes to the gold frame to make it look richer
-changing the colour of the frame - though in my photoshop tests I think it would also need to be made thicker to be clear

[IainMcNeil]

I'm not a fan of the different coloured numbers to be honest. I think the numbers should probably be slightly bolder/larger to be more easily readable but not coloured.

[adherbal]

The difference between the border will be stronger, its not using the latest version at the moment. We still have to conclude the moved/fired state discussion first.

Pretty sure this is clear enough: It doesn't draw attention but when you look at them individually there's no doubt which one is gold and which is silver.

[Rudankort]

New version looks about right to me, but let us see how it works in the game. For the record, I also think that there are enough important reasons to easily tell core units from auxiliaries in a scen.

[Kerensky]

I'm slowly changing my mind on this, after playing more Beta2. My core units are becoming expendable as auxiliary units. Outside of maybe... 5 (10 tops) units that I baby (rename and feed experience and actually give elite replacements to) the rest of my core is full of expendable junk I gladly throw away into ambushes and heavy entrenchment and easily repurchase.

[Rudankort]

I'm slowly changing my mind on this, after playing more Beta2. My core units are becoming expendable as auxiliary units. Outside of maybe... 5 (10 tops) units that I baby (rename and feed experience and actually give elite replacements to) the rest of my core is full of expendable junk I gladly throw away into ambushes and heavy entrenchment and easily repurchase.

Actually it is interesting to note that because of the fact PG gave you free elite replacements nobody assigned half of his core to "junk" role, even though he could do that just as easily as you do it in PzC. Not sure yet if what you say in this and other topics is good (more differentiation in core composition, anyone?) or bad.

[Kerensky]

Not sure yet if what you say in this and other topics is good (more differentiation in core composition, anyone?) or bad.

Good is a point of view, Anaki.... Rudankort.

I'm just giving feedback from how I feel the game plays and flows. It can be interpreted as either good or bad.
If you like the results I'm arriving at after playing the game, then they are good. If you do not like the conclusions I'm come to, then they are bad.

For example, I previously preferred a significant distinction between CORE and AUX units. However, after playing beta2 and gaining a better understanding the game play mechanics and how they all interact (prestige, causality rates, quantity vs quality, et cetera), I have come to a conclusion that there isn't a huge difference between my CORE and AUX units (I gladly throw all of them into the fire now, and routinely give everyone normal reinforcement instead of elite).

Therefore, my stance on needing significant distinction between CORE and AUX changed. I would be okay with a marginal visual difference between the two, because I no longer base decisions on whether a unit is CORE or AUX like I would in previous PG titles.

[Kerensky]

Actually, upon further reflection, there have been times now where I want to kill off a core unit, while if it was an AUX unit, I would retreat and reinforce it with cheap regular reinforcements.

Say my core is limited to 20 units and I have 5 AUX units on the map.
I lose and replace 8 (including killing a core slot, replacing that slot, killing it again, replacing it again) of those 20 core units over the course of a scenario, how big was my core? On the map at any one time? 20. Actually though? It's 28. Those potential 8 may be less experienced units, but they gain massive flexibility. I can 'morph' my infantry unit into a tank if I need a tank, but more than just that, I can teleport the potential unit across to map(within deploy restrictions) to where I might really NEED a tank.

Compound this problem with the fact you cannot replace dead AUX units, I actually want to kill and replace certain expendable core units and I'm more inclined to want to preserve my irreplaceable AUX units. Why? Because if I lose a core unit, the maximum amount of units I can have on the map does not change, it's still 25. If I lose an AUX unit, I cannot put a new unit on the map after that unit dies, I'm reduced to 24. The logic is solid, but how perverse is that?