Unit Icons or Flags + Icons? [Your urgent opinion needed]

[Nick Thomadis]

Thanks to your feedback we have chosen a first good UI concept for first game iteration that we hope you will like. Soon we are going to show you.

We need though your quick opinion about unit indications because there is still some remaining uncertainty within our team about what will appeal more to players.

 

The basic idea we up to now follow is this: 
Units will have a flag, a name, soldier nbr and an indication of what unit type is (Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry, Skirmishers).

 

The issue is that all this information can be quite cluttered if they appear all together.

When we unzoom the map names will disappear to avoid this situation but maybe there is still too much info for player.

 

So the art team now considers the following 2 art directions:

 

 

 

 

The question is, which you would prefer to have in game? Make your vote please asap!

 

Note:

This is very early concept art, so please do not take for granted that these will be final visuals. We would like you to only focus on what would appeal to you more as a player.

To include flags or to remove to have more clean interface?

[Brigand]

The icons only edition is, in my opinion, much clearer. Mostly so because the color of the icons already conveys they informtion you need. The flags icons add clutter and do not seem to add anything that the color did not already indicate?

[Monkstar]

I definitely prefer the second one. Red and blue background is totally sufficient, and I prefer having the larger unit type icons instead of the flags. I know which side I am on and the flag is not really necessary.

[Kala4]

i prefer 2-nd variant

it`s quite informative - colour of icon + it`s type show enouth info

[Ink]

imo, there is no point to duplicate information by flags and "shields"/ So without flags its better and more clear

[slik]

2nd one. Colored icons are pretty informative, so flags aren't needed.

[David Fair]

The problem has been identifying the artillery units with their minimalist footprint in UGG.

Artillery gets bunched up with infantry/cavalry and lost in the clutter.  

 

I'd suggest using the Square flag for infantry, a cavalry guidon for cavalry, and a triangle flag for artillery.  Then you know by the shape of the flag the type of unit you are selecting without additional clutter.

 

The icons in the examples above are more of a distraction than a benefit visually.  I like watching my sprites fight it out.

[Leonardo]

After much thought I came to conclusion that only icons is enough information for the player.

 

I also wonder if there is gonna be the same things as it's Napoleon TW meaning showing the units morale or is it the same as it's in Empire TW an units banner is flashing.

[The Great Dane II]

No doubt what so ever: #2

But I would like to add, that it would be nice with a very small icon: On top of the shield move the figure to the right and place a small icon flag to the left.

[Ned Loe]

Second for sure!

 

Suggestion!!

 

Why not combine all those icons into 1?, when same forces are close together. (This will clear up all this icon chaos on the screen). I call it molecule effect:

 

 

Here is an example, Instead 4 icons have 1 big with small number next to it to tell a player how many squads are in there. Ever watched bubbles separate or combine? have same here with icons and total score combined.

 

[Monkstar]

Second for sure!

 

Suggestion!!

 

Why not combine all those icons into 1?, when same forces are close together. (This will clear up all this icon chaos on the screen). I call it molecule effect:

 

 

Here is an example, Instead 4 icons have 1 big with small number next to it to tell a player how many squads are in there. Ever watched bubbles separate or combine? have same here with icons and total score combined.

 

 

Interesting idea, but I fear it might deny me the chance of selecting a single unit if there is just one icon representing them all. How do i split them up? I want to be able to select units by clicking on their icon. I think it's actually better to have icons for single units if I did not want to combine the units to a larger one myself. So I wouldn't exactly like that. It would probably be misleading too, depending on how widely the units are spread, since I wouldn't know intuitively which units belong to that big icon and which don't.

[Zacaras]

#2/ no need to show flgs

[Kirkoroff]

I like second variant. It gives enouth info without overflooding screen

[David Fair]

Is it possible to include a third option in this poll?

 

Option A is Awful

Option B is Bad

Options C is Current system.  

 

The problem with UGG is the small size of the artillery footprint.  Rather than clutter the screen with new stuff that wasn't a problem (identifying infantry/cavalry); fix the player's ability to identify their artillery.  This can be done with the flag shape or an icon; but both option A & B destroy the visual appearance of a "battlefield simulation" in favor of a game.

[Nick Thomadis]

David, yes we will, based on your idea

[llcw08]

Thanks to your feedback we have chosen a first good UI concept for first game iteration that we hope you will like. Soon we are going to show you.

We need though your quick opinion about unit indications because there is still some remaining uncertainty within our team about what will appeal more to players.

 

The basic idea we up to now follow is this: 

Units will have a flag, a name, soldier nbr and an indication of what unit type is (Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry, Skirmishers).

 

The issue is that all this information can be quite cluttered if they appear all together.

When we unzoom the map names will disappear to avoid this situation but maybe there is still too much info for player.

 

So the art team now considers the following 2 art directions:

 

 

 

 

The question is, which you would prefer to have in game? Make your vote please asap!

 

Note:

This is very early concept art, so please do not take for granted that these will be final visuals. We would like you to only focus on what would appeal to you more as a player.

To include flags or to remove to have more clean interface?

 

I like the Flags with Icons. Perhaps, I could Easily toggle it On an Off.

I gotta be able to fine my guys Quickly!

I also Love the Natural look of the Battle Map!

 

[Myes!]

The player really needs to be able to enable- or disable them at will.

[Nick Thomadis]

We got the message for sure. We are going to show the final options soon.

[LouCor]

I prefer the second one too. The vital information is shown at first glance.That helps to get a quick overview and keep track of enemy movements and arty positioning.

Saying that, I hope that one can also hide the shields.

[llcw08]

Yes, defiantly!

I see what the Art People are going at; Get Rid of the Clutter.

But the “Option 2” art should have the unit icon Superimposed Over a Flag. The “icon only” look is too sterile, clinical. The graphics need National Passion.

“Two birds”; we have the Clear makings of US and CA lines/units with icons; Each icon over a background of their Flag!

Icons superimposed over the flags. Just a piece of those iconic flags; gives a lot of information.

 

Thanks to your feedback we have chosen a first good UI concept for first game iteration that we hope you will like. Soon we are going to show you.

We need though your quick opinion about unit indications because there is still some remaining uncertainty within our team about what will appeal more to players.

 

The basic idea we up to now follow is this: 
Units will have a flag, a name, soldier nbr and an indication of what unit type is (Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry, Skirmishers).

 

The issue is that all this information can be quite cluttered if they appear all together.

When we unzoom the map names will disappear to avoid this situation but maybe there is still too much info for player.

 

So the art team now considers the following 2 art directions:

 

 

 

 

The question is, which you would prefer to have in game? Make your vote please asap!

 

Note:

This is very early concept art, so please do not take for granted that these will be final visuals. We would like you to only focus on what would appeal to you more as a player.

To include flags or to remove to have more clean interface?

 

 

Thanks to your feedback we have chosen a first good UI concept for first game iteration that we hope you will like. Soon we are going to show you.

We need though your quick opinion about unit indications because there is still some remaining uncertainty within our team about what will appeal more to players.

 

The basic idea we up to now follow is this: 
Units will have a flag, a name, soldier nbr and an indication of what unit type is (Infantry, Artillery, Cavalry, Skirmishers).

 

The issue is that all this information can be quite cluttered if they appear all together.

When we unzoom the map names will disappear to avoid this situation but maybe there is still too much info for player.

 

So the art team now considers the following 2 art directions:

 

 

 

 

Yes, defiantly!

 

I see what the Art People are going at; Get Rid of the Clutter.

 

But the “Option 2” art should have the unit icon Superimposed Over a Flag. The “icon only” look is too sterile, clinical. The graphics need National Passion.

 

“Two birds”; we have the Clear makings of US and CA lines/units with icons; Each icon over a background of their Flag!

 

Icons superimposed over the flags. Just a piece of those iconic flags; gives a lot of information.

 

 

[Nick Thomadis]

Thank you for voting. Game Labs team will offer 4 final general choices it has worked out. Will link asap.