also since this is for the long form use Infantry, Artillery… it look better than arty and INf
1 4 x inf, 3 x tank, 3 x arty, 1 x fighter
2 4 x inf, 3 x tank, 2 x arty, 1 x fighter
3 3 x inf, 2 x tank, 1 x arty, 1 x fighter
4 3 x inf, 2 x tank, 1 x arty
5 2 x inf, 1 x tank, 1 x arty
6 2 x inf, 1 x tank, 1 x arty
also, the watermark is slightly off. its cut too low on the top and its too faded. the opacity it had last time was really good. ( now its too ghost)
I can’t find an opacity setting for watermark in MSWORD.
Compared to pdf versions you posted, the watermark is very light.
Compared to doc versions you posted, its the same.
The image looks much darker. (You can extract the image it by saving to htm format.)
The scale is 65% at the moment. I can increase it to 68% before it cuts off. But then it doesn’t matter if it cuts off, it just gives you full screen borderless feel right?
the options give you a choice which is to keep the opacity at 100% (no change from original) … I think i know what happened…. its a process of making a ghost from a ghost already… thats why its lighter. I will post the original file if i can find it.
i printed out both my file and yours. they are the same, except the top of your file has this unsightly line on top…so its actually perfect, except for this line…its very slight however.
also the 1942 rules scenario is really short. perhaps theirs something left out? perhaps we need to redo the set ups so they are similar to the 1939 scenario and add them?
Hello all!
I have downloaded the maps for this…but none of them seem to show the IPC values of the territories. The VP locations are there, but no IPC.
Does anyone have a list of the values?
Thanks in advance,
Chris
thats because you don’t have Illustrator CS2 or adobe reader or you saved it as a PDF. The files are also in PNG format. look for Tekkyys latest post.
@Imperious:
thats because you don’t have Illustrator CS2 or adobe reader or you saved it as a PDF. The files are also in PNG format. look for Tekkyys latest post.
Thanks, Imperious Leader…but I have checked all the posts in this thread and can not find a PNG link to the 1939 map, just the AL ones.
Tekkyy, can you please PLEASE post the 1939 map in PNG format? I would be in your debt. Thanks
PS…I found the September 24 version of the 1939 map in PNG, have any changes been made since then? Thanks again.
Chris
I have downloaded the maps for this…but none of them seem to show the IPC values of the territories. The VP locations are there, but no IPC.
Does anyone have a list of the values?
The file is in illustrator format. Acrobat can open it but it won’t display everything.
Here is a png export version.
2007-11-27 PNG version
http://img264.imageshack.us/my.php?image=20071127aarhe1939mc4.png
i printed out both my file and yours. they are the same, except the top of your file has this unsightly line on top…so its actually perfect, except for this line…its very slight however.
I also printed it out today. In black and white it looks ok. No faded or washed out feel.
also the 1942 rules scenario is really short. perhaps theirs something left out? perhaps we need to redo the set ups so they are similar to the 1939 scenario and add them?
Its short because its not a big variant like 1939. Originally it was just to for OOB style game with Italy as 6th player.
Obviously we don’t want to repeat what we did with 1939. There is no point.
This scenario should be different from the other two (standard and 1939).
I am thinking OOB level of territory division. Still add Italy and Australia division.
But on a realistic map, historic IPC (truly leave OOB balance behind us), realistic setup…
Or a smaller project would be to remove quick hack of +10 IPC to Germany with something better. Continue as OOB style game with Italy as 6th player.
PS…I found the September 24 version of the 1939 map in PNG, have any changes been made since then? Thanks again.
Yep.
Use the PNG I just posted.
Its 2007-11-27.
its a small PNG… perhaps you can make a few close ups of Europe and pacific etc… so people can really see what they will be printing.
for all of you who dont have Illustrator CS2… place the file on disk and take to printers who actually have illustrator… don’t allow them to jpeg or PDF the art or it will screw it up. PDF= poor dumb fool who has no real tools and still has the odacity to call himself a printer.
The PNG looks small but its 7200x3600.
PNG compresses better than JPG for cartoonish art.
Illustrator has a “maximum bound” for PNG export.
After trimming away the hidden junk below the white boxes, I can do 100dpi. I can’t do 150dpi.
You can do higher res with BMP and JPG but that needs a lot more RAM.
I’ve got 2GB.
This is why I said earlier we should investigate why some icons show up and others don’t.
It doesn’t happen just with PDF, but also when opening the illustrator file with photo shop.
I’ve tried many intermediate file formats (that illustrator can save in and photoshop can read)
In Photoshop and ImageReady I can do higher res export.
Preferrably we want 300dpi.
Or….can you set a print area in illustrator and just export that particular area?
Then maybe I can do 300dpi exports in bits.
So whats your take on the 1942 Italy scenario?
So whats your take on the 1942 Italy scenario?
nothing at the moment. i guess its what it is…short
I am sugguesting these changes.
Moutainous:
add Sinkiang, Japan, Italian East Africa, Algeria, Western Canada, Mexico
Snowy:
add Yakut, Evenki National Okrug
Terrain bonus:
defending land units’ +1 bonus in mountainous/snowy now for first cycle of combat only
Topographic map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/World-map-2004-cia-factbook-large-2m.jpg
Temperature map
http://www.climate-charts.com/images/world-temperature-map.png
Exisiting Mountainous:
Southern Europe, Norway, Persia, China, New Guinea, New Zealand, Gibraltar
(neutrals: Switzerland, Spain, Turkey, Afghanistan, Mongolia, Peru, Argentina)
Exisitng Snowy:
Soviet Far East, Alaska, Greenland
Existing Terrain Bonus:
defending land units’ +1 bonus in mountainous/snow all cycles of combat
Dicussion with Jen and Cyan.
http://www.axisandallies.org/forums/index.php?topic=11016.0
Those seem fine except Japan and Italian East Africa.
IN both cases they are stronger but at least Italy is benefited. Ok add them to the rules and map and post.
The one round thing is fair as well.
The benchmarks were
% high mountainous
% extreme mountainous
population location
Reducing it one round is fair.
It also makes realism mistakes less amplified.
But no excuse to ignore realism mistakes.
Why are Japan and Italian East Africa not good for marking as mountainous?
In Japans case its a huge advantage because its an island so invasion is difficult
For Italy its better because They need all the help they can get if playing them.
Oh I see. So thats fine then.
Realism wise, no problems.
Gameplay wise, potential unbalance but reduced to one cycle already.
Overall, do you find Axis or Allies stronger?
like
Axis
*Germany makes use of tank and air changes
*Japan makes use of VC infantry raising
Allies
*Fleet operation easier
*US/UK Joint landing
NO opinon due to limited playtesting. Only system tested and mock 1-2 turns played. I have not printed out the map because i figured one of us would not like what we made and wanted more perfections… which is what has happened.
As you know I printed the map out.
In fact more than once due to changes.
Its just spanned on A4s so its cheap to replace bits.
I haven’t played many games. Like 3 games all up.
And thats across the year or two of development.
You know what.
I think we should do playtesting.
You know abattlemap?
@Imperious:
OK then. I made another effort but its not finished. The sea zones are more like OOB ( don’t ask me how)
Thats the funny thing.
Should AARHE OOB be the same as AARHE 1939/1942 at all?
We should simply have more realistic sea zones in 1939 and 1942.
I also want a “pretty map” and also one that will allow pieces not to be cramped.Its like opposite goals and the trick is to make people think you pulled it off by illusion. I am not happy with the 1939 map for the same reason you desire this more realistic map. Also i dont like the colors and would rather maintain the OOB colors for a 1939 map sake Frogs and Italy.
By “pretty map” I just mean better shapes and stuff.
And ah I see you want to go back to revised colours.
Also, you want shorelines?
Actually I don’t want shorelines, waves, or pictures in the sea.
You talking about those like in Global War right?
Also, I can make terrain so we dont have to write “mountains and snow” thats kinda cheezy IMO.
Instead of words we could use icons.
What do you mean by make terrain?
Like classic AA map?
You know what.
I think we should do playtesting.
You know abattlemap?
Id rather play from our map once its finalized. Id use the dicey thats available here
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 01:13:14 am
OK then. I made another effort but its not finished. The sea zones are more like OOB ( don’t ask me how)
Thats the funny thing.
Should AARHE OOB be the same as AARHE 1939/1942 at all?
Yes at least the first version map. Italy map and 1939 will be different. The basic map should not change at all. I also think a AARHE lite should be created for Dummies who don’t like more than 2-5 pages of new rules
We should simply have more realistic sea zones in 1939 and 1942.
Both will be offered in the last 2 of three maps
Quote
Also, you want shorelines?
Actually I don’t want shorelines, waves, or pictures in the sea.
You talking about those like in Global War right?
Not really. But something to lift the land and define it more from the water… basically a light band of blue
Quote
Also, I can make terrain so we dont have to write “mountains and snow” thats kinda cheezy IMO.Instead of words we could use icons.
What do you mean by make terrain?
Like classic AA map?
Yes indeed. I have already prepared this, but perfecting it. Also the straight interdiction icons are too abstract.
I think a logo with a script is more fitting. BTW what is the meaning of 2 lines and 2 spots vs, 2 lines and one spot?
