AA42 and ABattleMap

@KGB:

The Japanese have more trannies than the Allies in a KJF, and the Allies were less likely than Japan to use their transports as fodder in big battles in Revised. KJF will only be easier, and more attractive as well - having a both a Baltic and a Med fleet in a KGF will be more costly now.

In a Revised KJF, allies need join their fleets to survive Luftwaffe. Since USA will be sending most of their income to Pacific, no new ships will be sent as defense. So, in Revised, we usually had at start:

• UK bb from z2
• 2 UK trannies (maybe 1 if germans attacked canadian one with z8 sub)
• Soviet sub
• 2 tra and 1 dd (USA)

8 hit points, 11 defense points, and usually Baltic fleet was dead UK1 or UK2

In AA42 we have

• Soviet sub useless against Luftwaffe, marginal use against german surviving subs
• Trannies useles as fodder, you will lost 1 if germans attack the canadian one
• Germans could attack or USA’s z10 fleet or UK’s BB at z2

So, we have, as best, 1 UK bb, 1 USA cr: 3 hit points, 7 defense points. That as best. You’ll probably lose one of the trannies unless germans want use the sub against UK bb+soviet sub, and that can hurt anyway. You still have to buy one dd or those surviving subs will toast you next round (Baltic subs should be sent to z7 to annoy allies). You need buy at least 2 or 3 defending ships AND some trannies if you want do something with UK, and you cannot do that and buy any IC round 1. SAF IC is vital in case of KJF, and must be built round 1. You only have 15 IPCs to buy boats if you want defend Africa

Even worst: the dd and the tra from Baltic will be toasted, sure. But those 2 subs will exit to z7 to menace allied builds. Germany could buy 2 subs, 8 inf, 1 art G1 and make a solid menace against UK’s fleet round 2 or 3. Or they could buy the old AC anyway and conserve the Baltic fleet. In fact, I wonder if that AC or the subs will be a basic tactic G1

The shuck for KGF is also damaged by the same reasons: it will start later and it will have less defense. It will have to stick join UK and USA fleets. Soon or later, Luftwafe could make a try, specially if still has some subs as fodder. More than that: any fig bought by germans force allies to buy at least 1 dd, and probably a cruiser if they want be safe. And if the AC is built, with so few starting, it will pass ages until UK finally destroy Kriegsmarine

OK, I have seen a thing: maybe Egypt attack is risky now because you can attack italian fleet with fig (z35), bomb (England). But there another nasty combo: attack Gibraltar instead and menace a joint fleet or a Sea Lion with the built AC: there is no place to hide your fleet

@KGB:

I can see how there could be an Axis advantage, but I’m not sure yet and I’m definately not sure whether it will be as pronounced as you claim. Why don’t we rack up some pieces to find out? You can be Axis.

Why not? I’m axis, of course  :-D Just start USSR1 when you want. This time, I’ll not need bid I fear. Anyway it will be a testing game, AA50 is far superior

AABattlemap, normal dices. LL alters the game dinamic too much to serve as testing tool. 9 VCs

I think AA42 uses AA50 unit values and rules, so basically we are playing this setup with AA50 rules, true?

@Imperious:

OK i have spent some time proofing. I think this is the final. I fixed everything and yes your correct as usual. I am not detail oriented in this respect, but at least its correct now. :mrgreen:

You can go ahead and convert to battlemap or what not. Just credit me: Imperious Leader

http://www.mediafire.com/?n3nwlmkwjlg

Lol, I’m VERY detail oriented :evil: For instance, your China has another color than USA, which is strange in AA42. And your USA territories don’t have the background all the other land territories have.

Now, about ABattleMap modules: I’ve made a working one, but it’s fun as in functional and not as in fun to look at. Your map is both, but it’s impossible to make a module out of your .pdf file; I also need a matching file with only the borders of the different territories present to make a module. If you’d like to be credited, you’re gonna have to send me either the “borders” file, or a layered file format version of your map (so no .pdf). Otherwise, credits of map design go to me  :-P

Holkann I would advise against trying to get too artistic with the AA42 module. The reason being is the size of the map on monitors and that artistic details in the background sometimes obscure the unit numbers. Honestly for battlemap I feel that plain solid colored territories work the best. With an actual printed map which is ILs goal for his maps these items are not issues.

If you want my map more plain i can do this.

IL you need to remove the words “malta” and “azores” to differentiate them from actual game territories like “iceland” and “formosa” right?

yeah a44bigdog needs a plain border to generate the territory info for abattlemap
either IL give him a version without the pretty graphics
or it’ll be faster to star from scratch

I think the module has a error with bel, eeu, bal and ukr frontiers: they seem all wrong, eeu should limit with ukr and such

IL you need to remove the words “Malta” and “Azores” to differentiate them from actual game territories

yes and Corsica and Sicily?  I cannot in good justice leave these out. To leave in Formosa and leave out Sicily is sad. The others have their purpose and really open up strategies.

@Funcioneta:

I think the module has a error with bel, eeu, bal and ukr frontiers: they seem all wrong, eeu should limit with ukr and such

You were right, this was a little bug, it is fixed now, an updated version is attached to one of my previous posts.

@a44bigdog:

Holkann I would advise against trying to get too artistic with the AA42 module. The reason being is the size of the map on monitors and that artistic details in the background sometimes obscure the unit numbers. Honestly for battlemap I feel that plain solid colored territories work the best. With an actual printed map which is ILs goal for his maps these items are not issues.

Yeah, true… But a bit fancier wouldn’t hurt: territory names would be handy etc. And in the end, one can simply change the map by changing the Map.bmp file… Although that won’t be possible with IL’s map, because of territory border differences. Aw well, for now, his map doesn’t fulfill my high standards (sry IL :p ).

@tekkyy:

IL you need to remove the words “malta” and “azores” to differentiate them from actual game territories like “iceland” and “formosa” right?

Iceland and Formosa aren’t actual game territories for AA42 either…

yeah a44bigdog needs a plain border to generate the territory info for abattlemap
either IL give him a version without the pretty graphics
or it’ll be faster to star from scratch

There is a version (almost from scratch) ready if you want to play the game, see one of my first posts in this thread, the module attached to the post.

@Imperious:

If you want my map more plain i can do this.

What I really need is a layered file format version (Paint.Net or Gimp) of your map, otherwise it will be very hard to make a module out of it because I need a .bmp file with only the territory borders in black and all the rest in white. So even if you make a more plain one, you’d need to make that territory borders file too. If you make a good map file and a good territory file, I’ll make a module out of it. But otherwise it probably won’t happen…

Iceland and Formosa aren’t actual game territories for AA42 either…

They both are actual territories on the OOB AA42 map.

I can try a .BMP of the map, but its a high meg file and BMP usually wont work for this

Looks good to me other than the unit icons as I prefer the originals from Abattlemap but that is no problem for me to fix anyway.

I also don’t see a need for cluttering up the map with territory names when the hover feature gives that info anyway.

I too found it very helpful.

While typing my moves into notepad, I don’t have to ‘hover’ the mouse but, I just look at the map for territories and seazones.

@Imperious:

Iceland and Formosa aren’t actual game territories for AA42 either…

They both are actual territories on the OOB AA42 map.

Really? I mean, can you land on them with a fighter or conquer them like in AA50? But you’re right they are present on the map

I can try a .BMP of the map, but its a high meg file and BMP usually wont work for this

With what program do you create your image files?

@P@nther:

One issue I found out by quick checking: In the nation overwiew the underlying text is “Technology” where “Victory Cities” should be.

Blimey, you’re right!

@HolKann:

Yeah, true… But a bit fancier wouldn’t hurt: territory names would be handy etc. …

I’m going to add territory names and SZ as I did in AA50 as soon as I find some time for it (not before 19th of August I’m afraid). I will add layers to the .pdn then.
Maybe for a 1942BattlePack?  :-)

That would be great! Also, I’m thinking of making some kind of ABattlePack with modules not present in the standard ABattleMap, including a self extractor and extra image files and stuff. Just a one-click install file, with some extra functionality for those who want to adapt a module to their needs. Though I would need to learn how first. 'nyway, ideas for later.

Quote from: Imperious Leader on August 12, 2009, 10:30:41 am
Quote
Iceland and Formosa aren’t actual game territories for AA42 either…

They both are actual territories on the OOB AA42 map.
Really? I mean, can you land on them with a fighter or conquer them like in AA50? But you’re right they are present on the map

The thing for me is that if some pacific islands that had fighting on them are represented, then Malta should be as well. It was critical to UK and her ability to contain Italy.

Azores enter the picture as the only viable spot where the Germans considered bombing USA (from that point)

Sicily is critically important, in fact far more important than say “Formosa”

@P@nther:

So here are the promised files:

http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ltrqtmtomyq
(574 KB, 7zip-format)

Included in the 7zip you will find the .pdn in which I added seperate layers for SZ-numbers, territory-names nation by nation and the Neutrals.

Many thanks! You forgot Gibraltar though :p

Also included is an alternative Info Items layer. Here I removed the Axis&Allies label in the left corner and “lined” the unit collect zones.
In AA50 I sometimes had problems to see the number of units placed there because of the black numbers on a dark background.
It is all optional of course.

Those vertical black lines… shudder Though you are right the a&a logo does block sight (I never noticed cuz I never use that unit gather area). I tried something, tell me what you think.

You will find 2 bmp in the 7zip with an example of how the maps look like - one including “Axis&Allies”, one without.
By the way: Removing the Axis&Allies label reduces the file size of the map.bmp from 4.33 MB to 1.44 MB, because of the color reduction from 24 BPP to 8 BPP.
:-)

You could’ve saved the regular file (with the logo) also in 8 BPP format. It would’ve worked too, without color degradation or stuff.

Now, one thing I changed: all your names were centered in the territories. As a result, most of them were blocked by IPC value or by units in the territory. So I moved the names to the sides of each territory (your layers are still in the .pdn file ofcourse). Also, I tried “fancying up” a little. It’s got kind of a 3D feel now, with a slightly scorched earth and flintly clouded seas. As a result, the .zip file is a bit bigger now, as is the .pdn file. Tell me what you guys think about it, cuz I tend to like it :roll:

@Panther: do continue making your own versions of the map, it’s fun to compare ideas and merge the best ones together.