ABattlemap P40 BETA module

@P@nther:

@Stoney229:

@P@nther:

…
Would you share your “final” .pdn? That would be great.
…

…
the .PDN I have uploaded is my final, it is just uncropped.  crop it to 1356x949 and that’s the map I used.
…

Ah, I see, thank you!

@Stoney229:

So you’re in Germany?  I’m guessing you speak German?  Maybe you can hekp me with something.  I was able to use my very limited understanding of German (with the help of a dictionary) to figure out from reading attila’s OWNMAP.txt file that a module’s map has to between 1000x500 and 2000x1000.  However, he also seems to say it is possible to make a bigger or smaller map, but I don’t really understand what “das muss man von Fall zu Fall entscheiden was
 am “g�nstigsten” zu spielen ist” means, or if he says how to make a bigger map, or why it should be in that range of size.  Are you able to figure that out from what he says?:

• Map.bmp
   Das ist BMP der Karte. Die Aufl”sung und Farbtiefe ist egal. Ich bevorzuge
   allerdings eine schlichte taktische Karte - deswegen reicht 16 Farben oft
   aus. Man kann auch eingescannte Karten benutzen.
   eine g�nstige Aufl”sung ist zwischen 1000x500 und 2000x1000 (das Verh„ltnis
   muss nicht 2:1 sein, sondern kann beliebig sein) - man kann auch kleinere
   oder gr”ssere MAP’s machen - das muss man von Fall zu Fall entscheiden was
   am “g�nstigsten” zu spielen ist.

Actually I am German so I will try my very best to translate Attila’s words.
What he says in the paragraph you quoted is as follows:
Map.bmp
This is the BMP of the map. Resolution and color depth do not matter. I prefer an artless tactical map - that is why 16 colors often are enough.
Scanned maps can be used, too.
A reasonable resolution is between 1000x500 and 2000x1000 (the aspect ratio does not need to be 2:1, but it can be any -
you can create smaller or larger maps as well - it depends on the individual preferences of the user concerning the considered map.
I did not translate the last part of the last sentence exactly because I want to be sure to meet the intention of the wording.

So Attila in fact does not describe how to create larger maps. He just says they are possible.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

:-)

Ah, thanks!  That last sentence is what I couldn’t figure out when I was trying to translate it.  Interesting, tho, it does not say it MUST be between 1000x500 and 2000x1000, but that is the only way I could get the map to work.  I guess I’ll have to try to email attila.

@questioneer:

@Stoney229:

@questioneer:

thanks, I’ll try that. :-)

cool.  Post if you have any questions.

this is fun doing this but it does take a long time… I’ll have to get to it later on- whenever. :|

One new piece I forgot:  the Kamikaze!  That one took me forever and I had to hand-draw it,  which would be pretty difficul to do in MS Paint.  Perhaps you could just put a “K” on the piece, if you’re okay with that - or if you want to look for what Japanese character make up the symbol someone could use the text tool in Paint.NET to make the piece.

@P@nther:

Thank you.

But I was thinking of the compatibility of Soney’s P40-modules with Atillas P40-modules.
Maybe in a forum game one player uses Stoney’s modules, the other uses Atillas’s modules - in this case there may be compatibility issues.

But what I found out up to now is that Stoney’s modules seem to be more elaborated then Atillas’s. On Atilla’s map for example there are some markers for NO missing.
And the “6” for Burma road are not removed from the Info view when the Chinese marker is removed.

All this works flawlessly in Stoney’s modules.
So thank you again, Stoney :-)

My “original” module is just an updated version of Atilla’s module.  The intent was to fix problems and add whatever features I could without breaking compatibility.  That’s why when I added the toolbar, I labeled it BETA, since it breaks compatibility. with the original(s).  Idk why the Burma road income works different, I don’t remember ever noticing that problem, let alone fixing it  :wink:, except that I changed it to “oil”.

My best guess for what he updated is the convoy system to support the Pacific 1940 convoy system.  If I’m right, that will certainly be handy, but I need to check.  Thanks for the heads up!

@Stoney229:

@P@nther:

Thank you.

But I was thinking of the compatibility of Soney’s P40-modules with Atillas P40-modules.
Maybe in a forum game one player uses Stoney’s modules, the other uses Atillas’s modules - in this case there may be compatibility issues.

But what I found out up to now is that Stoney’s modules seem to be more elaborated then Atillas’s. On Atilla’s map for example there are some markers for NO missing.
And the “6” for Burma road are not removed from the Info view when the Chinese marker is removed.

All this works flawlessly in Stoney’s modules.
So thank you again, Stoney :-)

My “original” module is just an updated version of Atilla’s module.  The intent was to fix problems and add whatever features I could without breaking compatibility.  That’s why when I added the toolbar, I labeled it BETA, since it breaks compatibility. with the original(s).  Idk why the Burma road income works different, I don’t remember ever noticing that problem, let alone fixing it  :wink:, except that I changed it to “oil”.

My best guess for what he updated is the convoy system to support the Pacific 1940 convoy system.  If I’m right, that will certainly be handy, but I need to check.  Thanks for the heads up!

Ok, i haven’t installed it yet, but after taking a look at some of the text files in Atilla’s P40 module (which is actually brand new, even tho it doesn’t say so), this is what seems to me:
the only change he seems to have made in the new module, which required an updated program to support it, is a feature that automatically calculates NO’s when you’ve captured the right territories.  Not all NO’s can be represented this way - namely, the 1-time ANZAC one and the US at war one.  That is why the others are no longer found on the map, except Burma Rd.  Until looking into it further, my best guess is that the Burma road marker was left on the map on accident, and means nothing.  That is why when P@nther removed his chinese flag from the rectangle, it was not reflected in the infoview - because he still actually owned all of the Burma Rd.  Does that make sense?

I started a new job and won’t be able to work much on these modules, but I will do the best I can, and hopefully will have some time on my days off to figure some things out and make some updates, but i don’t know yet.

Question:  Do people want this new feature?  I’m not sure I don’t like it better the old way, because I can just hover over the marker to see what I need in order to obtain that objective.  Without those markers on the map, I have to already know what all the NOs are b/c the markers are no longer on the map.  Also, even if I do figure out how to make a module which utilizes the new feature, I would think it will be more difficult/complicated to make than one that just does NOs the old way, so not using the new feature also saves module-makers some time (I am thinking) and save users from having upgrade their program.

On the other hand, I may likely try to figure out how to utilize the new feature anyway, so let me know if it’s indeed something people want.  What do you think?

@ksmckay:

The price for CV is incorrect in the beta module.  It is listed as 18 rather than 16.  Courtesy Maxo.

Everything else is looking good.

@Battlingmaxo:

Also not sure if the airfield , naval base prices are listed as the bottom of the map and info view are slightly truncated on my desktop. Does this have something to do w/1600 x 1200 resolution?  It only affects the infoview on my AA50 modules.

I’m guessing you mean the program is showing 16 not 18.  Thank you for pointing it out - I’ll change it.  While I’m changing toolpiece values, I have a suggestion and request people’s input once again.

Currently, the “Hit BB” amd “Hit CV” pieces are worth 18 and 20, respectively.  I think it would be easier if they were, instead, “BB hit” and “CV hit” pieces, worth 0 IPC each, so that you just add and take away the hits, instead of having to swap them for the pieces that are already on the board.  Does that make sense?  What would other people prefer?

Also: ICs are currently listed in Infoview as with the land assets, but ABs and NBs aren’t.  I prefer that neither are listed, so that the Infoview just shows unit assets.  Again, what would other people prefer?

Also, Atilla included a BigPieces file in his new module, which means I was able to just borrow designs from him to make a better Bigpieces file.  Questioneer: sorry to ruin your fun if you were making one, but if you want to make a better one than this one and post it, maybe I can include it in the next update.

@ksmckay:

No, for the prices the CV should be 16 not 18.  The cost of a carrier is 16 not 18.  This is in reference to the bottom right chart.

Looks like it is correctly valued in terms of calculating unit values on the map.  If I place a carrier in a sea zone then it increases the navy value by 16 as it should.

Yeah the hits are a little annoying.  You either swap them as it is now, or you do what you said and just take away and add hits.  Problem with that is now when moving you have to move more stuff since you have to move the hits and the AC.  I think its probably easier just to keep it as it is but maybe others feel differently.

Actually, I’m pretty sure CVs are 18 in P40.  remember, they take 2 hits now, not to mention they can now carry 2 different kinds of aircraft.  The InfoView was showing them as 16, so I changed that, and will upload the new updated module when I hear from some more people regarding preferences of Infoview values for hit ships, ICs, and bases.

I also changed the Mongolians to actual pieces, in case a player attacks Buyant-Uhaa and retreats after killing only 1.  If people have a problem with this, let me know.