ABattlemap P40 BETA module

Thank you all for offering your opinions.  I have yet one more important question for everyone.  There is going to be another update of the module, which will include a few additional feature that people will want.  From what I can think of, these new features will not break compatibility with older versions of the module, but since people will probably be upgrading to the new module anyway (for the new features), I am considering whether or not to include a minor feature which WILL break compatibility - and that is why I want your input.

Here’s the idea (suggested by Func):

I would add a row of toolpieces for the non-nation-specific toolpieces (see first attachment), just like in the A42 module.  The disadvantage of keeping the toolpieces the way they are, is that it makes China’s assets in the InfoView window innaccurate.  Adding the row fixes this issue.  Also, in case anyone got a wild hair and decided they wanted to make China a full-fledged power, the new toolpieces offers China a full range of units.  The disadvantage is that your save files would not be accurate when viewed by someone with an older version of the module, but since I am thinking everyone is going to want get the new updated module (for the other features it will include), I don’t imagine this being much of an issue.

Secondly, if I do include this new toolpieces palette, I will have 8 unnoccupied spots which I can use for any other toolpieces you might want me to include.  Any ideas?  The only things I could think of were pieces that could be used to highlight something on the map (see second attachment).  But since players are always communicating by text anyway, I don’t know if anyone would ever use these, so I wonder if I should include them at all (since they’re not the prettiest things to look at  :roll: ).

So here are my questions:

1. Should I include the new row of toolpieces?

2. If so, should I add new toolpieces?  Do you prefer attachment 1 or attachment 2?

Thanks for your help!

@Vareel:

Doesnt matter to me either way, only thing is give it a different name if it breaks compatibility so that I can keep playing my current games with the old, and slowly phase into the new version.

I did think about this.  Even if all players in a game upgrade at the same time, the old save file will still work but a few of the units will have to be changed out (sorry I forgot to mention that issue).  Is anybody still using the old P40 [non-beta] module?  Perhaps I can graduate this BETA module to a [formerly beta] regular module, giving it the same name as the original.  I was hesitating to remove the BETA label, since some of these new features may have a few kinks that will need ironed out as time goes by, but I think removing the label is the best bet.  So as of right now, I will be releasing the new module (when it comes) with the new toolpieces including the 4 red ones, will be naming the module “Axis & Allies: Pacific 1940”, and the directory “P40.gim”.  Let me know if anyone has different opinions or suggestions (…questions, concerns, comments, etc…!).  Thanks all for your input!

@AxisAtti:

But since the P4B.gim Modules is “backward compatible” to the P40 Module, there should be no problems “upgrading” it. I’ll do that “officially” with the upcoming version of ABattleMap. It is not a major version, there are many small fixes (e.g. the issue of the disappearing info-Windows is solved) and some new features to support the AAP40 game (e.g. multiple Dependecies, Convoi-Disruption).
Today i’m working on the new release-pack, so it is only a question of days when the new release is out.

I had not mentioned the specifics of your upcoming release because I noticed you had not said anything yet (that I had seen).  But now, I’ll say just so people know, the new features I was talking about in my upcoming module update is just support for all the new features of Atti’s program update that he’s working on.  Mainly, that’s support for the P40 convoy system, but also a few other minor things like some new rows in infoview.

I’m pretty sure P4B.gim is not compatible with P40.gim, because of the size difference.  You cannot open a P40.gim save file in P4B.gim.  Also, my new update will not be entirely compatible with P4B.gim, because some of the toolpieces will be changed around (see above posts).

@AxisAtti:

I will include the latest ModulePack in this release. A question about the A50/A51 module - is the module “upgrader” here? Stonie? - Very nice work, but it is a little bit to light for me - did agree to replace the map with the C50/C51 map?

I did not map the A50/A51 modules.  If I remember correctly, it was made through a conglomeration of efforts, with significant contributions from HolKann, TimTheEnchanter, and P@nther.  I also find the map a bit too light for my taste, but I think that lighter map is what people decided on.  I can email you a darker version which, if you want, you could include in the “AA50_ABattlePack” folder for people to use if they want to.  I don’t know what you mean by “did agree to replace the map with the C50/C51 map?”.  What is C50/C51?

@a44bigdog:

I do not have AA40P yet so this may not even be correct. If the convoy zones work like they do in the original AAP it would be helpful to have them operate on the map the way they do in the AAP battlemap module. While having a roundel in a seazone may not be as pretty as the little ship icon, having them function the way they do in the AAP battlemap module is very nice. Heck it beats figuring it using the real game board even. The NOs can be handled using the Oil slot.

…Lastly a big thanks for stepping up and tackling the AAP40 module.

The new convoy system is different from the old, and will be supported in the next release.  Big thanks to Attila (AxisAtti) for working hard on a new update to ABattlemap which supports the new convoy system, as well as the old (old will still use the InfoView row called “Convoy”, new system will use a row called “Damage”).  NOs are shown in the “Oil” row.

@a44bigdog:

I would also recommend fixing bugs and getting everything working and then leaving as it is. It was aggravating with AA50 when Holkann kept changing the map and a new version would have to be down loaded. With a battlemap module in my mind functionality is much more important than appearance. And since people will have games going using these it is a big headache when too many versions and updates get out.

I also want to limit the number of compatibility-breaking updates to as few as possible, which is why I have waited to include the new set of toolpieces.  Since the latest module has been around for a few weeks now and no other compatibility-breaking suggestions have been made, now seems like a good time to include them.

@Battlingmaxo:

Stoney, Again thanks for all the work on the P40 module. I enjoy using it when I play. Were the black and blue sz labels in all your versions or just the final…I never noticed until the other day. Btw, where did the thread go?

Any chance you might consider doing something similar for the AA50 map?

You’re welcome… thank you all for sharing your appreciation, I’m glad you enjoy the module.  I also noticed a few weeks ago that some of the sea zone labels are the wrong color.  I don’t exactly know how that happened, but it will be fixed in the next release.

I made a couple darker versions of the A50 map, which you can download here.  If you like one of the 3 maps I made, just rename it “Map.bmp” and copy it into your A50.gim (from 1941 folder) and A51.gim (from 1942 folder) folders.

@BadSpeller:

how about calling it Gamma until the bugs are worked out. (The next one can be Delta  8-) )

It is fine to have several test versions.  By use we are testing for your final product i.e. “The Stoney Pacific '40”

I could call it “Gamma”, or more conventionally, I could call it “RC1” (‘Release Candidate 1’: a sort of “post-beta”, “pre-final release” label).  OR I could name it “Axis & Allies: Pacific 1940”/“P40.gim”, and upload the original P40.gim with a different name so that they can be installed simultaneously, people don’t have 3 different versions of the module crowding their drop-down menu, and the latest version still gets the “official” name.  For those that don’t want to download a whole new directory for the original module, I will include easy instruction for renaming the original module.  What do people think of this idea?

@AxisAtti:

@Stoney229:

I’m pretty sure P4B.gim is not compatible with P40.gim, because of the size difference.  You cannot open a P40.gim save file in P4B.gim.  Also, my new update will not be entirely compatible with P4B.gim, because some of the toolpieces will be changed around (see above posts).

Trust me, it is! - There will be some minor things (since the toolpieces are not 100% identical), but there is no problem using the “old” P40-Save Files with the “new” P4B Module! Since the additional space is added on the right side, it will work!

Atti

I would have thought that would be the case, but I remember having to create the Start.aam for P4B from scratch, because I couldn’t get the Start.aam from P40.gim to work in the P4B module.  I just tried it again, and opening a P40.gim save file in P4B.gim crashes the program.  Do you not have this problem?  Should I send you a log file?

@P@nther:

@Stoney229:

Does anyone know if there is a different map for the 1941 and 1942 scenarios?  because I’m assuming the map is the same for both.  If you like one of the 2 maps I made, just rename it “Map.bmp” and copy it into your A50.gim and A51.gim folders.

The only difference between the maps of the two scenarios is the turn order in the nation overview (just swap Ger/Jap).
:-)

Thank you.  I redid the maps and made one for each scenario.  The is a dark one, a medium - dark one, and a darkish one that resembles my P40 module.  Download them here.

Attila - if you’re including HolKann’s AModulePack in your new update of ABattlemap, perhaps you could include these map and toolpiece files in the “AA50_ABattlePack” folder?  I won’t email them to you unless you ask, since I uploaded them to mediafire for others to use.

@Vareel:

One other request, it seems the Korea/SZ 5 connection is no longer a connection, could you fix it on the map?

Thanks for the heads up!  I’ll fix it.

Thanks BattlingMaxo.

Another question for everyone:

When I release the new module, should I include it in this thread, since it is an evolution of the current module in this thread and related questions may apply to both modules, or should I start a brand new thread, since the two are not compatible and people will likely be installing/playing both modules simultaneously?