Best posts made by Black_Elk

I’m glad to see these back in print!!! I pine for 3rd editions for 1942 and G40 with A3 panels that stack, but I will take it for sure hehe.

I kinda got my hopes set on North Africa honestly. Like don’t get me wrong, firing up a Bridge too Far for Market Garden sounds fun. Or going all Enemy at the Gates Eastern Front or Stalingrad has appeal as well, although current events might have that last a bit charged. One reason I like North Africa is cause it kinda syncs up nicely with the 1942 starter board, whereas the others would feel a bit further along in the timeline of the war. Starting earlier for a tactical board might be cool, cause if they decide on releasing the others later, they could just do it chronologically. North Africa/Med first, then Stalingrad/Eastern front (could maybe be the same game right?) for the end of 2023. Then for 2024 an updated D-Day/Market Garden campaign and have that one hit on the 80 year anniversary. That would be a nice touch

Pps. one more quick illustration of what I mean. Sorry for briefly turning the thread into an expose on sea zone color theory, but I’ve spent a kind of ridiculous amount of time thinking about it hehe, and haven’t had a chance to talk about this stuff in a while.

Below I attached two versions of the AA50 baseline, the first has a very dark ocean with all the land territories at roughly 50% gray. The second has a very light ocean, again with all the land territories at roughly 50% gray.

What I wanted to show was that, we can use a lot a variation above/below 50% value for land colors, (colors with values that are still very easy to differentiate from one another), but which are unlikely to ever be confused with the basic sea zone color value. This is why I like to save the mid-dark tones for the land territories, instead of wasting the 50% sweet spot in on the ocean, if that makes sense. I think the range between 20%-80% grey can give you a lot of variation in color value for land territories, just saving that last 10-20% at either end for the Ocean, depending on whether you like it light like Classic, or dark like Revised (the physical game boards I mean.) That way you have a lot of room to work the values in mid range, while still maintaining an overall map that reads easily at a glance, value-wise, with fewer pops. In my mind neutral/impassible territories should never draw the eye, but should kind of fade into the background, which is part of why the color values for the current WWII maps in tripleA kind of bug me. I think there was a better approach, but for whatever reason it keeps going back to the tripleA revised map aesthetic, which sadly was colored before I got involved in the project hehe.

Also one other quick note on baseline drafting that might be helpful. I’d take your basic baseline as far as you can before adding in the circular territories. When I made the domination map for tripleA I learned the hard way about including circles too soon, since it can be a pain to move or adjust their location later, if you change your mind about something or have to redraw the baseline borders again. Especially since its pretty easy to include them later when setting up the final draft. Might also be worth considering waiting to fill impassible territories for the last minute too, just in case, since that’s another one that can be a pain if you need to return to redraw something later. Just for the working baseline in tripleA I mean, I know the stuff above is more of a mockup.

Oh and Gimp is a pretty useful application to have on hand for messing with the baselines, and its free, if you like to do more complicated stuff like selecting or replacing colors quickly and don’t want to spring for adobe products. I drew the originals in MS paint if you can imagine, pixel by pixel, good grief, but I’d use Gimp now for most stuff since its basically photoshop for the cheap seats hehe.

Anyhow, you can definitely do a ton of stuff now with map details and skins later on than used to be the case, but I still think a really clean baseline with a nice read for the ocean is worth it.

Will keep an eye on things and check back as it gets further along.
Best,
Elk

There are a lot of things I like about DKs map, especially for a game at the level above AA50. But that scenario includes 7 player nations + neutrals and a Soviet Union at like 20 tiles. What I had in mind was more like the classic 5 man set up. In the nova board above the USSR was imagined with 9 starting tiles for a total value of 21. The 1942.2 board has the USSR with 11 starting tiles and a value of 24.

I was thinking something more like just 8 starting tiles, but with a higher total value (maybe 30ish) where that value is concentrated in fewer overall territories. The Soviet Far East in particular I was picturing as a much larger and more significant tile, with a production profile so that it can be reinforced, and a starting unit distribution that has Japan and Russia more or less deadlocked over the Manchuria/Soviet Far East front in early rounds.

Instead of what we’ve seen in previous iterations where its too hard to cover the Soviet Far East against a Japanese amphibious coastal assault (so it just gets abandoned), you could instead get a slow build/stack vs stack along that border, with a simpler map geometry that allows units to shift from the Pacific to the center, the same way it works on the eastern front vs Germany. Fewer tiles and more reach basically.

The dynamic would be an extended Russian center pocket so that the Soviets have a way to get back onto the Pacific side in one or two turns instead of like 3-4 turns, and then have the counter weight stacking vs Japan be along the Manchuria front instead of pulling all the way back to Moscow.

Or I suppose if people are really wedded to the idea of a Soviet Far East deadzone, you could have the main eastern production hub be a larger central tile like combining Vologda, Evenki, Yakut into a single territory. But something on that side of the map that anchors the Russians and gives them a way to function in the far east so they can hold against Japan instead of just retreating. No need for a NAP or anything that complicated, but just trying to stabilize the movement along that front with the production/unit distribution so it’s more gridlocked against Japan. The same decreased distance would also allow for more interesting KJF positions, or favor endgame redirects where the Allies can shift fronts more easily from the Center Pacific to Center Europe or vice versa.

It would be an inversion of the trend from the last three 1942 boards, where Russia got more eastern tiles and fewer units to cover them, to a situation with fewer eastern tiles and more units to cover them basically.

ps. Maybe something more like this?.. just rough hacking up one my old tripleA draft thumbnails in paint real quick, little choppy here but you can sort of see what I’m driving at. Kind of turning the geometry of East Asia around, so that the split in the Soviet Pacific and in China is simpler to reinforce and not such an easy steam roll Japan. Depending on how flexible you get for the ipc totals, you could basically give the Russians their Pacific production hub in either the Soviet Far East tile that encompasses like Yakut to Murmansk, or you could still it in the large tile that encompasses everything between the Urals and Siberia. Either way the Russians could redirect a lot more easily.

I think the same thing for China, where you could still have just the 4 starting tiles of 1942.2 but set up the geometry so its more defensible in tiers, instead of just allowing for a quick punch from the coast to the soviet center.

Perhaps the blocking here is a little too large for some tastes. I actually think you could also create a similarly stable warfront with a lot more tile divisions, but that would require one of the current eastern tiles like Yakut to be worth a lot more, with a larger overall economy, if Russia is meant to be trading constantly for a bunch of low value spaces. But this seemed like it might be simpler. Just with larger high value tiles that really don’t trade hands until someone is going for the win.

@Argothair

Yeah, although making a colorblind friendly map isn’t the goal in itself, its just a natural consequence of making better graphic design choices hehe. The stuff I’m talking about is very much for players with normal vision. Since our brains fixate on patterns and our eyes are drawn to contrast in any image, and because value is such an extremely powerful component in that, the first thing I’m drawn to in your draft (just like the WWII maps), is all the neutral tiles. So my eye darts around from Sweden to Arabia to South America etc, because that is where the highest value contrasts are occuring. There are lots of ways contrast can be used to highlight various focal points in an image, I just think that the standard WWII maps do a poor job of it, so I wouldn’t suggest following them as a model.

Instead I would set the primary value contrast between the land tiles and the ocean tiles, so the whole map reads well at a glance. If you have the variation on land be in the mid-range values, which can still be very dramatic at either end of the mids, you can eliminate the unseemly pops while still preserving the high contrast for something more relevant like you wanted between Axis territories and Allied territories.

I just brought it up since its a new map you are free to make a different color value choice for the ocean than they did for Revised/Global, which is now the default for all those WWII maps.

For sure, I read over the ideas on how to streamline and simplify, Russia balance etc and it all sounds good to me. Nice work

So the idea is pretty simple, each player nation has a round of purchasing using the regular turn sequence and starting income before the game begins in earnest. Or put another way basically nothing moves till round 2.

On the table top this could be seen as a zero round, digitally you could think of it as a ghost round, where everyone skips past all phases except purchase/placement by player agreement.

What sort of play pattern/balance do you think this would yield?

I’m thinking maybe this could be a simple way to rebalance the games, or maybe invert them to Allied advantage.

What would you buy?

For 1942? Global? AA50? Or any of the Axis advantage boards?

Right now I was thinking the only thing that might prevent it from working as an alternative scenario would be like exploits from mass transport/air builds, but maybe it works. Any thoughts?

@the-captain Oh damn! I never read the book, but I did see the HBO flick with Rutgar Hauer in the mid 90s hehe. It had a good set up in the intro, playing the film reels, but with an alternative narration. Failed D-Day as the premise right? And then everything going to hell after. Seems like a potentially interesting scenario. Like that one and the Man in the High Castle both work a similar “what if” angle. I always thought A&A in 1942 was a bit like ‘what if Japan had won at Midway’, cause like Charlton Heston and Henry Fonda couldn’t get the job done, and that explains why Japan is all Globe trotting in the endgame lol. That would be like my head cannon to explain what’s happening on J1 in 1942.2.

For a PvP game you never really get the chance to see it unfold, but in SP vs the AI in tripleA, the endgame of virtually every WW2 map can go like Alexa Davalos straight through the portal into Invasion USA lol. Like that boardgame Amerika right, but with a Global map instead of just North America I guess? Seems like it could be cool!

ps. for the sitzkrieg round :) in G40, if you did the skip phase thing for playing digitally you’d be one round closer to round 4 for the political game before combat begins in earnest, so sort of speeding things up on the timeline a little. I wonder if there’s any interesting production or base builds, or any major battle breakers that could throw things for a loop?

I thought this might be more useful in this section. I’m working on a custom world projection for my gamemap and this is basically an outgrowth of that endeavor. The dropbox links have it at around 16000px.

Terrain relief draft

That’s the one I have for keeping the terrain filesize low in the digital game, lower res basically. But still works alright if adding more abstract layers or patterns or whatever on top. Basically you can just covert back to RGB, add in the dithering on another transparency layer and get a pretty similar look. For a print display probably would use true color and add the grain for a dotmap once it’s upscaled to the desired size. The Baseline TTs I think are easier to handle in inkscape vector, but tripleA uses bitmaps for everything, so different approach there just to get it working with that hehe.

Global draft

https://www.dropbox.com/s/rdr4b4eu443cbgg/terrain world G40.png?dl=0

Quick paint

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1qlojy8bbgkujvz/World_War_II_Global_1940_painted.png?dl=0

Color Blend
https://www.dropbox.com/s/nqanzab6s6zssl9/World War II Global 1940 feathered borders.png?dl=0

At 1 px black line
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4740bj0l87sbb57/World_War_II_Global_1940_baseline.png?dl=0

I’ve been exploring a 1941 themed digital game that uses the same warps, but with more subdivisions and kicking around with that in the HR section, I’ll probably keep posting for HR scenarios, but these I thought might be fun to have for customizers or just ideas. I haven’t don’t the decorative layer done yet, but just to give an idea. I was going to get a vector going, but first I’ve been tooling around with bitmaps for use in TripleA. I figure people might like to spruce it up in different ways though depending on their aesthetic and style preferences, so here ya go. I gave it a basic SZ and TT geometry that should service G40 gameplay (unless I missed something lol.) I was gunning pretty quickstyle so there might be an artifact here or there, I’m sure the final will be cleaner. But feel free to use or tweak it however you like.

Best
Elk

ps. I’ll update this leads post as I am make corrections or add new materials. Here’s a quick set of tinted units for the mains.

I like those ideas for a more advanced board. I think you could get some fun production values and choke points using something like that.

Here’s a baseline with a bunch of tiles if anyone wants to play around. You can erase borders or redraw the geometry. I had the ocean pretty light from a while back, and don’t have any sea zones drawn on this one, but those are easy to add. The islands are probably overkill for a smaller board, but they’re simple to delete or round out into larger groups. There is a little clipping at the top with Norway since it was an older draft, but still pretty easy to carve up or extend if anyone likes to play around with ideas. This was off the AA50 projection I did, but it warps pretty well if people like to re-scale it. I tried to put in a lot of smaller political boundaries so that they could stretch relative to each other, before knocking em out to form larger divisions. Europe is pretty large here relative to the rest of the globe (I had it pulling off at Gibraltar in this draft for a larger med) but I think you might be able to stretch even larger there if desired just by tweaking the aspect, and still feel pretty recognizable. To get AA50 I just compressed Spain and expanded UK a bit. Usually some liberties are taken when drafting the eastern front or central Russia to match the A&A distortions, but tried to have Asia/China a bit easier to work with and Europe/Med scaled up as much as possible without smashing Africa too much. Scandinavia can also be compressed or tilted even more than I did here and I think it still works if people like a taller Europe or need more room for sz, but this was kinda where I settled for something similar to a classic projection but with less blobbing and some recognizable 20th century political boundaries to draw from.

here’s a darker one more like revised if you like something deeper for the briny blue.

Then here it is sans roundels, so the units can be flipped or colorized more easily. This one shows the Big 6 with a quick color tint, without any masking really, just hard and fast for an example hehe. They could be any color really, if doing the tint thing, just depends on the player’s preferred HEX combos in tripleA. Ideally the player could switch the unit orientation or change their tint on the fly.

@the-captain Badass!!! Revised has a special place in my heart for sure! I love the detailing there on the one you just posted! I’d love to do a few different reliefs for different styles at some point. One sorta Classic and ‘mappy’ looking, one more like the Topo reliefs from the more recent boards, maybe a darker one too in case people like the deeper blues for the Sea Zones.

Here is the same map but with the oceans done in Navy Blue, in case anyone likes the more Revised style callback… I isolated and removed all the divisions except for the ones displayed in Global 1940, shown as 1px black line.

At scale it’s 16000px but here it at 25% view, for readability on these forums. I paint bucketed that Arctic ice sheet to be blue there, just for the cleaner read in the 3 color, or if one wanted to use that space in other ways. I kept the dividing line, just painted slightly differently than the earlier posts, cause the ice sheet thing only really looks good once the map is painted out in fuller colors haha.

This bitmap I’ve been working up is at a 16:9 aspect, but I tried to make it in such a way that one could slide the continents a bit if one wanted to make larger oceans say. I was trying to iron out the kinks as a raster, but then the thought was to get a pull in inkscape and save it out as an svg so it would be easy to upscale/downscale or warp as desired from a vector rather than a raster image.

Here it is as an svg of the simple baseline, in case you like to play around with it in inkscape or illustrator. In those programs it’s much easier to score the lines at the desired width, or warp and manipulate the map for uses outside tripleA. Like if one wanted to print it for an actual gametable, probably would want to crop the Antarctic, then extend the warp more vertically, or stuff of that sort, which is a bit easier to do in vector. It doesn’t have any sz included yet, cause I figured people might like different designs. Or if they wanted to use the same world projection but do AA50 borders rather than Global borders, or original borders of their own devising heheh.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/ehcnfkr28llq8gg/TripleA_4k_G40_vector.svg?dl=0

If you’d like to make use of it in any of your customization projects, feel free! I made it for us, and for the future! heheh

Here is the development thread at tripleA, in case anyone likes to see the design process thus far, or check out the conversations which brought us to this point. I’ve been posting almost daily revisions, trying to work in feedback from the gang.

https://forums.triplea-game.org/topic/3315/proposed-map-domination-1941

All the best
Elk

ps. here’s where I’m at right now…

https://www.dropbox.com/s/fbpnc3q4ccjrgqr/TripleA_4k_baseline_G40_subdivisions.png?dl=0

For a visual/aesthetic preference, I prefer the land TT colors to be more mid-tone in values and the sz lighter, or else land lighter in value and sz more mid-tone. Basically just to get some contrast going between land and sea. In tripleA one can play with the HEX in map properties to change the colors, but just sort my hard and fast for sz. Something like this…

Or something like this…

More or less. Just for the quick read, depending on whether one likes darker or lighter oceans, ie more Classic style vs more Revised style I guess heheh. I pushed the grays there to be a little more extreme than 50% either direction just to show, although usually I’d say land at 50% gray in value is what people tend like for the player nations (around that value range just with the saturation/hue tweaked depending on the player nation’s color). It really works best if Axis are at say 60% color value and Allies are 40%, or just that there’s enough value variation there so when they pair off adjacent it looks cleaner on the quick read. That’s more for like standard default colors in tripleA (which can be changed in map props) but for the sz color value I think one needs to do that in the baseline/relief. At least for the basic values I mean, since you can change that with reliefs to some extent by messing with the opacity/saturation in layers, but I like the idea that if all map details were turned off that it would still look good.

I if think if we go dark sz, then having brighter ships is good for the units, or vice versa for the ground units. Just depending on how dark or light one goes with the color values for either.

Ideally the player would be able to choose from some kind of display setting for some of that stuff, but I think the way it works in tripleA, we need two different reliefs or map skins to pull it off.

I’d probably do the same for White borders vs Black borders style, cause I think that’s another thing people might enjoy having control over. Couple different decorative motifs would also be rad. Basically so you could trick out your digital board to look more like your fav physical boards. That’d be the goal, cause that just seems cool as all get up to me! haha

Basically so you could select a prefered style for SZ color and border boundaries, and then get a choice for more Topographic relief or more Decorative/Political relief, as like as a mapskin choice. That would be pretty clutch

Oh damn! Hiding in plain sight! Knew there’d be something somewhere, thanks!
Right on, that’ll have to get dealt with ASAP. Give me a couple hours to noodle the base and I’ll shoot you guys a revision :)

With a G40 style blocking

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1j7omf0s69t1r3k/TripleA_4k_G40.png?dl=0

@barnee

OK, I shot you the quickie revision. My solution for now was just to slide Sumatra a bit. Sort of a tradeoff there, got a few more place for the sz round Singapore, but the straits are more abstractly/wide. Another solution would be to do a tilt for the island and tweak the geometry of the sz, but this was relatively quick and worked with the current relief, and figured my be easier so you don’t have rework the unit place too much, just moved like 100px or so to the left. Oh and the label. I shifted the center, but you’ll want to adjust the PU probably. I tried to get the line so it wouldn’t strike across too hard. Thanks again for the eagle eye there!

Let me know if that works for ya for now :)

Right then, I’ll let you guys get back to it. But I’m obviously getting a kick out this game/thread! haha

Have fun!

@the-captain Thanks!

I’ll get back in the kitchen on it tomorrow to make sure the connections are all correct haha. I think my eyes were starting to blur over towards the end there, as I nearly entered the matrix and all the sea zones started looking like skynet circuits heheh

Great ideas!

I got Barney making the list for stuff to fix up for the next pass. All the tricks and treats lol. Keep em coming!

Catch ya next round!

ps. Tried to work the lines, but I might have missed a few. Will take another pass over the weekend.

Still needs some clean up in a few spots. Was thinking for the sea zones to have those subdivision bisecting islands when possible to make them more interesting. So for say for the costal sz off Morocco maybe get broken into 2 or 3 tiles so it can hit across Canaries or Azores. Have Bermuda riding a line and Malta, stuff like that. Basically the smaller tiles in either ocean can fit about 18-24 units at 54px, so that could be the scale I think. Playing the regular global game those units could probably upscale a bit more.

@victoryfirst Nice work! OK, another pair of corrections to make ASAP haha. I’ll get a fix for those going tonight. Should be a little faster this time to adjust in GIMP since I saved it out in layers the other day. Far as I know, this is the first actual game to be played using the new map design, so I guess it makes sense that I’d have missed the forest from the trees more than once here lol. Part of the charm of trying to make a couple maps from the same basic projection simultaneously hehe. I think I got a ready solution for the sz 34/44 and Tsinghai connect. Making the base adjustments now. Should have something for ya in a few hours.

Thanks again for the finer toothed comb! We’ll get it dialed :)

Ps. A couple more thoughts about what I’d like to see from new A&A releases more generally…

For starters, I imagine that any new boards or reissued materials will probably be more expensive, like from inflation or being made in the USA rather than China or whatever, so it’d be cool if we got something more in the trade up there.

A magneto board maybe, like Cyanite’s? That’s something I’d pay more for. How about moving away from folding cardboard gamemaps and give us something with more durability?

If the mapboard was divided into 3 or 4 rigid panels it would be easier to move the game or keep it set for another session. Especially if those panels could be stacked or put back in the box with the pieces still in magneto position. Doing that, the game would require a lot less space to ‘leave out’ at the ready. Design the map panels to stack vertically, on top of each other with raisers at the corners, so the board can remain set but only taking like up like a third of the space - instant win!

Sinking a magnet into a plastic sculpt works well enough, but another potential draw, or a thing that I’d feel pretty good about paying a lot more for, might be metallic sculpts. Or perhaps pre-painted sculpts or microsculpts? Might not be feasible, but still, if we’re going for moonshots right haha.

I’d like to see the paper money, and some nice themed dice too. Perhaps a deck of many things for the playing cards vibe. I love HBG and all the extra materials available there honestly, it’d be cool if they could partner up somehow to make things like that, but more official and more widely available.

A nice legacy manual that doubles as a coffee table art book. Some bells and some whistles basically, so they can upsell it. It’s hard to drop another two or three bills on something I bought a dozen years ago for like half what it will probably cost now. That’s kinda rough no matter how they slice it. But then, if they make it look cool enough and legacy enough, I’m sure I’d show out. I’m the sort who tends to pick up doubles of these games whenever they drop, but that’s more redundancy than I really need. I’d think it would be an easier sell if it was more ‘starter set’ and then ‘expansion’ sets sold separately, or more that sort of situation.

OK back in business. Readiest solution was basically just to enlarge Kansu, since the center of the board has a fair of distortion anyway, few more places for units in that TT now, which probably works out well enough. For the sea added a lip where the connections were off. Hopefully does the trick.

For adding inset boxes for the expansion map, probably easiest would be to expand the canvas and but a grid of rectangles along the top/bottom. I can give that a crack sometime this weekend. To get the those spots to do what you want might need a bit of xml work. Like depending on if you want the squares to be mobilization boxes, or overflow boxes like false tiles. The difference would be in how you set up the connections, whether it takes an actual movement go between the box and the associated tile, or if the box is meant to be the same tile if that makes sense.

I’ll shoot ya the updated materials in a sec

So the first time I ever saw the Axis & Allies boardgame was in elementary school, on a rainy day in the 5th grade.

I believe the rationale was that the game was cool for kids who liked history or math, but I was fairly terrible at math, so the way we used the materials was essentially like very tiny plastic army men with the map as a battlefield.

Like I’m sure it was missing plenty of pieces, and I’m certain I didn’t know the rules. My reading comprehension at that time would not have allowed me to make sense of the rulebook anyway, but it was still eye catching and a good first introduction. The problem of course, was that the game took up a lot of space, so you really couldn’t just leave it out, and recess was what like tops an hour for lunch? Probably less. So even if it came out on a rainy day, it always had to go back in the box hehe.

I tried something like this again, not too long ago, with my ex-gf’s kid. Basically I got him into the A&A 1942 game at age 8.

That’s 4 years younger than the recommended “12 and up” age range, but it completely worked. Again taking the plastic army men approach to the initial gameplay. Axis and Allies plastic army men were actually cheaper pound for pound, than the standard 1:32 plastic army men toys, or rather you could get a lot more stuff with a single purchase at a similar dollar amount. I think I picked up 1942 for like 24.99 on sale at Target, which gave him about 100 more sculpts and a world battleboard, compared to a similarly priced large bucket of 1:32 dudes with the standard issue plastic playmat.

It was a nicer presentation too, with a cool looking box to keep stuff tidy, dice and roundels and other things you wouldn’t get with the bucket. Plus the appeal of “a game” and one that ostensibly teaches a bit of history and math while you’re at it. So I’ve always viewed A&A with that mindset. That it’s basically miniature plastic army men, but with simple rules to decide who wins/loses a battle using dice. Kids can get into that.

I think they could do the same stackable gamemap with raisers idea mentioned on the previous page, without needing to go full magneto board for that. Cardboard works fine actually, too keep it affordable, provided there are no folds.

The key is to divide the map into smaller rigid cardboard panels that can be moved separately one at a time.

Whatever the max size the box allows, make the rigid panels that large. The 1942 gamemap is 26x40" so for that game call it 4 rigid panels at like 13x20" in a box about that large, that can lay out side by side while playing, but also stack into a more compact space with the units still in place when “put away.”

Maybe a game like G40 has 8 rigid panels instead of 4 for the larger gameboard. You get the idea. As long as the mapboard doesn’t have folds it works. Folds are where the wear and tear tends to happen. Kid folds it the wrong direction, the board bends or rips, the game can’t be moved without a large support/backing and masterful balance. Do it in 4 separate smaller panels instead and those probs go away, plus it probably just looks cool. Like “oh yeah, should have been doing that all along!” heheh

Here’s a baseline with some rectangles added at the top/bottom. There are 11 of each. Not sure if something like that is what you had in mind, it just expands the height to 6000px. You could arrange/assign them however, just wanted to get you something simple to riff on.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/aox5xnthi8ctu1g/baseline_uhd_global_1940_new_4-19 - Exp.png?dl=0

Hopefully the map is good to go, but keep an eye. Have fun!