Axis & Allies .org Forums
    • Home
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Register
    • Login
    1. Home
    2. Black_Elk
    3. Best
    0% for April
    • Profile
    • Following 0
    • Followers 5
    • Topics 100
    • Posts 2,096
    • Best 184
    • Controversial 0
    • Groups 6

    Best posts made by Black_Elk

    • RE: Reimagined 1942.2 Setup Charts

      I like the idea to create a new unit class that behaves in a unique way, and the AAgun does seem to be pretty good to denote it (since they’re rarely purchased). But of course, creating a new unit class does create some barriers to entry and diminishes the ease of adoption.

      Basically the Bazooka concept as described (whatever you end up calling the unit, for me that’s not as important) will require an update to the battleboard, and the unit cost/abilities lists of the maps/book. Its one more thing that players have to learn, in addition to the new set up, so in that respect it will be harder to gather testers than if you just stick with the regular unit roster. Sure it’s a different balance then, but at least everyone has the info memorized already.

      I think the easiest approach for a mod to adopt is to keep everything else the same, and just a offer reprint of the unit set up cards for each nation.

      Those are typically separate materials anyway, and even the OOB cards have misprints (for the starting IPC value of UK and Germany) and printing out a few new cards is pretty easy. Placing starting units for a new set up takes about the same amount of time as it does to set the OOB game. So that’s pretty easy too.

      I like a lot of the concepts here, especially the 1 ipc factory, which I think could be a major benefit to the play patterns on the board. But the Bazooka concept might overshadow them.

      Perhaps test the Bazooka concept first in the OOB game to see how if it gathers interest? But I kind of like this set up, with the placements, even if they’re just normal AAguns. You can always use a bid, or further tweaks to rebalanced the situation (sans bazooka concept, if that’s needed.) I like pretty much all the other ideas. Though I’d still pull for a Pearl Factory hehe
      :-D

      Again man, nice concepts

      posted in House Rules
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: Panzerstahl-Helm vs barnee Game 3

      @Panzerstahl-Helm @barnee

      Oh damn! Good catch! Another one hiding in plain sight. I guess I’ll blame that one on godzilla smashing Greenland too hehe

      Let me know if you get the base fixed up, and good eye.

      For the relief should be able to just do a copy/past to move the line in GIMP, then clone/blur the sz tile area from the borderline that gets moved. Or you could just draw it in with a 1px pencil using the color select tool to match to get the same sort of blend at the edge. Pretty sure I did all the oceans as just regular opacity last time, figuring I’d probably miss something, so hopefully a quick fix there. Let me know if you get caught in the weeds for the relief, should have some time at the end of the week to kick around.

      Happy gaming!

      posted in Play Boardgames
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: G40 Custom Map Projection

      Right on! Sounds good

      If we come up with something worthy for a specific scenario I’ll expand on it in this section for sure hehe.

      The above can be used for the standard Global 1940 game

      It basically follows that board, and shows those boundaries. Unless I overlooked something all TT/SZ connections should work there. Just with a new take on the warp and a few tweaks to the geometry of the SZ shapes. Feel free to modify it or make use of it however you like.

      :)

      ps. What I posted there was just a G40 Map Customization as opposed to an A&A Variant, but I guess I’ll admit to finding these subcategories a little confusing lol. I posted in the Subcategory when I meant to post in the main Category hehe. I did it twice and missed both times haha. But whatever.

      Thought people might enjoy this as a template for their custom A&A boards, as an alternative to the OOB gameboard warps. The TT/SZ spaces are largely similar, it just doesn’t show as much distortion in the relative scale, particularly with the Global South.

      Like I was just tired of looking at India be all squished, and wanted something a bit more reminiscent of the Classic 1984 morphs, you know for the general shapes of the continents and the look of the world so there ya go! lol

      ps. Caught a correction with the G40 TT connections and the map split, on the base. Thanks Barnee!

      I’ll update it in the terrain reliefs tomorrow, should look more like this to follow OOB…

      G40_Paint_Blend_20.png

      ps. OK edited in the links at the head. Hopefully I got the splits correct now lol. I’ll do a quick labelling when I get a few hours to comb it over again. Night!

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: Neutral crush playbook

      @teslas:

      1: I didn’t read the rest of your post after the above.
      […]
      3: There is no practical way for the USA to ever get to the middle east early enough for them to do anything there. It just can’t happen unless your opponent is very bad. Best to let UK try to do what it can with it.

      Hehe had you read the next paragraph, point 3 is basically the very next line.  :-D

      I wasn’t trying to suggest the USA in Iraq/Persia as an optimal strategy, but just to point out how all the primo production locations at the center seem to be aggregated in the Neutrals. If it was possible to get there with USA, (which it really isn’t), this area could be an American powerhouse. The advantage if these spaces fell to USA instead of UK, would be during the deep endgame, because USA has so much more money than UK, they could keep spamming factories in this area and filling them to the max each turn to liberate Russia and turn it green. But that never happens because the early advantage to UK is too hard to ignore.

      I wish there were few more places for USA to build factory locations as they went. The only realistic candidate for a factory expansion seems to be Scandinavian, which has its own set of serious problems. So basically USA has nowhere to build, to get them closer to the center, which is kind of a bummer, given how many factory options Japan has to build on their way to the center.
      ;)

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: G40 Redesign (currently taking suggestions)

      Thanks Barney! Sounds killer

      I was MIA for a while there, bunch of RL issues came crashing in on me and I had to give up the ghost for a bit to get caught up. Had to pull one of those semi-annual Houdinis, but its nice to see people are still around. I haven’t had a whole lot of time to play G40 lately or to mess about in tripleA (though I did swoop a backup copy of AA50 last time I was at the game shop, just in case things open up for me one of these weekends.) Anyhow, will have to download the latest tripleA build and see what’s new on that front.

      To the rest of the gang, hope all has been well. Will drop back by from time to time when I get a free minute to talk shop. Catch you next round

      ps. looks pretty rad man! Just loaded up the experimental to mess about for sec. Nice work!

      posted in House Rules
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: SuperbattleshipYamato (Navies) vs VictoryFirst (Armies), Armies vs Navies, a Global 1940 Second Edition variant

      @VictoryFirst

      Good catch! Probably easiest is to angle and drop the line off Peru to comes down. Should be a simple enough fix to the baseline, I just need to cutout the new line in the relief. I’ll try to get it sorted by the weekend

      posted in Play Boardgames
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: G40 Custom Map Projection

      Here is a version showing many more subdivisions, one of which inserts another tile in the middle of Australia that could serve as an impassible zone if desired. Along with a bunch of other lines in other spots that one might keep or ditch depending on how they wanted to reshape tiles for different stuff.

      https://www.dropbox.com/s/hmzuzwg6ytgh5rs/Domination_subdivisions.png?dl=0

      Domination_subdivisions_25.png

      base
      https://www.dropbox.com/s/khxkql58g73q1n3/Domination_1940_baseline.png?dl=0

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: Wondering about historic accuracy of Axis victory conditions.

      Most people I know ignore the VC wins and play until concession. Under these conditions, unconditional surrender conditions you might call them ;) The most important factor after Center collapse (e.g. Russia Falling) is the overall Naval parity between Axis vs Allies, and the status of the IJN especially. It sounds like in this case, if Tokyo is under threat, then the USN has them totally beat.

      If Germany holds the Center and threatens London, but USA holds Tokyo and can concentrate its full attention on the Asian mainland/European, then the potential for a deep endgame is pretty strong. Especially if the Western Allies can begin liberating Soviet land for themselves. This is why some people regard the VC win as hallow, and prefer “Concession” to the Technical Knock Out, as the best way for satisfying game resolution.

      I think its best to figure this out beforehand and just ask your opponent how they prefer to resolve the game. If the opponent is willing, and you think you still have a chance, then I would play on!

      Often the VC win kills the play, at precisely the moment when things start to get really interesting. For example, I know a lot of Germany players who would get a lot of enjoyment out of playing a few more rounds and spending all that extra loot they pilfered from the Russians. Likewise, I know quite a few Allied players, who would relish the chance to lay the smack down on Tokyo, especially to avenge the fall of Moscow in the other theater. So in that case, the 8 VC auto-win, just like 6 VC auto-win, can end up being on auto-buzzkill.

      I mean, some games you just need to play out until someone throws in the towel, or you’d never really know who had the upper hand ;)

      posted in Axis & Allies Global 1940
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • 1942 3rd edition map thoughts

      Just on the off chance we ever get another 1942 board, I’ve been thinking again about different approaches to how to draw the territories in Eurasia, particularly the eastern half of the continent. The last couple boards added a lot of tiles here as a way to deal with drives towards the center from the Japanese. So the Soviet far east and China get more carved up, lower ipc values etc. I think an alternative approach might be more interesting, with larger single territory tiles at a higher value and a production profile, that can allow for stacking there vs Japan, same way it works on the other side of the board with W. Russia or France or India.

      Basically taking the whole eastern half of the USSR, Bury, Yakut, Soviet Far East and turning them into a single tile that functions the way Karelia did in Classic, with the deadzone tile between that and Japan being Manchuria. You could do the same thing with the Russian territories along the border with China collapsing them into larger tiles at a higher value, and then use Western China as the deadzone between that and the Japanese along Coastal China. The idea is to ditch the stall where the Eastern USSR just gets picked apart in low value border territories far from their production, and instead giving them a production capability there with ipcs to defend. Just using the familiar stack dynamic instead of special political rules or things of that sort to prevent Japan from steam rolling. I think it would feel more realistic, with the US deciding whether to send fighters to help cover the Soviet Far East and keep the stack there going, the same way W. Russia works on the other side. But essentially the concept is to create a north pacific pocket for Russia, the way we have a north Atlantic one, where the player is strongly encouraged to remain rather than withdraw. Victory on the Pacific side for Japan, if they went for that kind of Russian attack plan (over India) would be taking out that north pacific pocket. Giving that region of the board its own critical thing going on, instead of just serving as a speed bump on the road to the hammer and anvil at Moscoe.

      What do you think?

      I feel like USSR’s play would just look more WW2 that way, instead of being the weak link. Giving them more reach for the clap back, with enough production in the east so it doesn’t just fold. The basic map geometry and production values I’m picturing would be closer to classic, if Yakut/Soviet Far East/Evenki was a single factory tile. I think you could do a lot woth the warp of the overall world map, so that the expanded Soviet Far East tile takes up less real estate in favor of the central/south pacific. Going wide instead of tall for that half of the USSR on the game board.

      Looking at the earliest map conceptions, as if the southern and eastern portions of the USSR played more the way Caucasus/Karelia do. e.g. having Kazakh and Novos as a single production spot, Evenki, Yakut and Soviet Far East as another single production spot. So taken together with Karelia and Caucasus you’d have 4 high value regional production tiles surrounding the core at Moscow, which can cover the entire Soviet landmass at a go, instead of all carved up and broken down.

      Novambcomplet.jpg

      posted in House Rules
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: SuperbattleshipYamato (Navies) vs VictoryFirst (Armies), Armies vs Navies, a Global 1940 Second Edition variant

      @VictoryFirst

      I hacked together a quick fix for you guys for sz 64/65. Posted it to the thread. Let me know if she does the trick. Just need to replaced the BaseTiles and ReliefTiles folders with those updated ones and add in the Polygon txt for the new shapes.

      I can copy over the changes to the expansion boxes map when I get back to my house in a couple days.

      Thanks again for hunting these down! Tough one to spot right there for sure. Appreciate the extra sets of eyes hehe

      All the best

      Elk

      posted in Play Boardgames
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: G40 Custom Map Projection

      For the moment what I did was to take my ideas from the 1900 gamemap, and Heppster’s stuff from the 1914-18 gamemap in tripleA, and then tried to port that into something with a more late 1930s-40s vibe. I think it’s probably possible to create a game in tripleA for TTs on that scale that uses basically the normal rules, just with different starting unit set ups or production frontiers and microsculpts basically for all the units, since the digi sculpts can be scaled down and the map can be scaled. For a more analog thing I’d think one would either need to print a truly gigantic map to play that way, or more likely one would just add the borders they like and exclude the ones they find extraneous, for a game at a more normal playscale. Some ideas for the extra sea zones would be to add oldschool convoy lanes. For a ground game with that many tiles, you could probably keep the same movement dynamics for familiarity or change them for something a bit different I guess. M3 on the ground I think it really taxes the HardAI in tripleA, unless it’s a relatively uncommon unit, but M3 at sea I think could work. I haven’t tried to crack at the rules yet, just trying to draft map ideas that people floated as being potentially interesting. There’s an xml being worked on but haven’t delved too deep yet. Just trying to get the map and unit graphics stuff dialed then figure out what to do with it I guess hehe.
      :)

      Here’s the first set of supped up digi sculpts… based on Frostion’s set, with some additions I threw together. In tripleA the max display in the battlecalc is 68px tall, so that’s the ceiling there, but in game you can upscale these to like 150% for the map display. I tried to put em together here like a sticker sheet hehe.

      stickers.png

      And to round it out…

      stickers more.png

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: How do I create my own custom A&A map from scratch? (Global 1920)

      Sorry only just saw this

      So step one would be finding the right image editing program for what you’re trying to achieve. TripleA uses raster graphics images (basically png) and is not suitable for printing. Upscaling the largest relief I’ve made in tripleA and trying to print it at 600 dpi the filesize gets quite beefy. Basically an image that’s like 50mb for use in tripleA is going to climb way up by orders of magnitude into the many gigabytes. It will also tax the RAM pretty hard if you’re trying to edit an image that large (in actual dimensions) like trying to use multiple layers at once. I have a pretty high end gaming laptop and I topped out around 8000p before GIMP started giving me headaches and slowing to a crawl.

      What you probably want is an image that you can manipulate as SVG rather than PNG. A vector so you can upscale the image to any dimensions that way (basically the same way font works.) I would try Inkscape or Adobe, and try to get a pull of the image as a vector graphic.

      You can start the same as you would in tripleA by creating a baseline image of the basic world map, the continent contours or world warp you want and the territory or sea zone divisions, showing just the basic borderlines in 100% black at 1px width at the desired dimensions for the digital thing.

      A physical print would be much larger, so imagine that on your screen you got 72p per inch, on paper that needs to be 600 dpi. You can go lower say 300 dots per inch if it’s very graphic, but a photo quality print is basically like 600p, which is pretty hefty. In a program like inkscape or illustrator etc you can translate a raster image into something that works for stuff like signage, you know, so like making a giant banner image to put on the side of a truck or hang outside a building - same sorta deal here for the scale of the image you’d want to make. Probably the size of a 6 or 8 foot banquet table, possibly larger depending, on what you’re trying to pull off.

      If you have the map drawn out at scale, you can scan in sections at A3 or A4 size with a flat scanner and then reassemble the image, to pull it at the highest resolution you can before bringing that image into inkscape to create a vector of it.

      ps. here are some youtube tutorial videos on inkscape just to see what sort of stuff I mean. You can probably find more just pulling at those threads. Once you have a map design you can put in tripleA to playtest it by creating a baseline from your svg, exporting the image as a bitmap or png where the borderlines are just solid black ideally at 1px width for those lines, or as close as you can get. For a map image something that’s like 2000-4000p tall and about twice as wide or larger works well for digital sculpts which are png images at 48-54px tall up to 125% currently in tripleA. The map size in tripleA is sorta limited by the unit graphics sizes and the windows in the UI. In inkscape you can make it larger, like for whatever makes sense to have the print look decent. Anyhow, just a quick example you can skip around to see

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ns028ihACs&list=PL_NagE_y_IhIBNAzw3nFBiF01OKnaltmJ

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnqtnSTe6qM

      https://youtu.be/kS2nrXuR128?t=2611

      for tripleA you can use GIMP to make the relief images in png. Here’s an example of similar videos in that program

      https://youtu.be/HLmOpEETjEo?t=646

      posted in Customizations
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: 1942 3rd edition map thoughts

      pps. anyone ever try the flip trick just to mess with the brain? hehe

      sometimes it helps me to think about the connections in a different way, like a sinister alternate dimension where the map is sporting a goatee

      Novambcomplet flipped.jpg 1942_mod-east-asia-new flipped.jpg

      posted in House Rules
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: Renegade Con Virtual: Axis and Allies

      I have a giant box with all my smaller A&A games in their boxes. It’s almost too heavy to lift! haha

      Takes up like an entire shelf in the closet. The boxes alone command a fair bit of space in cubic footage, just to store in your home as an enthusiast. Like it’s a lot to lug around too lol.

      If the map board itself was broken into rigid sections, then these could be stored in something like a flat folder rather than a giant box. I don’t know some kind of decorative mission dossier looking thing.

      With a slimmer attack profile than a box that’s like 4 inches tall but really beefy in the width/length. Envisioned more as a long haul map protector, flip display maybe. The kind of thing you can get with the bigger initial purchase, but then when newer maps are released they can just sell those as stand alone products that ship separate and slip into the collector’s case once they’re at home.

      Instead of a folding map or a rolling mat, you’d get a series of rigid panels, say A3 but you lay them together. Basically aiming for something that doesn’t fold but stacks. Then the weight/sizing would be similar to a book rather than a board game box, and you could embellish it more in that way. Sturdier materials for the panels, or a standard slip protector that just comes with the thing initially. Perhaps doing prints on the obverse too so that each panel can do double duty. As collectors you’d be collecting the maps separately and treating them more like comic books or something I guess. Separate from the units for any expansion campaigns, so the cost isn’t too high there.

      Instead of the expense going way up when you get more into the hobby and more advanced in the rules, the purchases would be more constant price, since it’d basically just be updated for the latest manual and map panels. The latter could also have display appeal probably. You know, like you have one box for your units like a cool themed kit box or wooden-looking crate to house the sculpts and dice, then a folder that holds the maps (or any future maps) with some room to spare. Doing this you could issue maps, and not necessarily need new editions or rules for those maps, it could just be like cosmetic updates and new looks periodically, switching the style to service different aesthetics.

      Of course pushing out new maps with different connections as you scale up would be a lot of fun, and easier to pull off that too. I still think your starter box needs to have the basics, and be at a price point that’s sensible. If Zombies is 30 bucks at a big box store, then I guess that’s our entry level. If there’s a big scale up (advanced set with more sculpts) that costs another 30 bucks, but isn’t just duplicating what’s in box 1, that makes sense to me. As you push out into tactical boards and combo advanced maps like a G40, they could probably just sell the maps alone keep the price point reasonable and go for more collector appeal with that.

      I don’t know seems like it might work. The boxes for these games are quite large right now. The 1940 boxes are large and in charge no doubt, and the giant AA50 I have sitting on it’s side on top a bookshelf cause it’s the only place I could fit the thing in my apartment. It would be really nice if these games could somehow rest conveniently on a regular bookcase, within a more standard sized shelf. AA50’s map panels would only be what like 8x10 inches if they were separated rather than folded? The box by comparison is pretty massive, in terms of the length I mean. And you know that last mile they’re sticking it in an even larger box to ship, just to keep the edges from denting heheh.

      Something much taller but more compact in the length, taking up more space vertically but not as long/wide would be ideal. That would be a nice upgrade to how these things are sold. Nobody would want to discard a box to a game once they have it, but if it didn’t need a box to begin with, or only 1 box, that might pretty cool.

      I imagine it looking more like a multi volume book collection or a fancy Encyclopedia when the maps are stacked all together on the shelf. They’d ship/present more like books than half a dozen larger board game boxes, if that makes sense. But then you open them and have the panels ready to rock.

      Rigid Panels are better than folding cardboard or mats in my view, if only because they make it way easier to move the game once it’s set. Like if you have to carry the thing to another room or whatever. Otherwise you need a much larger rigid backing or have to lift the whole table lol. Rigid map panels could also stack on top of each other with pylons at the corners, so that the game can be stored while still set more easily. The pylons you’d keep in your unit box with all the rest of the kit. The manuals and maps would be in the slimmer book/dossiers type format, so you could keep 'em together all neatly in a row.

      posted in News
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: G40 Custom Map Projection

      Quickie Europe just for an impression of how it might display. Image is indexed so a little choppy there, I’ll probably play with the colors cause that paintjob of the map still had the gigantic border lines and the peach pro-allied neutrals hehe, but anyway, gives the gist…

      World War II Global Painted Terrain Units 125 indexed.png

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: Global 40 Expansion Boxes

      Once you got the stuff blocked in for the baseline, I can paste whatever over the area for the relief. The newer version of GIMP has some of the tool stuff consolidated, so you might have to mouse over to change from one tool to the other within the same family of tools, or double click to see all the specs. Like to untick the antialiasing. Basically all you’re doing for the base is nailing the 1px black line. If it’s simpler to draw it out in paint or another app might be easier if GIMP is being fussy. Long as the overall dimensions for the board are the same should work as normal for the placement picker once you have the new polys added. The relief I can redo once you go the base looking how you want, and go the centers/polygons for any adjustments, I can crop that part of the relief and change it to match whatever you put together. :)

      posted in TripleA Support
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: HR skip movement phases in first round

      In 1942 Russia could build another pair of fighters or a pair of strategic bombers. Wondering if that might be enough to back down an all out Sea Lion play by Germany (where they try to max transports to take England on G2)? If a Russian air build can deter an easy Sea Lion and at least make it too dicey, then I think you might have an interesting game there, since G would have to consider surface ships to cover vs a Soviet R1 air strike rather going all transport crazy which might be fun. If UK can afford to build a couple ships in the zero round and stack up with their remainder, and if the USA can save their Atlantic transports that’s pretty major for team Allies. Potential for KJF if Russia uses air to the Pacific?

      Axis still get a build too though, so wondering how they might play it with an extra preliminary purchase?

      In AA50 and especially in G40 there is a lot more going on. But still wondering how those might play too? Especially if zero round production or naval buys might be interesting for flipping the opening combat dynamic during round two on its head.

      posted in House Rules
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: Renegade Con Virtual: Axis and Allies

      Axis & Allies & Aliens

      I’m sure it was a top contender on the big brain storm board that lead to the creation of A&A Zombies, but I think Aliens would be cool if looking for a new angle on that. Like just do an X-files riff for the reprint of A&AZ? Have the game start at Trinity and just go off the rails with Rockets and UFOs and little green men from there.

      A&A&A

      Not news I guess, but the name’s got a ring right ;)

      Happy May Days

      posted in News
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: G40 Custom Map Projection

      @imperious-leader Yeah, that’s what I meant about the choppiness and the gigantor lines hehe. I was using one of the earlier paintjobs, indexed with no antialiasing or feathering there, cause it was one of those that I was just shrinking down to 25% scale anyway ,so it didn’t show too much for that purpose, but not the best choice here all zoomed in. I got like half way through laying down some example unit graphics then noticed I’d forgot to shrink the borders hehe. Reason is because I have this baseline file where the borders have to all be 1 px wide, and indexed to 3 colors for it to work in tripleA eventually. I had all the anti-aliasing and blur checked to “off” in my GIMP settings to work on that, cause the colors have to be exact, like 100% black or 100% white, no in between grays or blur, and just forgot to change the settings when adding that layer over the painted one. We’ll clean it up for the final for sure, just wanted to show the units against some color for that one to see how the contrast held up.

      Right now I’m battling the TT morphs in central Russia. It’s kind of a challenge, because OOB has Vologda connecting to Smolensk which I’d missed in the connections cause those regions are quite aways apart. It’s just a weird stretch OOB, cause the TT called Arkangel also has to somehow connect with Belarus at the same time as the Smolesk/Vologda but without the other TTs coming between. So I’m just kinda carving stuff away from Pskov and Tver to try and make that work, but Moscow is out of position for all this. Like I think I need to remove basically all the rivers there or knock back the subtle under terrain so it doesn’t look as noticeable just how far away the TT called Russia is from Moscow OOB.
      I think ultimately the warp just has to bend to service way the G40 gameboard works, though I was hoping to have some of those TT shapes a little closer to the real deal, but it’s like almost a geometric impossibility given how large some stuff has to be lol.

      ps. Here it is with borderlines stroked to show some feathering and noise reduction… GIMP takes forever to stroke, I thought my laptop was having an actual stroke hehe. So it was kinda easier to save that till last, relatively easy to polish as the final step, also cause I have some borders to tweak still. But anyway, it should end up a bit more like this when all’s said and done…

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

      And the detail with the quick feathers, similar to the Europe view in the post above but with the thinner border and sans units graphics.

      detail feathered.png

      posted in Other Axis & Allies Variants
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • RE: Global 40 Expansion Boxes

      I can see from the highlight in your Polygons step that the baseline boxes you’re trying to add haven’t been emptied of the black pixels from the older base/polygons. Basically it needs to be displaying those boxes filled with white for each rectangle in your base. You can try to stitch those smaller sections together with the shift-click in the poly step like you’ve been doing, and that may appear like it’s giving you what you want, but the actual baseline needs to be modified to ensure that you aren’t assigning duplicates entries or winding up with vestiges of those older lines, like where the polys are overlapping. Right now some stuff from the older image is still in the base, so it’s hanging you up when you go to reassign or change the coordinates for those shapes. The highlight in the polygon grabber is showing stuff based on where your black pixels are located in the base, since that’s how tripleA knows what to grab, like where the borders are. That’s defined by whether the pixel is black, white or something else, in the base image you load up initially.

      I think I can see what you’re after. If you’ve already made the entries in the xml for the names and ownership those should still work fine, I’m guessing that’s the time consuming part, since grabbing the poly’s/centers should be pretty fast, unless something is going haywire with your base, which seems to be the issue here. Essentially you just need to create a baseline that’s going to match more or less exactly what you want to see ultimately displayed, so you can see that stuff while within the map creator tools when doing the polygon grabbing step. So that the right stuff is highlighting red/yellow. Shoot me an email or a DM, I’m sure we can this sorted for you.
      :)

      posted in TripleA Support
      Black_ElkB
      Black_Elk
    • 1 / 1