Posts made by HolKann

Hey all, uploaded a final version of ABattleMap (final in the sense of: no more compability issues after this one).

Things changed:

• smaller Sahara ;)
• fleet markers
• fleet marker space in the lower left corner of the screen
• recoloring of pieces and map so the Italians and Chinese are a bit better to distinguish.
• some minor territory redraws
• added territory namings

It will be the last version of the modules which might raise compatibility problems, maybe some day I’ll add some extra figures in the background, but that won’t affect compatibility.

Have fun  :-)

Enemy at the gates?

off-topic:
TimTheEnchanter and RogerTheShrubber, someone must like something  :-D

In the light of day I understand you better now, and it’s right that you can calculate your defences/attacks better in LL, so you will end up using lesser resources for “just in case” or “just to be sure” situations. And ofcourse, if there’s a huge pile of trns on a “just enough to keep 1 DD left” fleet, someone made a mistake, because you have to calculate your losses if things go wrong in too. It’s like a 30% chance to take Ger with UK, no one would doubt about that, since the potential gains far outweigh the potential losses, thus tilting the average gain in your direction. That aspect is still in LL though, be it less severe (it’s a question of adding 1 DD instead of 1 BB “to be sure”).

@Telamon:

But as long as you have fun, that’s all that matters.

I couldn’t agree more! (and sry for my tendency to overreact :oops: )

Sry Telamon, but I strongly disagree:

@Telamon:

For those who choose low luck, fine.  But just make sure you aren’t missing out on half the game!

The Lottery half…

A&A has two exciting aspects - the strategy and the chance.  I suspect that those who choose low luck haven’t learnt to appreciate the latter aspect, or find it too difficult.  The key is that luck can be managed.

Yes, those LL players are big unappreciative wussies being whiney about having bad dice that ruins their strategy. Should’ve gotten a plan B, C and D!

Sure an infantry could attack a stack of tanks.  It might win one in a million times, but the player who does this regularly will lose.  You can choose your battles and manage your risk.  If you can’t afford to lose a stack of russian inf - don’t put them in the line.  If you don’t want to lose 7 bombers in an SBR raid, make sure you can deal with a pile of pips looking up at you after your roll.

Keep this in mind: you’re saying people shouldn’t attack with 1 inf at bad odds because doing this regularly will cost one the game -

Reducing luck also has a big impact on the strategic aspect of the game.  It doesn’t make it more ‘pure’, it changes it fundamentally.  For instance, the German luftwaffe might have an attack on the british navy where they have a 20% chance of success, and an 80% chance of being swatted like flies.  If the germans crack it, they probably win as all the pressure is off their backs while UK rebuilds.

Wait? An inf is a no-go, but getting your whole luftwaffe crushed, thusly eliminating good opportunities of trading dead zones or threatening to attack Cau/Len, is considered good?

If they lose, it hurts them but they can pump out the infantry and wait it out till Japan rescues.

Come on, if Japan could rescue a luftwaffeless Germany in time, this game is as balanced as tic-tac-toe.

Denying these type of risks alters the strategy: the UK can afford to buy ‘just enough’ naval protection and spend a lot more on transports and infantry.  Really they should have to be a little more cautious.

Ah, now I get it: retreating your units and overdoing your fleet are the way to go if you don’t want to have bad dice! But how about the great strategical aspects of attacking your opponent and optimizing your purchases?

Don’t give up on dice.  Learn how to master them  :wink:

Hmm, maybe we should send LL’ers to clinics and drug them or try shock therapy to get them back normal. After all, ADS is the natural way of playing the game, anything else is no more than a disease or a temporary phase people will grow out ;)

Allright, so far the sarcastic part of the post, but I just got offended because I felt you we’re stating LL was inferior to ADS (ADS is half of the game, get back to ADS, LL’ers should just be more cautious, don’t do this, do that, they don’t appreciate something they should…)
I know some people like ADS, and to me that’s very strange, but I understand (or at least I try to) why they like it: it brings animosity to the table, it’s more historically accurate, it requires some special skills etc. To me, those things don’t weigh up against a neatly executed cooperative plan being ruined by an AA-gun shooting down 6 out of 7 bmrs. To others they do, so this is where the “opinion”-part sets in. It’s no use trying to alter other people’s personal opinions. After all, they’re not wrong and I’m not right, but we’re only differing in opinion. However, you’re trying to do just that, and that’s why I replied with a not so friendly post  :|

Anyhow, I’m of concocting a master move that won’t be ruined by bad dice :evil:

@wodan46:

Infantry+Tanks beats Infantry+Artillery in equally costed numbers both on offense and defense.

No. It does not.

Your average battle calculator:
5 inf + 5 rtl vs 4 arm + 5 inf : mean attacker profits = -3,0 IPC’s
4 arm + 5 inf vs 5 inf + 5 rtl : mean attacker profits = -3,7 IPC’s
Overall: 0,7 IPC’s win for artillery.

=> It’s a close call though, which keeps artillery mainly as a good support unit for big stacks of defending inf.

Or you could go LL+ : same as LL, but instead of rolling 2 dice (one for attacker and one for defender), roll 1 die, and apply the result to both attacker and defender. This way it’s impossible for a defender to keep the territory in 1 ftr + 2 inf vs 1 inf.

Or you could go NL (No Luck): same as LL, but instead of rolling 2 dice, use this rule: a 4, 5, 6 are a hit, a 3, 2, 1 are a miss.

Or you could go NL+: keep track of rest-attack throughout a battle (pretty math intensive  :roll: )

@InsaneGenius:

Was just talking to some guys about ideas. Some play low luck where you add up all the attack rating and then divide by 6, then roll on the remainder. (So, 20 infantry attacking would = 3 kills and a roll of 2 or less to hit another) This gives you really close to accurate odds.
Another idea was to roll all dies 2 times and take the average hits.(this is still pretty random, but less than 1x roll)
Another is to mix Low luck with dies rolls and take averages.(like 18 infantry attacking. In low luck you would get 3 hits and a the worse roll of 0 hits and a best roll of 18 hits. So take (3+0)/2 = 1.5 and (3+18)/2=10.5 so your possible hits would be between 1.5 and 10.5.) so a roll of 5 hits would = 4 actual hits. (3+5)/2

I would like to find something maybe in the middle where a game is not won on a fluke, but not to super strict as to take the excitement out of the game. (Still chance, but not enough to be game ending)

I’m a LL-only player, and I’m telling you even LL is random enough to keep the excitement of hoping for the right dice in the game. But it does take away the game breakers, and makes (for me) the game much more enjoyable. I think LL is exactly what you’re looking for, but you might have been scared away by others saying it takes all the excitement/randomness out the game. Remember it’s LOW luck, not NO luck (which does exist also :-D ). Anyhow, there’s only one way to find out if you like it, so if you ever fancy a LL AA50, lemme know :)

@atarihuana:

if you dont like close, risky battles, adjust your moves accordingly.

How about if your enemy does like risky battles? And aren’t you always going to play sub-optimal (allright, I admit it, I’m a math student ;) ) moves this way?

@P@nther:

@HolKann:

I’m redoing the color scheme, and after a lot of trying, I’ve got the scheme as attached to the post. What do you guys think of it? I’m not finished yet with the map, so I’m not updating yet.

Also, if someone could provide me with a “layered” image file with in one layer the AA50 map, and in an other layer the territory names, I would be very much obliged :)

Here it is:
http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?ghjynmootyy

Use the file with paint.net. See www.getpaint.net
In case you don’t know it.

Hth :-)

Tnx :)

@a44bigdog:

I really see no need for all these constant changes that lead to compatibility issues as far as changing territories around and such on the map.

I agree: it’s not a good idea constantly changing territory shapes… But one has to admit the map isn’t optimal: it is irritating to have so little space in Lib, Alg and Egy whilst wasting a whole Sahara on useless terrain, and also the way the Pacific was organised was strange and inefficiënt. So imho it is recommended to fix these “errors” even though it compromises compatibility. The best way to accomplish this is simply by fixing all the things that will reduce compatibility in one patch, and then continuing to add markers or whatever needed would have no influence on compatibility, thus making it no problem fixing small issues one at a time.

So I think I made a small mistake uploading an uncompatible version without making sure every compatibility issue would be solved this way. As I said: I’m probably gonna adjust the Sahara region, add some places where fleets with fleet markers can be put, add territory names etc. But I’ll make sure this will be the last update that adresses things influencing compatibility. Also, after this update, I think the modules are about as good as they can get, and it’ll probably be the last update I make. Unless ofcourse someone likes to do a photoshop job to make the .bmp files itself less dull :roll:

Don’t worry, no one can keep improving the modules forever, so give it a little more time and the modules will be finished, with a final version posted in this thread. After that, you’ll have hours of joy and happyness with an optimal set of modules which won’t be altered for decennia :wink:

I agree with Tim as far as adding fleet cards and such. It is too easy to overlook what is where. It is not like we are trying to cram physical playing pieces into a territory or move the same about the map and having to worry about pieces falling off of a stack of chips.

I agree again, but adding fleet cards gives people the choice to use them; those who like them use them, those who don’t don’t.

@Bardoly:

Holkann, I’m sorry, but my red-green color-blind eyes just can’t distinguish between the 2 greens - UK and US.

I’m using the updated module, but I’m still using the older pieces, even though I still have a slight problem distinguishing between the yellow Japs and the yellow-green Americans.  At least their ships look different.  That helps me a lot.

Since I don’t have a clue on what red-green color-blindness is, I won’t be able to fix this. What I’m trying to do is making these modules as enjoyable as possible for people with normal sight playing on normal resolutions, since I simply can’t do it for other people. However, I’m willing to help you make your own adjusted version of the map and pieces to fit your own needs. It’s very easy to do whilst only using MS Paint (standard on every Windows machine). So if you wish to make your own pieces but you don’t know exactly how, PM me :)

I’m redoing the color scheme, and after a lot of trying, I’ve got the scheme as attached to the post. What do you guys think of it? I’m not finished yet with the map, so I’m not updating yet.

Also, if someone could provide me with a “layered” image file with in one layer the AA50 map, and in an other layer the territory names, I would be very much obliged :)

Hey guys, just telling I’m keeping track of all these great ideas :-) But I’m having some busy weeks right now, so an updated map probably won’t see the light of day until next month.

As for the color of the Italians and Chinese: good point, some nice shade of blue might be good for the spaghetti eating people.
As for the names of the territories on the map, I’m still doubting, though it might be better for newer players.
As for fleet markers, seems like a nice improvement; there’s still some room on the lower left corner of the map to place the fleets there.
As for changing the territories to shades of green, this seems a bit impractical, and I’m not really a fan of it. But I do like the idea of cheering up the map placing some nice ships or aircrafts or tanks in the background, so if you’ve found some good pics d142, plz share them with us  :wink:

But one can always tailor a map to its own needs ofcourse  :roll:

@packrat76:

can the defending sub keep submerging before the attacker can attack if there is no destroyer in the attacking fleet?

what do you mean with “keep”?
Note that if a sub chooses to submerge, it cannot attack or defend either.

@Capt.:

Mmmm… Not too sure about this, yeaaah, I’m gonna have to go ahead and disagree with you on this one.  Mmmmm…

What are you disagreeing about with whom  :| ?

http://www.daak.de/indexe.php3

use the dicey log-in after registering, it contains an AA50 battle simulator/dicey 8-).

@Joe:

Hello,
You all have an awesome sight here, this is my 1st post. I am not able to get access to download the ABattlemap. It will not allow me any access to register as a member. Can anyone tell me what I am doing wrong?
Thanks for your help!

Welcome Joe!

You’re doing nothing wrong, there’s something going wrong at www.flames-of-europe.de where you’re supposed to be able to download the ABattleMap program. I’ve rerouted the link to the www.daak.de download, so it should be fine now. Just try clicking the links in the first post again, and if there are any further problems, don’t hesitate to ask (after using the search ofcourse ;) ).

@Cmdr:

Kewlies, that’ll work.  I use the old pieces, so I had to play around again with the colors also went ahead and color matched the Italian territories because I could.
…
If anyone wants, I can send them my units/map but you can easily do those yourself too.

I want 8-)  Just to compare with the current pieces, because if yours are better, they should be implemented in the modules :)

Colors are only part of the bmp. When you start changing territory shapes and sizes, you’ll need to adjust SektorInfo.map/bmp. If you want to change name or properties of a territory, you’ll need to adjust SektorInfo.sek/txt.

So in short: to adjust colors, you’ll only need to adjust map.bmp ;)

Hey, after some trying, I did find 256-color blue tones. See attached images (the 2nd one is actually the one from the A&A: the great war-module).

If I understand correctly, you’re not able to get the color light blue pasted on the Italian flags/units in paint (it always shifts to grey).

This is because the ToolPieces.bmp-file is saved as an 8-bit bmp, allowing only 256 different tones of colors. If I get wikipedia correctly, the tones of these colors depend on the “palette” being used. I have no idea what that exact palette is with the ToolPieces.bmp from ABattleMap, but all I know is I’m only able to get 1 blue color: 00 00 FF (in RGB).

Workaround: save the ToolPieces.bmp as a 24-bit bmp (Paint has this option). Now you should be able to use a much wider range of colors in Paint, and as far as I can see, ABattleMap’s just fine with this. I don’t think there’s any real reason why we should keep the 8-bit mode, but since I didn’t see a problem, I just kept it that way to be safe. The only drawback is the ToolPieces.bmp file will now weigh an astonishing 44kb instead of the more moderate 16kb  :-D

Is this what you needed?

@TimTheEnchanter:

Not a problem.  Slight confusion possibilities, but better in the long run.  You might want to do some sort of versioning in the main post (maybe a version/readme file in the download itself) and try to advertise when changes like this are made, so people can say “I’m using version x”  I’m using version Y". “Oh, that’s why it’s different.”

Probably more trouble than it’s worth….

No, good idea :) I’ll add a “version x.txt” to the next upload.

@Capt.:

We just started playing online through the ABattleMap and AA50 version, loving it.  I’m loving everything, except… help!

Is there an updated AA50 calculation site?  Frood.net is still on Revised rules, and we’re all really itching to play without, as you can imagine, these totally crazy combat configurations?

Here at the forums most people use the in-forum dicey, which simply let’s you simulate a real dice roll (without being able to change it afterwards ;) )

If you’re looking for something more frood-like (which sends emails and stuff), try www.daak.de. It’s a German/European axis and allies club, but guests are welcome too. There’s an English version of the site, and although the forum is mostly German, English is allowed and replied in too. Daak’s got an early version of an AA50-dicey, so there might be some little bugs left (if you encounter one, plz be so kind to post it on the daak-forum, they will fix it pretty fast if you do).

Honor to all of you for the work you are doing!!

Lol, we’re honored ;)

@TimTheEnchanter:

I was just going to ask about this.  I downloaded the map on a new computer and suddenly a bunch of boats in East Indies sz showed up in the Borneo sz.

Yeah, sry for that :oops: It will be a bit annoying, but I hope the Pacific will be a less cramped now. To really fix some sea zones (like ECH, SCH, BOR and SUL), would require even more of an overhaul, but I think that’s a bit too much to keep games coherent.

Aw well, if you think the juice is not worth the squeeze, just tell :wink:@atarihuana:

what do you  think about fleet markers?

What exactly do you mean? Like those things used in AAR FTF?