@Capt.:
Well now, that purchase protects WUS, HAW, ALA, SOL. Japan not only opts out of the WUS attack, he has to turn back entirely, no DD to reinforce!!
That’s hot!
It turns US3 into offense rather than say I bought 6INF 2ARM and 1FIG for WUS.
Thanks a lot!
This sounds eerily familiar… Are you sure you don’t want to just stick with a couple inf in WUS. I bet he’d just turn away… ;)
I haven’t bothered to even try 1942 yet. :| What changes to make it work for '42? I thought the maps would be identical… :?
One concession I had to make was removing the faces from the southern indian ocean sea zones - they were just too hard to work with as I was changing colors. Anyway, my question is: who was the dude on the far right?
@P@nther:
Personally I would prefer to use the layer “pale” instead of “very pale”… but that’s a question of individual preference.
Though I’d go for the “pale” instead of “very pale” (I have trouble discerning Ita/Ger on my bright laptop screen).
FYI guys: I used the “Pale” version for a week or two before getting used to it and deciding to go even lighter. I think the transition from the standard map to the very pale map is a big difference and I could see it taking some getting used to.
For those who don’t have Paint.Net and haven’t looked at the available layers for the map and aren’t sure what we’re talking about, there are two backgrounds available to provide the underlying map color: one called “Pale” and the other “Very Pale”. The Map.BMP I uploaded uses the “very pale” version. Just so you can see the difference and choose which you prefer without looking at the .PDN file I have loaded a version of the map.bmp file using the “Pale” version these guys are talking about. This new file is called NotSoPale_Map.bmp in the same mediafire folder. Or, here’s a direct link: http://www.mediafire.com/?z2nxdznirzh
@P@nther:
The font for all the labels is called Papyrus.
Unfortunately I don’t have this font. Where did you get it from?
Sorry I don’t know. I don’t know if it came on the computer or if my wife might have purchased a font kit for her PTA flyers and stuff. I didn’t think about the possibility that others might not have that font installed. :| I wish I knew how to help you get it.
Thanks for the kind words. I’ve gone back and forth between the pale and very pale background - that’s why they’re both in there. I’ve been tempted to try off-white as well, but I think that’s probably going to be too little colorless and would get in the way of game play regardless of how it looks on it’s own, so I haven’t bothered to try it.
As far as Rus vs. Mos I just used the abbreviations that I’ve gotten used to using in games here, and most of the time I’ve seen it as Mos/Moscow here on the game threads. I know in AAR, Karelia was usually abbreviated Len for Leningrad, but I’ve always used Kar because that’s what made sense to me. However I have my own personal preferences in other places as well. E.g., I use SFE instead of Far for Soviet Far East. I use IEA and FWA instead of EAf and WAf for Italian East Africa and French West Africa. I think I came up with new abbreviations for some of the neutrals as well.
The font for all the labels is called Papyrus.
I don’t use bigpieces, so I didn’t even think to recolor those. Thanks!
The bmp file is just an overlay - other files tell the software where the various territories actually reside. (HolKann can probably explain this a lot better than I can.) But I’m pretty sure that as long as they’re based on the same set of other files (the sek files, etc.) it seems to work fine. I’ve used this map, or earlier incarnations of it, for about a month now with no problems as long as everyone is using the march 9 set of files.
Howdy all.
I found the latest incarnation of the AA50 map was not my favorite. The colors were unpleasant (everything was too brown), and the labels made the map look very cluttered and they just stood out too much for my tastes. Sorry guys, but the word “garish” came to mind. So I set about to create a newer, more “stylish” version of the map.
The first thing to note is that I have only changed the coloring of the map, not the size or shape of any territories. This map was based on the March 9, 2009 “compatibility” map, so as long as you are playing someone using that map, it should continue to be compatible with the map your opponents are using.
I want to offer credit and thanks to several people. First and foremost to HolKann for putting together the AA50 maps and putting so much hard work into these modules. Without his work I wouldn’t have had a map to work from. Second I’d like to thank P@nther for putting the map into Paint.NET format and starting to add the layers. I had been toying with that idea for some time, but it wasn’t until he started with it that I decided to get in to the file he started and really work with the image the way I wanted to. Finally I want to credit cominges for his Art Deco Map as a sort of inspiration for this map. I know this is nowhere near the style and artistic quality of his map, but his use of light colors and color shading gave me the inspiration for applying a lighter, shaded style to the map and making it look a little more like an “old fashioned” map.
Because the map is so much lighter than the standard, I had to recolor the toolpieces as well. I’ve included a toolpieces for both 41 and 42. I also changed some of the tokens to be more to my liking (HolKann prefers all roundels, I think some of the roundels are just difficult to draw that small and so some of the tokens look better as full flags)
In addition to the Map.bmp, I’ve also incuded the .pdn file (aa50_AlternateMap.pdn) so if you have Paint.NET (www.getpaint.net - it’s free!!!) and want to get in and customize it you can. All the labels are in their own layers and therefore can be turned on and off. If you’d like some explanation of all the layers, send me a PM. Hopefully most of it would be self-explanatory if you are familiar with PDN.
I’ve been using the map in several games for the past few weeks to make sure it doesn’t have any compatibility or usability issues and I think it’s good to go, but send me a PM if you have any problems. The files are pretty large and I didn’t bother to compress them. Sorry if that is an issue for anyone trying to download them.
I’d appreciate hearing what you all think about this.
Tim’s alternate map file folder
Note, I’ve inlcuded a smaller, jpeg version of the map (click on attachment thumbnail below to expand) so you can get an idea what it looks like without downloading the full bmp. Just don’t try to use that file with the game. You have to go to the mediafire link above to get the real map.bmp and toolpieces.bmp’s
Not only can you move into captured territories, but you can also move tanks THROUGH them as well (provided the territory you’re going to on the other side is also friendly).
It entirely depends on situation. What is the strategic value of the territory? Is it imperative that I take the territory to keep the opponent from moving in with air or blitzing? In large part it comes down to how badly am I hurt if I lose the battle. Also, am I ahead or behind? If I’m behind, there may come a time where the best way to change the game balance is to let the dice try to save me, so I will take on riskier battles if they can potentially tip the scales. If I feel I’m ahead I’m looking to manage downside risk. If I’m behind I’m looking to increase upside potential.
I see no reason why the AA gun wouldn’t fire, it’s still a bomber attacking a territory and the territory does have a defending unit - the AA gun. But I’ve been wrong before.
Regarding offloading of units that are in the boat already, I asked about something similar a while back and I’m pretty sure you can choose to unload only one of the units during combat phase. The catch is that you can’t then unload the other into either the same or a different territory (adjacent to the same sz) during NCM. The unit has to stay on the boat.
2.a) AA guns can not move during combat moves, so the AA would have to have already been on the boat at the start of the turn, and must stay on the boat during the amphib assault. It then must stay on the boat through the end of the turn since the transport already unloaded in combat moves and can’t unload again during NCM.
The ones I was looking for are working. Thanks!
I now get a “404 - Attachment Not Found” whenever I try to click one of the attachments to download a map. Did we perhaps lose all the attachments in the upgrade process?
so the dutchman isn’t playing even though it was his idea?
@Cmdr:
As for insulting the intelligence of others, I have never done so…
…Certain in-duh-viduals…
:lol: It takes some serious gall to put those two statements in the same paragraph and even attempt to sound serious about it. :lol:
I’ve got a multi-player that’s likely to wind down soon, so count me in on your new multiplayer game. I’d prefer tech, but either is ok. If powers are assigned randomly I’ll obviously take whoever I get, but if there’s any sort of choice I’d prefer not to be Italy since that’s what I’ve been playing in my other multiplayer game.
Also, if anyone is interested in a 1941 1-on-1 game (NOs = Yes; Tech = Preferred), send me a PM. We can roll for sides or something like that.
As with most things, it depends on board position. It is much more difficult to set things up for continuous followup at italy. But if you are set up to follow your landing up with another attack(e.g., you have a second fleet that can safely feed troops to algeria while your boats go to sz14), then italy is the obvious choice. If they retake it, it just means you steal their income again next turn. The other thing to consider, if you have enough forces to feed algeria next turn, that means you could bring double the forces to france. If taking france means killing twice as many axis troops, that has its obvious advantages as well. Or it’s possible that retaking italy weakens france enough that you can take it the next round, etc.
On the other hand, if it’s a one-time shot that takes allied boats out of position for a turn, then there are significant opportunity costs that counter the benefit of collecting italian income and keeping them from producing their units for a turn (especially if you’ve kicked them out of africa and they’re only making ~10) and you might be better off ‘settling’ for the 10 ipcs from the French NOs. Plus landing in france from sz7 means you can directly threaten germany, the next turn, etc.
Wodan,
you’ve only been posting on the forum since Feb. 4, 2009 and you have 170+ posts and you are worried about excessive typing?The Play by Post games involve a lot more typing, and under a time constraint. I honestly shouldn’t be typing much at all, but its the least straining activity I can do that I actually enjoy.
I think there’s an AA50 version of TripleA out now. Considerably less typing involved… Problem solved!
I can see the argument of the tech being extremely powerful in the hands of japan or the US, particularly because of the 1 ipc territories, but this seems to be mitigated by the fact that (in my admittedly small sample set of AA50 experience) I have yet to see either roll on chart 1. I think a better solution would have been to say that the improvement from IFP has a max of 2 units, but can not be greater than 50% of the base production capacity of the territory. I.e. = 1 ipc territory = no additional units; 2 and 3 ipc territories = +1 unit; 4 ipc and up territories = +2 units, but I obviously haven’t tested this type of rule compared to the new one.
The most likely recipient of this tech are the 3 continental European powers (really 2 since it seems italy rarely can afford tech) as they are more likely to roll on chart 1, although there are cases where UK might roll on that chart as well. But it basically means in most games the increased production will only helps in the capitals, poland and caucasus, which now seems to help the axis (specifically germany) more than anyone. It gives Russia some breathing room, but it is still a potentially killer tech for Germany.
Oh well, rules is rules and I’m sure we’ll all adapt.
Interesting. I have a hard time seeing how IFP was so broken that you felt the need to weaken it, but Heavy Bombers are still unscathed and devastating, increasing the strongest attack on the board by 100%. They really are meant to represent the A-bomb, aren’t they?