Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: lomyrin

I also agree on the readability of white print on grey as not being of enough contrast.

That goes for white print on a variety of pastel color backgrounds in other forms as well.

Lars

There was a bug in one of the earlier versions that caused the wrong color for the font to be used at times (white when it should have been black). That is what you saw for "a variety of pastel background colors". That has since been fixed.

A white font is only used for the US, CW, and Germany. All the other major powers use a black font. For the US and CW white is clearly the better choice. Here is what Germany would look like using a black font. The trouble arises because Germany's gray is between white and black, making the contrast less than ideal.

I also haven't decided about the use of 'transparent' for some text labels. In this screenshot you see the caption about the map against a solid gray color, the same as for the notation in the scrollable unit list on the left and for the unit name at the top. In all those cases, I have no choice. Using the textured background isn't really feasible.

There are two other labels which have transparent backgrounds: the Player's Note and Filter. I could make those a solid color background too, but I am not really happy about the rectangular box effect around the label that results. Having the text 'float' on the page is better to my eye. But then I am unhappy about the sharpness of the text against the mottled background. Sigh.

Given your comment about the white, do you prefer black for Germany's font color?

Yes, the black font for Germany is much clearer.
 
Lars

Given your comment about the white, do you prefer black for Germany's font color?

Very much so. Far more readable and less eyestrain then the white font.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
I also haven't decided about the use of 'transparent' for some text labels. In this screenshot you see the caption about the map against a solid gray color, the same as for the notation in the scrollable unit list on the left and for the unit name at the top. In all those cases, I have no choice. Using the textured background isn't really feasible.

I like the transparent background, but I was not annoyed by the solid background either.

There are two other labels which have transparent backgrounds: the Player's Note and Filter. I could make those a solid color background too, but I am not really happy about the rectangular box effect around the label that results. Having the text 'float' on the page is better to my eye. But then I am unhappy about the sharpness of the text against the mottled background. Sigh.

That sharpness is OK by me.

Given your comment about the white, do you prefer black for Germany's font color?

I did not comment, but hey, I like the black better [:D].

Hey, major error here.
The producer of the Ta152 is Focke-Wulf, not Focke-Wolf.
Please check the writeups to see if there are other Focke-Wolf, this does not exist at all, all should be replaced by Focke-Wulf.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hey, major error here.
The producer of the Ta152 is Focke-Wulf, not Focke-Wolf.
Please check the writeups to see if there are other Focke-Wolf, this does not exist at all, all should be replaced by Focke-Wulf.

I just looked, there are a lot wrong Focke-Wolf in the writeups.
Be careful, there are also wolfpacks, so do not blindly replace wolf by wulf.

You'd be better advised to replace :

- Focke-Wolf by Focke-Wulf.
- Focke Wolf by Focke-Wulf.

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hey, major error here.
The producer of the Ta152 is Focke-Wulf, not Focke-Wolf.
Please check the writeups to see if there are other Focke-Wolf, this does not exist at all, all should be replaced by Focke-Wulf.

Also, please remove the dash between Ta and 152 in the text.

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Froonp
Hey, major error here.
The producer of the Ta152 is Focke-Wulf, not Focke-Wolf.
Please check the writeups to see if there are other Focke-Wolf, this does not exist at all, all should be replaced by Focke-Wulf.

Also, please remove the dash between Ta and 152 in the text.

Andy is working on the air unit writeups. I assume he will read this. The first thing he did was to sort the 1300+ writeups by numeric order so he could identify which writeups were missing (about 30). He is working his way through the file for spelling and other typos.

Are the weather maps accurate? The Andes seem to be missing in Peru (to a lesser degree in Ecuador and Colombia) (i.e. no colder weather in the corresponding area). The cooler weather in the plateau of North Rhodesia (basically all of should be "South temperate" due to the altitude of the plateau it lies on), SW Tanganyika and along the Rift valley (through Kenya) to the Ethiopian highlands is also missing. The "artic" weather in Asia stretches down to Sakhalin, Northern Korea and, arguably, northern Hokkaido.

I guess this could be game play related though.

ORIGINAL: SemperAugustus

Are the weather maps accurate? The Andes seem to be missing in Peru (to a lesser degree in Ecuador and Colombia) (i.e. no colder weather in the corresponding area). The cooler weather in the plateau of North Rhodesia (basically all of should be "South temperate" due to the altitude of the plateau it lies on), SW Tanganyika and along the Rift valley (through Kenya) to the Ethiopian highlands is also missing. The "artic" weather in Asia stretches down to Sakhalin, Northern Korea and, arguably, northern Hokkaido.

I guess this could be game play related though.

What I know is that I have no certitudes as to the Weather Zones, and they are 100% like in WiF FE.

Also, I'm not sure that the South Temperate weather zone is colder than the South Monsoon weather zone, I speak in WiF terms. The weather types in WiF are more related to precipitations (rain, snow, blizzard, storms) than temperature.

So I would not say that something is missing. The Andes are here, as mountains in the South Temperate Weather Zone in Chile and mountains in the South Monsoon weather zone in Peru.

If it is the same as WiF then better it alone.

But you do get frost (around 0 degrees) in the Ethiopian highlands and in Zambia (i.e. North Rhodesia).

Here is a revised page 2. I am late for a 5 hour chorus rehearsal for our upcoming spring show. I'll be back late this afternoon.

A couple more new pages.

Second and last in the series.

Comments?[&:] Did I screw anything up this time?[;)]

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

A couple more new pages.

"Rain reduces land attack odds by 1 (6:1 becomes 5:1); Snow by 2 and Blizzard by 3."

This is only true if you play with 1d10. Do you explain the difference with 2d10 in the options tutorial?

ORIGINAL: Stabilo

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

A couple more new pages.

"Rain reduces land attack odds by 1 (6:1 becomes 5:1); Snow by 2 and Blizzard by 3."

This is only true if you play with 1d10. Do you explain the difference with 2d10 in the options tutorial?

This is true for both 1D10 and 2D10 land combat results tables.

Or is your comment about my choice of 6:1 to 5:1 where there is no 6:1 on the 1D10 CRT Assault table?

Would saying 5:1 goes to 4:1 fix the problem?

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
A couple more new pages.

In this one you say "All the units are in supply because the cities in their home countries are primary supply sources."
This is true for all the Polish units, but not for all the Germans ones. The German VI INF Corps for example near the Polish coridor is only in supply from Von Bock, as there are no German cities near enough to provide supply in northeast Germany. The VI INF Corps is 4 hexes from Stettin and Breslau.

Also, the German stack in SW East Prussia, under the Bf 109E-3 next to Rundstedt, is only in supply from Rundstedt too, as the absence of German land units in the hex SE of Konigsberg (the Ju 87B here is alone) forbids them to trace through it, so they happen to be 4 hexes from Konigsberg.

This is said to stress the fact that units are not always in supply inside their home country, especially in bad weather, and this idea of easy supply at home should not be given to players. It is easier, but you should be carefull too.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets
A couple more new pages.

Also, you say that the Panzerarmee in the flyout can only traverse 3 Blizzard hexes. I would specify 3 clear terrain Blizzard hexes.

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

Second and last in the series.

Comments?[&:] Did I screw anything up this time?[;)]

No, everything looks fine, and I think this is a good reading and pretty much instructive.
ADG should printout your tutorials and include them in the boardgame [:D].

just noticed the 'Storm' overlay at sea - Nice!

the hex fly-out looks good too, first one I've seen I think

ORIGINAL: Shannon V. OKeets

ORIGINAL: Stabilo


"Rain reduces land attack odds by 1 (6:1 becomes 5:1); Snow by 2 and Blizzard by 3."

This is only true if you play with 1d10. Do you explain the difference with 2d10 in the options tutorial?

This is true for both 1D10 and 2D10 land combat results tables.

Or is your comment about my choice of 6:1 to 5:1 where there is no 6:1 on the 1D10 CRT Assault table?

Would saying 5:1 goes to 4:1 fix the problem?

Well the effect is true in both cases but the rules work different: on the 1d10 it's really the odd that changes but on the 2d10 these modifications are not tied together. This becomes important when you have the effects of winterized units.

Do you explain the 2d10 optional rule in detail elsewhere?