Supreme map for 1941

[Imperious Leader]

damm it .

save the file to desktop and open it from there. Stop trying to view the file from the site, that will never work

[Albert Ross]

Got it.  The 30mb file is too big for Foxit reader to handle - that was the problem :-P

[BananeDC]

@dedo:

1500mm? Hm, there is hardly a difference in comparison to the 1625mm x 863mm size. What do you think of roundabout 1200mm x 600mm? This is far more than the OOB size (830mm x 450mm), provides a lot of space for the (few…) units and would fit a normal table size (width/depth 60 cm).

I understand, i never played 1941 yet, because i always want a larger map (hate to use the plastic chips, i bought two copies of 1942 V1 which is cheap to have more tanks an infantry)
But maybe you’re right, perhaps 1941 uses a lot less minis so the 600 ou 700 size could be a good idea. I just hope i will have enough room on the map not to use the plastic grey/green/red chips.
Just tell me what you think about it please.  :wink:

[dedo]

If the focus is to play without chips, then any map will be too small given a stack in England. Any other territory should work with the utmost probability but I must admit, I never played the supersized maps for 1941. After all, you’ve got less units, less seazones and less territories in comparison to 1942 but the same map size. This means, that any seazone or territory is much bigger on average than in 1942. Your special concern, not to play with chips, may thwart the idea to use a smaller map.

[BananeDC]

Ok Dedo, i spent some time checking the 1941 and 1942 2ed maps. I will reply in the right section for 1942 2ed.
So, what i noticed concerning the 1941 map :

• The most schocking is the german insigna : there is some red missing up and down which gives them a weird/unifinished look. (and under the title of the game too)
• East Mexico, not East Mexiko, and Mexico, not Mexiko
• “Panama Canal” and “Suez Canal” are missing
• The starting IPC for the US is 17 and 15 on the original map (there may be an errata, i di not check)
• The original map says Washington D.C. instead of Washington
• There is a missing slash between Normay and Finland.
• speaking about the slashes (ex : Span/portugal), i thonk they are too thin.
• The drawing on Sea zone 43 & 44 has a problem of transparency if you look closely (the other drawings do not have this problem)
• Sea zone 39 : this is written Wake instead of Wake Island
• The japanese insigna for Okinawa soudn’t be on sea zone 45 but in sea zone 38 (that can lead to a confusion)
• On the mobiization zone, “UNIT STATS” is missing if compared with the original. Stas are ok, even not given in the same order (i personnally prefer yours)
• I hope there will be a double border version on this one, i’m not a fan of triple borders  :wink:

Hope that helps

Phil

I won’t have accesss to the internet until friday.

[dedo]

Thank you very much for your time spent on the maps! In the course of this evening I have a date, so I can’t work long on the map.

• The most schocking is the german insigna : there is some red missing up and down which gives them a weird/unifinished look. (and under the title of the game too)

When I take a look at the pdf at 100% or 200% I can’t see any difference, the symbols are all the same. Can you make a snapshot? I assume, that some of your (wide?) screen solutions aren’t matching.

East Mexico, not East Mexiko, and Mexico, not Mexiko

Fixed, my fault, german spelling….

“Panama Canal” and “Suez Canal” are missing

Fixed. At first I resigned these due to space on the map.

The starting IPC for the US is 17 and 15 on the original map (there may be an errata, i di not check)

Mistake in OOB, already fixed by author. Correct IPC count is 17.

The original map says Washington D.C. instead of Washington

Fixed, …eagle eyes.

There is a missing slash between Normay and Finland.

Looks awful, voluntarily omitted.

speaking about the slashes (ex : Span/portugal), i thonk they are too thin

Fixed.

The drawing on Sea zone 43 & 44 has a problem of transparency if you look closely (the other drawings do not have this problem

Hmm, depends on the background of the graphic, has to be whited out more…needs some tries, I assume.

Sea zone 39 : this is written Wake instead of Wake Island

Fixed.

The japanese insigna for Okinawa shouldn’t be on sea zone 45 but in sea zone 38 (that can lead to a confusion)

Fixed.

On the mobiization zone, “UNIT STATS” is missing if compared with the original. Stats are ok, even not given in the same order (i personnally prefer yours)

The mob zone is completely designed by myself as the IPC chart is. Due to asthetic reasons I omitted “unit stats”.

I hope there will be a double border version on this one, i’m not a fan of triple borders

There is going to be a double border version, at least as a reinforcement for your engagement.

I will upload new maps as soon as there is a clarification of the “german-insignia-thing”.

[BananeDC]

Thanks to you. It only took me one or two hours to check all the things, nothing compared to your work.  :wink:
Can’t wait for thr final version !
For the german insigna, i will upload a snapshot. I won’t be out without internet like the last three weeks, so i will be able to reply faster  :-)

[dedo]

Map 1941, double border, 1129x600mm.

• seazone and territory border topology checked again
• background graphic adapted
• all other mentioned items corrected/improved

Hopefully final version:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/c39g73nzk5n696h/1941-double_border_1129x600mm.pdf

[dedo]

Map 1941, double border, 1317x700mm.

• seazone and territory border topology checked again
• background graphic adapted
• all other mentioned items corrected/improved

Hopefully final version:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/14d6vrhf6ixp0hj/1941-double_border_1317x700mm.pdf

[dedo]

Map 1941, double border, 1625x863mm

• seazone and territory border topology checked again
• background graphic adapted
• all other mentioned items corrected/improved

Hopefully final version:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/u9hug2kk9uy30mh/1941-double_border_1625x863mm.pdf

[dedo]

Map 1941, triple border, 1625x863mm

• seazone and territory border topology checked again
• background graphic adapted
• all other mentioned items corrected/improved

Hopefully final version:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2c6fygval66hul0/1941-triple_border_1625x863mm.pdf

[dedo]

Map 1941, triple border, 1317x700mm

• seazone and territory border topology checked again
• background graphic adapted
• all other mentioned items corrected/improved

Hopefully final version:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/2jq6mcjacvtch0h/1941-triple_border_1317x700mm.pdf

[dedo]

Map 1941, triple border, 1129x600mm

• seazone and territory border topology checked again
• background graphic adapted
• all other mentioned items corrected/improved

Hopefully final version:
http://www.mediafire.com/view/ue900080s5x1xa8/1941-triple_border_1129x_600mm.pdf

[BananeDC]

Fantastic job Dedo, a thousand thanks. I wish there would be more people to check the versions though…

[dedo]

You are welcome, Sir, I’m most grateful for your help on the maps!
With the utmost probability there are no more errors. Everything is checked several times.

[BananeDC]

I will certainly have the 1317 x 700 mm printed, it is perfect.
Will upload some photos of the thing on my table asap.  :-)

[BananeDC]

Done, here are the photos :

Printed on 450gr anti-fire stuff

To be honest, i’m happy but just a bit disapointed cos it’s not completely clean, it’s a little blurry, i don’t know if it’s because the initial format is 600 ?

Thanks again Dedo !!!  :-)

[dedo]

Hm, the map you printed looks indeed a little bit grainy and streaky (…whereas I’m unable to determine to what extend this is due to the quality of the photo…). To check the PDF-file, I printed it out with a laser printer on paper. My print out is perfect, even better than the PC-view of the PDF-file what is not astonishing to me: the map PDF-File itself has got a resolution of 2400 dpi, thats quite a lot and more than enough for a very detailled print out. I assume, the print shop is the problem here. Sometimes they are not able to print in such a high resolution, a second problem may be the material of the printing surface, they used. What can be done? You should print out a proof copy on paper for yourself (not the whole file but one page of a “poster”, that is, a part of the map, where all details of the map style can be seen). Then you should ask your prefered copy shop to make a small proof copy before printing the whole map (optimally, they print the same page/part of the poster). Compare und judge whether the print out of the copy shop fits your requirements or not.

By the way, the initial format of the map isn’t 600(mm?), but 1620mmx860mm and, eventually, the map was reduced to smaller sizes.
A reducement of size would never lead to a decrement of quality of the graphics, its even vice versa, mostly you improve the quality.
Only enlargements of sizes could be critical. For instance, if you try to enlarge a bitmap, the quality of the bitmap wil be decreased: the same information of the graphic (number of pixels) is now shared in a larger area, that is, “stairways” result and make the bitmap clumsy. This happens only to raster graphics/bitmaps but not to vector graphics. All elements of the map (lines, curves, captions) with the exception of the map istelf ARE vector graphics.

In other words, the reduction from full size to the smaller sizes is irrelevant to the quality due to the principle of vectorizing, that is, proportionaltity and quality of the graphics remain.

[dedo]

it’s a little blurry, i don’t know if it’s because the initial format is 600

Did I get this right, or in other words, could it be, that you took the smaller size of the map (600mm x…), gave it to the copy shop and ordered a bigger one (700mm x…) for a print out?

[BananeDC]

It isn’t the photo, but i think the printing society did a bad work on it i think. I will be able to compare with the 1942 map as i changed the printing society. I will receive the map on wednesday, will upload some photos to compare.