last three games: 2 inf short, 2 inf short, and lastly cruisers colored incorrectly.
I bet its the same guy in all three events and he is a union worker and can’t be fired. He probably hates military games, has no clue about history and plays D & D et al.
Next game will have yet another gaff and as usual we will laugh about it. He will never be fired and that makes it worth buying the game to see only what he has screwed and gotten away with. :mrgreen:
You know as well as I do that the pieces are made in China and therein lies the problem. Don’t get me wrong, China does produce a few great quality products, for instance Lenovo ThinkPads are rock solid. But they also produce a lot of poor quality products too. Lead in the paint is tasty, mmmm.
yea that China thingy…
I like lead painted toys for babies to eat like any good mother would… but….
Avalon Hill must certainly have somebody who checks to make sure that the first print runs are of the correct molds and colors.
Remember when they had German Infantry colored green and American Infantry colored Grey?
Always it seems something is remiss. We cant blame Canada China for all of Avalon Hills incredulous mistakes.
It only proves that people who game only fantasy are being placed in charge of Historical games and they have no clue about History. They should only employ people who have a basic knowledge of military history dealing with games. Even the most basic guy would catch such a thing before they printed 100,000 sets. I guess the fantasy people are cheap labor or something?
Well I would certainly be interested in how Avalon Hill or any other game company puts a game to production.
You could say the same things about Matel and the lead in the paint. “Wasn’t there somebody there that checked the paint on the initial run of the product?” Probably, it doesn’t mean the
I have a friend that is working in China right now. He says that when you order t-shirts there, you have to weigh them because the company that sells them to you will throw in a few lower quality shirt to save some money.
On the other hand, I’m not making excuses I’m just playing the devil’s advocate.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20071105a
It looks like there is a new guy on the scene to tell us about the game.
So I posted the link before I read the article and at the bottom/end of the article :? :-o
RULES ERRATA
The rulebook states that players get 5 reinforcement points, plus 2 per island they control. This is incorrect due to an error in the rulebook. The correct reinforcement scheme is that each player gets 10 reinforcement, plus 4 per island they control. The game is playable either way, but Avalon Hill recommends playing the correct way (10 and 4 per). We are sorry for any inconvenience this causes.
:roll:
And again in the article:
The Game Components:
I am particularly proud of the game components in Guadalcanal. Since I have been working with Avalon Hill, I have been striving to make sure our games have better components. After all, if you are going to shell out some hard earned cash for your games, they should make you feel like you got your money’s worth when you open the box. I really feel like we achieved that goal with Guadalcanal with beautiful thick parts sheets, lots of plastic, a great pre-built battle box, and an awesome storage tray. I won’t lie – I had to fight the good fight to bring you all of this stuff, but luckily the team working on this game all felt strongly about trying to improve the quality of our game components. Guadalcanal is an awesome example of the potential we can unlock in our games. Go team!
[Nate Heiss, main developer for Avalon Hill]
I would outline:
“luckily the team working on this game all felt strongly about trying to improve the quality of our game components” !
Luckily!?!? I am wondering what may happen when their luck will end!
Which quality control methodology do rely on luck? … mmmm …
but luckily the team working on this game all felt strongly about trying to improve the quality of our game components.
But not strongly enough to proofread the rule book. :lol:
But not strongly enough to proofread the rule book.
LOL… Too busy playing Dreamblade to be bothered with their jobs.
I must be some kind of genius… :roll:
It turns out that this Nate Heiss fellow was the bloke who developed… drum roll… DREAMBLADE!!!
My intuition never fails me. I Knew without a doubt that he was a fantasy game freek.
totally figures…. yep told you so.
never hear of dream blade, but thats funny.
:| Well, at least he seems to have stood up for heavier card stock. He at least seems to have an idea of what is job is. And at least seems to have a cursory knowledge of some of the things we have been clamoring about.
But getting a very important part of the rulebook incorrect? :x
Errata before the game comes out? :? (Is there an emoticon for throwing your arms in the air in exasperation?)
Thick cardboard was most likely something in the back of Larry Harris Mind. I am sure he insisted these be thick and made it a point.
The other stuff is all fault of this Dreamblade bloke.
The latest news is that AH will be replacing the destroyer pieces for anybody who wants them.
ahh very good. I will order more copies then… :roll:
What about buyers outside the US…? Will they replace the units too…? :?
Djensen you said in preview 3 that you can unload transports and destroyers. I assume this is like the Tokyo Express rule. Does it only work for the Japanese?
Here you go. Part 3 and the last of the Guadalcanal Developer’s Notes by Nate Heiss is up:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20071114a
In the article it mentions this about the historical relevance of the battle and how they incorporated that into the game:
“Japan wanted the island chain as a place to launch air attacks on the US mainland. They also wanted to cut off the supply routes from Australia and the US. The US mostly wanted to stop Japan form achieving their goal, but establishing a foothold in the Solomons gave them a nice place to launch their Pacific operations closer to Asia.”
I have read before how the Japanese wanted to use the islands to separate Australia and the U.S. but, did Japan really want the islands to launch air strikes against the US mainland? Was that even feesable from Guadalcanal? That doesn’t make sense to me because isn’t Guadalcanal too far away to attack California isn’t it?
“Air units can work well both offensively and defensively, with their real advantage being that they can react to other movements and strike where you see opportunities. Their big downside is that they are pricy and don’t have the durability of the sea units.”
I disagree, only bombers are expensive-ish. Fighters are cheap, only 3 reinforcement points. When you’re sending fighters into a big battle, try to buy 1 or 2 to replace you inevitable casualties.
Here you go. Part 3 and the last of the Guadalcanal Developer’s Notes by Nate Heiss is up:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=ah/article/ah20071114a
In the article it mentions this about the historical relevance of the battle and how they incorporated that into the game:
“Japan wanted the island chain as a place to launch air attacks on the US mainland. They also wanted to cut off the supply routes from Australia and the US. The US mostly wanted to stop Japan form achieving their goal, but establishing a foothold in the Solomons gave them a nice place to launch their Pacific operations closer to Asia.”
I have read before how the Japanese wanted to use the islands to separate Australia and the U.S. but, did Japan really want the islands to launch air strikes against the US mainland? Was that even feesable from Guadalcanal? That doesn’t make sense to me because isn’t Guadalcanal too far away to attack California isn’t it?
not nessary ly america mainland but if they tried to get too close then they’d be attacked. ( maybe mess with american merchants hawaiia, navy and other pacific islands occupied by america)
