Borneo airbase

was UK able to buy a battleship?  You dont mean the cruiser that they start with do you, or did I set up wrong and does UK have a battleship outside india?

@spectre_04:

was UK able to buy a battleship?  You dont mean the cruiser that they start with do you, or did I set up wrong and does UK have a battleship outside india?

According to the set-up chart on the tray, UK start with a Battleship in seazone 37 and a cruiser and a destroyer in seazone 39. Nobody know if this will be changed in the FAQ. They already put an Airbase and a Naval Base on Phillipines that was not there on the set-up chart, and they removed the factory in New Zealand and changed the factory in NSW from a major to a minor. So as far as the set-up is concerned, we will never know for sure. The best we can do is to read the FAQ every day. I printet out the FAQ the first day, but next day the FAQ was edited. Now I will print out the FAQ once a week, and stay updated.

@RogertheShrubber:

I just tried this out the other day and worked rather nicely.  If the Japan player does not attack on round 1, place an airbase on Borneo and station all fighters and tac fighter there.  Move battleship,cruiser, and destroyer off shore.  The Japanese player had to divert a substantial amount of resources to remove this tactical defense station.  Relieved China and helped soak some Jap units before the US could get rolling.

If I am Japan and you give me a free Airbase on Borneo, and also gather all your expansive units in one spot so I can kill them fast and cheap, then I will be very greatful, and might even stop smitn yo, man.

Yes Razor, you are right about that, we made a setup error.  I also couldn’t agree more with you about constantly reading and updating the FAQ.  These games are so complex that it takes a while and allot of playing to work out all the kinks.

@spectre_04:

Yes Razor, you are right about that, we made a setup error.  I also couldn’t agree more with you about constantly reading and updating the FAQ.  These games are so complex that it takes a while and allot of playing to work out all the kinks.

If you only employ a few chimps to play test, yes.

If, on the other hand, you invite a huge internet fan base to give the rules a good going over a month or so before publishing, then all these difficulties would be avoided and you wouldn’t get a reputation for making shoddy products.

Well I can’t say I disagree with you Flashman.
I don’t know if they rushed it or Wizards got sloppy or what.  I am sure that many of us on the Forum would wet our pants to get a hold of any new version of an AA game and play test it like a beta version before its officially released.  Knowing WOTC though I doubt they would ever do something like that, they wouldn’t want to give anything away for free or cheaply, they also wouldn’t want to create any special collector item by doing it, and I would guess they are probably overconfident in their own R&D playtesters (do they even have any for Axis and Allies?)

Perhaps they cleaned house when they acquired Avalon Hill, I have noticed some new names in the rulebooks lately.

They wouldn’t even need to send out full kits, just post the rules and an outline of the map.  For God’s sake there were even spelling errors on the box!  You don’t need to play the full game to notice that.

I was able to point out numerous errors in the Richard III rulebook without ever having been sent a test copy of the game, merely by carefully reading through the rules and referring to the printouts I’d seen of the map and pieces.

I don’t buy the plea that a few misprints and oversights are acceptable in A&A games, why shouldn’t they be as polished as any other professional product?

The fact that the Dutch East Indies roundel should be an inverted black-edged orange triangle matters to chaps like me.  To others, only vague historicity is needed, such as a compass and square to represent the USA.

But too few pieces and confused rules are more serious; would Monopoly ever be published with the need for an on-line errata sheet to play the game?

But complaints are hardly going to change things as long as people pre-order 50 copies without even seeing the finished product….

Just by way of contrast, here’s an invitation to contribute to the Iron Sky video game:

http://www.wreckamovie.com/ironskyoperationhighjump

Roger,

I am playing a study game just to get a feel for the rules and the lay of the land in this new version.  Just as in AA-Guadalcanal, you have to forget what you think you know and read the rules and play a few games to get things straight.

In this game I moved two infantry from Malaya to Borneo, moved the other tran to India and moved most of India forces to Burma after a strong Japanese opening against China (no Japanese losses).  Now the three UK warships are next to Malaya to block Japan hoping to buy time to get more infantry from India onto those four islands for the NO bonus.

I think your idea is interesting because Japan did bring the heat to China and they need some help quick.  Even with Szechwan having 10 infantry and the Flying Tigers, Japan could capture it next turn.  The Burma Road is already closed and Chinas income is down to 8 IPC.  I am looking at releiving China using the land route through Burma, but you may have a good solution too.  It does look a little expensive to me to buy an air base at this point and I am using the money to put boots on the ground.  Let us know how it turns out.

I think for Britain, getting boots on the ground is key. 4 infantry 1 artillery first turn should work whether Japan attacks or not. Britain starts with enough air power to use that for additional offense, and will probably have to use their starting ships to stall Japan, as building more ships seems like a waste.