From: "Crowley, Steve" Subject: PTO House Rules (long) Further to our discussions , I've managed to dig out a set of house rules we used to try to improve PTO. These helped but need more work. I've tried to explain the reasoning for the rule in following notes but I cannot remember all of it. [1] Japanese offensives cost 3 EPs until the capture of Borneo and Sumatra is complete. There is no penalty if they lose control of these areas. Note: think this is to slow down the build-up of Japanese forces which seemed far too quick in the early part of the game. [2] A task force may only have a maximum of 20 ships assigned to it. It may have a maximum of 6 CV/CVL units within this limit Note: completely arbitrary limit. Still trying to find a book which has some analysis of task force composition in terms of why they operated in the sizes they did. this is obviously trying to stop the one large stack of ships approach to the game. [3] A task force containing CV/CVL units may not end a naval movement within it's air range of another task force continuing CV/CVL units. Note: sounds strange this one but the idea was that if you needed to provide air cover for an amphib group - you provided a CV force to do it. It tried to badger the players along the route of one mission per task force rather than I'll put the USN here, invade with, shore bombard with it and fight any air battles I need to. This proved a limited success and but needs more work. [4] At the beginning of a turn, each port at which ships are based, is checked for operational readiness. On a roll of 1-4 any units moving from the port may be placed on standby status. If a 5-6 is rolled, no ships operating from the port may be placed on standby status and may not initiate combat unless attacked. Note: yuk - how not to write a rule ! Told you I sucked at this. Again the idea is to force players to spilt the fleet up into striking groups. Stick the whole IJN in Truk and you risk not being able to use it that turn. disperse and you should get at least a portion of your fleet for use. It was also meant to represent ships refitting back in Japan or US and not available for operations. [5] Dolittle raid. If the Hornet delivers the 1-9 bomber to a city in Japan, roll for a minimum strat bombing attack. Additionally, at the earliest opportunity, the Japanese must permanently base a level 2 or level 3 fighter in Japan Note: Pure chrome for the 1-9 unit supplied in the game. Idea taken from VGs excellent Pacific War. [6] For purposes of naval combat, ships which form line of battle must fire on like ships where possible. Ships which form line of battle are the BB, BC, CA types. Note: cannot remember why we included this. Protect the transports in a gun battle ? [7] A task force not containing CV type units may engage in shore bombardment. Roll on the bombing table as normal using the ships gunnery rating as bombing factors. All DD types count as 1 factor, all CL type count as 1 factor. Any ships used in bombardment cannot use their gunnery factors to ground support that turn. Note: these are only monthly turns hence the restriction on bombardment/ground support. My father-in-law was on HMS Belfast during the Normandy landings and they had to re-stock with ammo every 3-4 days so the rule does not seem harsh. The intent is to provide yet another mission for a task force i.e. bombardment [8] If the Allies do not have the initiative in a given month, use the following table to determine if their intelligence efforts are enough to give them the initiative anyway. 1942 Mar Apr May Jun Jul 1-3 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 1 1943 Jan 1 Feb to Dec 1-3 1944 Jan to Aug 1-3 Rest of the war 1-4 Note: due to the "cheap" price of offensives it is very difficult for the Allies to purchase more than the Japanese for large parts of the game and hence they cannot gain the initiative. This gives some way for the Allies to gain the initiative and introduces the code breaking advantages enjoyed by the Allies into the game. I wouldn't like to guess how long ago these rule were written. They look no more than a starting point to me. Coming out of them is the idea of a task force per mission which I suspect that, if we revisit the game, we would formalise a lot more and give mission markers to a force. Don't know if this is historically accurate but it would at least make the game playable. We had thought of developing the op readiness roll into a table with mods and introduce naval leaders into the game which could guarantee X amount of ships ready. Never developed the idea further. Best regards Steve Crowley