From: seurer@rchland.vnet.ibm.com (Bill Seurer)
Subject: Re: SPI's WWII
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 01:49:52 GMT
Reply-To: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com
Disclaimer: This posting represents the poster's views, not necessarily those of IBM
Organization: IBM Rochester

In article <1992Jul29.163303.1@cubldr.colorado.edu>, gregory_b@cubldr.colorado.edu (Brian Gregory) writes:
|> After reading the rules for SPI's WWII:ETO, and playing some simple 
|> scenarios, I've a couple of systemic questions for those who've played 
|> SPI's WWII:PTO.  I'm considering buying PTO, as an additional strat-level 
|> game of the Pacific Theater.  I've WiF, and consider VG's Pacific War as 
|> the only competition for PTO at this level after reading many postings here
|> on the topic, but additional titles/ideas will be graciously accepted on this 
|> point .

If you still have the SPI version of ETO and really like the game, get the TSR
updated version.  It has quite a few improvements.

|> 1.)  Is there a provision for damage of naval air units when a CV is damaged
|> or destroyed?  ETO has no provision, which is ridiculous.  
|> 	Replacing lost pilots was a major problem for the Japanese in WWII.

If the planes are on the CV they are lost.  If they are flying a mission (which
they probably will be 'cept for sub attacks) they can rebase to the nearest air
base (or empty CV) IF they can fly that far.  I think this is the same as ETO
unless I am getting the two confused.

As for the Japanese, there are special rules for air losses for them.  If they 
lose their current highest quality planes (3 early on, 4 later) they do NOT go
into the force pool but instead are set aside until the next winter seasonal
turn.  They are then placed into the force pool.

|> 2.)  Is there a difference in the air/naval die modifier for different types
|> of aircraft?  
|> 	As previously noted, heavy bombers (4 engine) historically
|> 	did almost no damage to ships in the Pacific, whereas many 
|> 	twin-engine types were very effective.  Also, Until Aug. '42 US 
|> 	naval aircraft were technically inferior to the Japanese - as 
|> 	were their torpedoes (historical results marginally reflect this).

There is this in ETO too.  I guess you really have the SPI original.  Naval
air gets its strength (or 4, whichever is less) attacks at +3 on the die
rolls.  Non-naval air gets a similar number of attacks EXCEPT for underlined
strengths which get half (or 4) and all non-naval air attacks at +2.  If you
look at the silhouettes I think the underlined ones are the high level (mostly
4-engine) bombers.  In
addition, for ETO there is a rule that non-naval air does not automatically
intercept naval units but must roll the distance they flew or more on one
die (with modifiers?  I forget) to find the units.  So they will always
find them in the hex they are based or one away and not so well further off.

|> 3.)  How is strategic warfare handled:  Can the US interdict Japanese supply
|> convoys from the East Indies?  Could the US bomb Japan if Chinese forces do
|> exceptionally well?  Could the Japanese interdict convoys from Australia/
|> New Zealand/New Caledonia with ships or subs?  

The US can interdict the Japanese supply by having subs conduct strategic
warfare in the sea areas off Japan.  There are a couple of options for this
but I don't remember exactly.  Non-economic supplies (i.e., those carried
in transports) can be intercepted as normal.

I don't think the US can bomb China.

If by the Japanese intercepting convoys you mean normal ship groups, yes.
Otherwise the US loses some economic points if the northern Australian
ports are captured by the Japanese.

|> 4.)  Other Strategic options:  Can the Japanese invade the US mainland?  If 
|> not, what are the provisions for US surrender?   Does the game play well
|> when integrated with ETO?  [British aid played a crucial role in the Pacific
|> campaign]   How is the vastness of the Pacific portrayed (certainly you 
|> don't move all ships as openly as in ETO)?  Can ports be built?

The US can't be invaded (except for the Panama canal, Alaska, and island
possestions).  The US won't ever surrender by the rules though it would
probably be obvious by the end of '43 if he was doing badly enough that
he will never win.  The Japanese win by controlling
certain areas at scenario end and the US wins by either capturing all the
Japanese cities (unlikely) or by reducing Japanese economic income to negative
levels (quite likely).  The Japanese start the game with pretty much their
entire fleet (a few capital ships show up in '42 yet) while the US has
gadzillions of ships available to build.  The Japanese player can only win
by being really aggressive throughout.  Once the US gains the upper edge
they will never lose it because of their tremendous production capability.

I've never played the combined game as the time requirements are huge.
I talked to the designer and he said they've had lots of fun combined
games ('course they're payed to play them).  British aid does play a
tremendous role.  Early on without their fleet's help (and even the few
Dutch and Australian ships) the Japanese would breeze to an easy victory
before the US had a chance to gear up.

You can have up to 12 fleets in PTO one of which can be a decoy.  Of course
since the enemy can't look at your fleets without having air units nearby
(same as in ETO) you can create pseudo-decoys by just putting a few small
ships in a fleet.

You can build air fields and supply bases.  Air fields act as small ports
(5 unit capacity) and supply bases as normal large ports (20 units).

|> All of these aspects (except for the last two of 4.) are handled, if 
|> abstractly, by WiF, and I'd be quite dissapointed by a game that messed 
|> up these "key" issues. 

What is messing them up?

As for comparing WiF, ETO/PTO, and 3rd Reich, they are all good games that
emphasize different things.  I haven't played WiF yet but I have enjoyed
both the other two.

-- 

- Bill Seurer     Language and Compiler Development      IBM Rochester, MN
  Internet: BillSeurer@vnet.ibm.com    America On-Line: BillSeurer@aol.com