Game: Victory in the Pacific

Thread: Re: Solitaire play?

Tom Jensen — 2008-11-07T20:57:37+00:00

Believe it or not, it's been a quarter of a century since Alan Moon wrote his "perfect plan" for VITP! This was first printed in 1980 in the General Vol.17 No.4, the issue that launched Fortress Europa. I made these notes about his plan and use them as an opponent whenever I play VITP solitaire. I thought I'd pass them along. There must be a lot of players, like me, who can only find the time to play this excellent game once a year. So we never become "expert players"; we always struggle, and we always are defeated by Alan Moon's plan --even after a quarter of a century! In a nutshell, here it is:

TKO IN THREE

TURN ONE

Indonesia: 4 LBA

South Pacific: 1 LBA

Marshalls: 1 LBA

Aleutians: 107

Marianas: 1 BB 3 CL

Japanese Is.: 1BB 3 CL

Central Pac: weakest CV 4 BB 5 CL Marines take Midway

Pearl Harbor: Remaining units.

Return: 2 107s to Yokasuka,2 CLs to Midway, rest to Truk

TURN TWO

Patrollers

Hawaiian Is 1BB 3 CA

US Mandate: 1BB 3 CA

Coral Sea: 4 CL

North Pacific: 1 CL

Aleutians: 1 CL

Central Pac: 1 CL

Japanese Is: 107

Marianas: 107 Sasebo Marines

Indonesia: 3 LBA

South Pac: 2 LBA

Marshalls: 1 LBA

Raiders:

Split into 2 equal groups - attack 2 weakest areas of the three contended areas (Hawaiian, Mandate, Coral) NOTE: two reinforcing CVs can speed roll to the Hawaiian Islands --so consider this area STRONGLY!

Weakest CV to separate area in defense

Return 2 107s to Yokasuka, rest to Truk

TURN THREE

Patrollers

Japanese Is: 107

Marianas: 107

Indonesia: 3 LBA

South Pac: 1 LBA

Marshalls: 1 LBA

Central Pac: 1 LBA

Hawaiian Is: 2-4 CAs (with 1 BB?)

US Mandate: 2-4 CAs

Coral Sea: 2-4 CAs

2 Marines go to Coral Sea and/or South Pacific

If US at Dutch Harbor, then send large BB to Jap. Islands & 1 CL to Marianas

Again, split remainder into 2 raider groups - attack 2 areas

Return 107s to Yokasuka and the rest to Truk

TURNs FOUR AND FIVE

1 LBA each to Indonesia, South Pacific, Marshalls, Central Pacific; extras to Aleutians or Coral Sea or US Mandate

2 107s in Japanese Islands and Marianas as usual

Raiders: attack one area ONLY if victory assured and if extra air unit is there... with everything!

Marines garrison Midway and Guadalcanal

TURNs SIX TO EIGHT

2 LBA to Indonesia, 2 LBA to South Pacific, 1 LBA to Marshalls, 1 LBA to Central Pacific

Guard perimeter - guard Japanese islands, Indonesia, and Marianas at all costs.

Tally score and win game!!

After all these years, this is still the basic Japanese defense and the starting point for understanding the game. Each individual game will be slightly different as you tailor the Japanese strategy to deal with the countermoves of the US player. But, for me, this system still works. Also, if you're introducing a newbie to the hobby, these notes will give him a strategic outline as he struggles to learn the game mechanics.

But to really understand this system, you should hunt down the original article so that Alan can explain his "perfect plan" in his own words.

TKO also provides a basic opponent; a benchmark against which you can measure US strategies in an attempt to find your own "perfect plan".

Thread: Optional Rules for VITP

GLENN239 — 2008-10-23T17:41:01+00:00

These are a bunch of optional rules for VITP that can be used on their own or together.

(A) The British.

The Japanese in VITP player normally patrols Indonesia with LBA during the game, which in turn largely negates any effect on play the British fleet might have. Britania rules the benches. Some years ago Andy Gardner and I were tinkering to discover if there was any merit to an IJN “western” strategy based upon attacking the British on Turn 2. The answer to that experiment was a qualified “no”, but the exercise suggested an interesting way to open up the full VITP board to play:

Alterations:

Movement sequence. British ships patrol and raid prior to the Japanese.

Basing. British ships may base in Australia.

Removals. If the Bay of Bengal is controlled by the IJN, the Allied player may ignore all remaining British removals for the remainder of the game.

(Optional adjustment). Indonesia is uncontrolled on Turn 1. Japanese raiders at Yokosuka may move through to the Indian Ocean, South Pacific, and Bay of Bengal.

(B) Australia.

It was probably intended originally that Australia might be the objective of the Japanese offensive. However, the difficulty in conquering this base has been proven over the course of time to be far too difficult, so the Japanese player invariably selects Hawaii or Samoa instead. This optional rule aims to re-establish Australia as a viable objective:

(1) Australia starts the game as a single major (red) base.

(2) A player may convert Western Australia (red base) to friendly control if he controls Port Moresby while flagging the Indian Ocean for two consecutive turns. A player may convert Eastern Australia (another red base) to friendly control if he controls New Hebrides while flagging Coral Sea for two consecutive turns.

(3) The minor bases necessary for conversion of the corresponding red base may be captured during the first turn of sea control isolating the red base.

(4) Western Australia borders the Indian Ocean. Eastern Australia borders the Coral Sea. Australia again reverts to being a single major base the moment that one player has base control markers in both Eastern and Western Australia.

(C) Reinforcements

Before patrollers, either player may announce that some or all scheduled reinforcements for that turn are deferred. Delayed reinforcements are
placed in the Arrival Box for the following turn, where they again may enter play or be delayed. Non-bonus Japanese aircraft carriers that defer
arrival for one turn enter play with bonus airstrikes. If deferred, carriers Ryuho, Chitose, and Chiyoda also have their airstrike factor
increased to '2'.

(D) Land Based Air Amphibious Operations

(1) During the placement of LBA units, a player may assign one LBA to each available Marine or SNLF unit. When the amphibious unit moves, the
assigned LBA moves with it. While at sea, an LBA is treated as if it were an amphibious unit. It may be engaged in day or night combat, it is
destroyed when damage equals it armor factor, and may be disabled normally.

(2) When an amphibious unit converts an enemy base, an LBA unit at sea adjacent to that base may also land. (air units in other sea areas than the capturing marine may land during battle in their sea zones).

(3) Only one LBA may be landed per captured base.

(4) Upon landing, the LBA is immediately placed in any sea zone adjacent to the minor base. If battle has already been resolved there, then a second battle is fought if necessary. If the LBA is placed in the zone from which it landed, it enters the battle in that area during the next round. LBA may never land on a friendly base; only captured enemy bases qualify.

(E) F-boat

The F-boat enters play on Turn 3. It is deployed during the American patrolling phase. From Turn 2-6, the F-boat disables on a roll of '5' and hits on a roll of “6”. Commencing turn 7 the F-boat gains its attack bonus and is deployed after raiders.

(G) Altered Reinforcement Schedule

The Turn 9 reinforcements start the game on turn 1. The Japanese carriers (with bonus air strikes) are at Yokosuka Navy Yard. The U.S. Turn 9 group starts as Location Uncertain group “V”.

(H) Altered Map.

Some bases are rarely ever converted in VITP due to geography or redundancy. This alteration is very pro-Allied.

(1) Bases Maloelap and Okinawa are removed from play.

(2) Minor bases Formosa (Japanese control at start, borders Home Islands and Indonesia) and Wake Island (Allied control at start, borders Central Pacific Ocean and Marshall Islands) are added to the map.

(3) (Optional rule to balance impact of new bases) All three Japanese SNLF's are available at Yokosuka Navy Yard on Turn 1.

Thread: VITP 9 Turn Game

GLENN239 — 2008-10-23T17:00:54+00:00

VITP originally included a nine turn variant that is rarely (if ever) played on account of it being hopelessly unbalanced against the Japanese. This adjustment aims to give the IJN a decent late-game capability for those interested in putting Shinano through her paces.

The movement sequence is identical to the regular game from turns 1 to 6. Commencing turn 7, the sequence of movement is altered to reflect better efforts on the part of the IJN to conceal their plans and movements:

Steps:

1 – The Japanese player places patrollers in Allied and uncontrolled areas.
2 – The Allied player places all of his patrollers.
3 – The Japanese player places patrollers in Japanese controlled areas. (He may not place any patrollers in Allied or uncontrolled areas).
4 – LBA placement sequence (no alterations)
5 - Marine/SNLF placement (no alterations)
6 – The Japanese player places raiders in Allied and uncontrolled areas.
7 – The Allied player places all of his raiders
8 – The Japanese player places raiders in Japanese controlled areas. (He may not place any patrollers in Allied or uncontrolled areas).
9 – Submarine placement.

Thread: Re: What is the nature of the victory in this game?

Rindis — 2008-09-18T16:36:47+00:00

Any base can be taken if all surrounding sea areas are held by the enemy for two consecutive turns, green bases may also be invaded with amphibious units.

Pearl Harbor can be taken, but note that as the initial Pearl Harbor force is raiding, the Japanese would have to do it on turns 2 and 3. I've yet to see it happen (I have seen it tried, and it's a good way to keep the US forces out of the middle of the board for a couple turns).

If Pearl Harbor is taken, US reinforcements show up at Samoa instead. If both are taken, then yes, the US is shut out unless one or the other can be retaken. However, Samoa doesn't get the repair points of Pearl, and is further out of the way, so it is a weaker position.

Thread: Re: What is the nature of the victory in this game?

perfalbion — 2008-09-17T21:38:18+00:00

The game actually provides the Japanese player with avenues that a crushing defeat like Midway reversed can be exploited. If they get control of enough of the right turf, they'll prevent US reinforcements from showing up. But that's very hard to do without a dumb US player and good look on the IJN side.

If the Japanese didn't manage to knock out Pearl completely (and probably some other key bases), then the war probably was a foregone conclusion. Even Yamamoto recognized that before the attack on Pearl. It's much like the ETO once Russia was in the mix. If Germany couldn't get the USSR to collapse, then Germany was probably going to lose. The weight of men and material that either the USSR could bring against the Axis in Europe or the US could bring against the Japanese in the Pacific would eventually become telling.

It really is a great game that's enormously fun to play. If the IJN is as beaten as you expect in turn 8 or 9, then the US is going to eke out a victory. It might be small, but since they can score huge changes in points on those turns, it's going to happen.

Thread: Re: What is the nature of the victory in this game?

Theo27 — 2008-09-17T19:20:09+00:00

Thank you all for your responses. It does seem matching or exceeding the historical performance of the IJN is a reasonable standard for gauging a successful perofrmance by the IJN player.

I had visions of the IJN being destroyed in detail by turn 8 (or if used turn 9) and yet deemed the winner based on POC count. I thought this might seem a dubious "victory" if the final turn resulted in an open road to Tokyo with an overwhealming force bearing down. While the Allies agreed to a Germany first policy it seems to me that the US did face a time crunch in the Pacific which was securing a Japanese surrender before Soviet forces could overrun more of Asia and claim portions of the Japan itself, notably Hokaido. In this a time restriction seems reasonable and avoids the detail and rules needed to replicate either the historic Atomic bombings or Operation Downfall to end the war.

It is interesting to me that the game apperently presumes that even an IJN win at Midway or similar battle elsewhere with continued success is likely futile in the face of the eventual power of the USN as far as control of the Pacific is concerned in the end turn. It also seems appropriate if the measure of the game is control of key Pacific sea lanes and territories that the Battle of Leyte Gulf serves as an appropriate end point to measure historic performance with.

If I understand the starting conditions correctly, the game seems to allow the USN to avoid having their CVs destroyed on Japan's openning turn; the USN player may still need to be a very shrewd or possibly lucky player to match the USN victory pace of history given their remarkable performance at Midway?

This definitely looks worth exploring.

Thanks again.

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

grognard — 2008-09-17T17:51:24+00:00

VITP has strategy nuances that are not obvious. Off the top of my head:

1. Game is won on the victory point track. So in theory, the Japanese can lose the Home Islands and yet win the game if they have a big enough lead. I always look at the VP track at the start of each turn to determine what is my position, and what it takes to secure victory.

2. Patrolling ships/aircraft control sea areas and gain VP. Raiders only serve to break that control. If you are on the offensive and need to gain VP areas, you'd need to commit a large part of your force to patrolling to ensure you have something left after the battle to secure the area. If you are on the defensive, you can afford to keep many ships as raiders in reserve, to react to opponent moves. This allows you critical choice on the site of battle.

3. An aircraft is invincible if it cannot be affected by the ships in the area (base cannot be threatened by marines, and no enemy CV in the area)

4. Surface movement is restricted by enemy controlled sea areas. This is the premise of the perimeter defence. Enemy ships cannot get past a string of controlled areas, therefore, the rear areas can be controlled by as little as one CA. Only danger is if it gets hit by a sub.

Ah... this brings back fond memories. I think I will go dig up my old copy for a go. It works quite well as single player also. But trying to play chicken with yourself is a little difficult. :P

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

gittes — 2008-09-17T15:11:19+00:00

A lot of depth is added on repeated playthroughs. The perimeter defense is usually the soundest strategy on the part of the Japanese, but that requires them to try to limit their attrition in earlier turns which requires them to restrain their initial "kid in the candystore" philosophy. And watch out for the marines!

I didn't do that at all. I was still hoping to make n effective offensive on turn 5.

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

SkunkyBeer — 2008-09-17T14:34:57+00:00

gittes wrote:
I'd have thought the Japanese could have won by virtue of their mid game position by doing a perimeter defence/withdrawal rather than all-out fight.

I'll have to see about that instead of my all out fight strategy. Regardless it nearly worked.

A lot of depth is added on repeated playthroughs. The perimeter defense is usually the soundest strategy on the part of the Japanese, but that requires them to try to limit their attrition in earlier turns which requires them to restrain their initial "kid in the candystore" philosophy. And watch out for the marines!

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

gittes — 2008-09-17T14:25:20+00:00

I'd have thought the Japanese could have won by virtue of their mid game position by doing a perimeter defence/withdrawal rather than all-out fight.

I'll have to see about that instead of my all out fight strategy. Regardless it nearly worked.

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

grognard — 2008-09-17T10:47:35+00:00

This is one of my favourite games, and I still play it from time to time. The combat is abstracted, but I think this is more, not less, representative of the level of control a decision maker has at this scale.

I'd have thought the Japanese could have won by virtue of their mid game position by doing a perimeter defence/withdrawal rather than all-out fight.

Glad you had fun!

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

desertfox2004 — 2008-09-17T03:10:40+00:00

JackFlash wrote:
Eldard wrote:

Doesn't some publisher have this title on its P500 list or something?

Not any that I'm aware of!

While I don't see it on their "official" P500 list, I suspect L2 may have the rights and the intentions of eventually reprinting this game, as they did with "War at Sea". Note here on this link to their "WAS" page, how the game is described as "Victory at Sea Series Game 1", which would seem to imply there is an intention to have additional games in the series (although note as well that they do have on their P500 list, "Grand Fleet", a World War I version of "War at Sea" which they have developed themselves)...

http://www.l2designgroup.com/War%20at%20Sea.html

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

JackFlash — 2008-09-17T02:50:21+00:00

Eldard wrote:

Doesn't some publisher have this title on its P500 list or something?

Not any that I'm aware of!

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

Eldard — 2008-09-17T02:38:39+00:00

JackFlash wrote:
VITP is a classic like Afrika Korps! IMHO, it is better than War at Sea!

It's much better than War At Sea.

Victory in the Pacific has remained one of my favorite wargames for about 28 years. Despite its abstract combat resolution (or perhaps because of it), the game really captures the flavor of the naval war in the Pacific, posing similar challenges and options to the players as faced by their historical counterparts.

Doesn't some publisher have this title on its P500 list or something?

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

JackFlash — 2008-09-17T01:33:47+00:00

VITP is a classic like Afrika Korps! IMHO, it is better than War at Sea!

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

JackFlash — 2008-09-17T01:31:34+00:00

Paul, Spruance and Solomons!

Thread: Re: What is the nature of the victory in this game?

moonglum01 — 2008-09-17T01:21:43+00:00

There's a reason this is on a very short list of true 'classics'.

Thread: Re: What is the nature of the victory in this game?

Wilhammer — 2008-09-17T00:42:09+00:00

Indeed.

A fine example of a 'classic' with bad Victory conditions is Napoleon's Last Battles.

The French win by getting enough people past Waterloo, off the map, and having better than 60% of his strength left (and just about wiping out the Allies) to head to Brussels.

Totally frustrating for the Frog.

A better player game would be to at least take Waterloo and not get routed off the board!

Imagine a Bulge game where the Germans could only win by getting to Antwerp - ain't gonna happen.

ViTP has brilliant Victory Conditions and is an elegant design.

Basically, they need to do a little better than they did real war, and they win.

The Allies are up against time mostly, and the amount of time they have is based on how well the IJN player does in his early drives - all the gains are in the first 2 turns the holds are on turn 3 and 4, the rest is taking a beating while trying to slow down the allies until the end of turn 8.

A true gamer classic - and you might want to wait until L2 publishes the re-release, though I don't know how they can improve the game, just the components.

Thread: Re: What is the nature of the victory in this game?

perfalbion — 2008-09-16T23:17:50+00:00

I'll second much has already been said, and then ask a question.

Given the overwhelming number of ships and planes the US was able to pour into the war by 1944/45, would it be fair to have a victory condition that was based strictly on ending position? If so, then the game would be almost impossible for the IJN to win any game.

The victory conditions do a good job of rewarding good play throughout the game and balancing a very, very imbalanced position. The IJN race out to a lead (historical), tries to solidify it as best they can (historical), and the US has to balance slowly growing forces for much of the game to strike strategically (historical).

The victory conditions do work very well, and make it a fantastic game. Change them, and you'd need to either change the US reinforcement schedule or the IJN would have little motivation to take anything that they couldn't hold. That wouldn't capture the flavor of the war well and wouldn't result in a game that was anywhere near as interesting.

Thread: Re: Solitaire play?

gittes — 2008-09-16T22:58:33+00:00

I'd say this game is solitaire friendly because I had fun playing against myself to learn the rules.

Thread: Re: Solitaire play?

Fury — 2008-09-16T22:58:25+00:00

No, I do not think it's that fun for solitaire play other than a few learning turns or testing out some battle scenarios.

The reason is that the "fog of war" imparted by "raiders", aircraft units, and amphib units is lost when you know the opposite side's intentions.

PCS

edit: If you want to find internet opponents check here

http://www.gameaholics.com/vitp_tournament.htm

Thread: Re: What is the nature of the victory in this game?

GROGnads — 2008-09-16T21:51:27+00:00

In short, the very 'nature' is to exceed the historical outcome, of which could include "capturing" Australia, or winning at the "Battle of Midway", and even just generally being in any greater position than they had actually been within from it all.

Thread: Re: What is the nature of the victory in this game?

Rindis — 2008-09-16T21:28:02+00:00

In any reasonable simulation of the war in the Pacific, the USN will have the preponderance of military power. The (Japanese) designer of Fire in the Sky: The Great Pacific War 1941-1945 states as much more bluntly than I would (i.e., I think he's actually overstating the case a bit).

All things considered, air power rules the game. The late-war arrivals of US CVs outweigh the entire Japanese CV force. Add to that the greater numbers of Allied land-based airpower, and even if the IJN manages to sink all the USN carriers for minimal losses, they are still going to have problems by the end of the game.

The POC system is generally scaled off of how important certain areas were to each side (note that POCs are different for each side in each area). This is a pretty abstracted representation of shipping lanes, lines of communication and oil assets and the like. A Japanese 'win' means that they have at least partially done what Yamamoto had in mind originally, construct a defensive perimeter far enough out, and strong enough, that defeating it and getting to the home islands will be hard enough to force the western powers to the peace table. Whether such a thing would be possible with a Japanese win in VitP is up for a type of debate that the game is not conducive to helping, but bear in mind the increasing trepidation that Operation Olympic was already being viewed with.

At any rate, I consider this to be one of the best games ever made, and high on the list of AH and wargame classics.

Thread: Solitaire play?

5th_Para_Bde — 2008-09-16T20:43:12+00:00

Do you think this game be OK in Solitaire play?

Thread: What is the nature of the victory in this game?

Theo27 — 2008-09-16T19:11:30+00:00

I've been interested in the subject of this game for some time and only recently discovered this game and I'm weighing whether to buy a copy.

What I'm trying to determine is how well the victory conditions in the game reflect the actual control of the Pacific historically? I get the sense that the IJN can run up a significant POC point total early and technically "win" the game even while the USN ends the game dominating the Pacific and having militarily defeated the enemy usually considered winning the war. Is this accurate or does an IJN POC win represent winning the war in a way I haven't understood?

In short it seems odd to declare the IJN victorious if the USN has greater military power at the game's end even if the USN has amassed fewer POCs along the way. Can the IJN press its early advantage in such a way as to not allow the USN to develope overwhealming military power and prevail outright?

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

SkunkyBeer — 2008-09-16T18:54:59+00:00

gittes wrote:
Conclusion
A fun and furious game. Unlike War At Sea I think this is a balanced and entertaining game. I highly recommend this Avalon Hill classic.

War at Sea never did much for me either, but this one goes down like a glass of your favorite adult beverage. It may not be the most historically accurate game ever developed but it's "close enough" and the intuitive feel is just right.

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

billyboy — 2008-09-16T18:18:14+00:00

I never played this.It sounds like a pretty good time. Thanks.

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

Dorque — 2008-09-16T17:37:01+00:00

Haggar rules.

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

gittes — 2008-09-16T17:26:12+00:00

So... what was the PoC total like?

Glad you enjoyed it.

I can't exactly recall but I think the Allies won by a point or two.

Thread: Re: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

Rindis — 2008-09-16T17:21:53+00:00

So... what was the PoC total like?

Glad you enjoyed it.

Thread: My First Session - The Pacific Ocean is a Graveyard

gittes — 2008-09-16T16:47:17+00:00

This is a session report I wrote a month ago but I only just now had the time to post it. I had the honor of playing the Japanese.

Low Tide, Rising Sun
The attack on Pearl Harbor is not a stunning success, and only the battleship Pennsylvania and the army airforces are destroyed. Vice Admiral Nagumo, upset with this setback, decides to stay and make another go at it, but the Pearl Harbor fleet sorties and meets up with the carriers Saratoga, Hornet, and Yorktown. Soon a grand clash of aircraft erupts. The Saratoga is sunk by a submarine before it can launch airstrikes, and the Akagi and Kaga are lost to American aircraft, but Hornet and Yorktown are sunk as are all American battleships save the Arizona, now flagship of the Pacific Fleet. The American navy is in utter shambles...
In Indonesian waters the Japanese airforce strike out at a massed fleet of British, Australian, Dutch, and American warships. Repulse, Exeter, and the Dutch navy are lost, but the mighty battleship Prince of Wales survives and the Japanese take heavier than expected air losses. Prince of Wales escapes further destruction during an ensuing surface action that sees the rest of the Allied fleet destroyed although the battleship Hiei is severely damaged during an epic gunnery duel with Prince of Wales.
The Philippines are captured, while the American cruiser forces with carrier Lexington are deployed to Samoa.

Southern Strike
In the South Pacific the Japanese move to take Lae and Guadalcanal. The American response is unsuccessful, and both bases fall while two cruisers are lost.
The Indianapolis is lost to Japanese submarine near the Marshall Islands. Quint will hopefully live to tell the tale.
Singapore surrenders, and all of Japan's fleet carriers are redeployed to Truk to confront the Americans.

The Rising Sun at High Noon
The Pacific is buzzing with activity as both sides launch offensives. The carrier forces of sacred Nippon enter the Coral Sea, prompting a huge Allied response. A landing is attempted at Attu in frozen waters of the North Pacific. Since the Japanese have deployed there strength into the South Pacific the British make a go at the Japanese far east fleet, which is mostly cruisers.
The American fleet in the North Pacific loses a cruiser and Attu is occupied.
At the cost of a cruiser and many aircraft, the British attack is thrown back, with the irreplaceable carriers Indomitable and Illustrious being lost along with a cruiser.
In the Coral Sea an epic battle develops over a series of days. Both sides play a deadly game of hide and seek. The Japanese lose of the Soryu and two cruisers, while America loses Enterprise, Lexington, and three cruisers along with many land based aircraft. The Japanese, fearful of losing the damaged carrier Hiryu, pull back. Special battle honors are given to the New Zealand airforce for sinking the Soryu in the Allies first real victory against Japan.
The older and slower Japanese battleships are sent to Singapore to stop any British attempts to strike into the Southwest Pacific, while American battleships are sent to bolster the weakened South Pacific fleet.

Stalling
British carriers Hermes and Formidable are recalled to the European theater.
In the Coral Sea another battle develops, only this time it is a night action between battleships. The carrier Wasp, having been hurried over from Pearl Harbor, is lost with the battleship Colorado and a cruiser, but most of the Japanese fleet is forced to disengage and two cruisers are lost. Again at heavy cost, the Allied communications to Australia are maintained.
A Japanese attempt to secure Dutch Harbor in the North Pacific ends in the loss of the small carrier Hosho

Stalmate?
The Japanese are now on the defensive, while on Guadalcanal fierce fighting develops. The British carrier Victorious is sunk by a submarine off Hawaiian waters.

The Allies Victorious!
The British withdraw the battleship Ramillies to European waters.
The Allies make a grand offensive, throwing their fleets into the South Pacific, Marshall Islands, and Singapore.
Off Singapore the battle is indecisive, and although neither side loses a ship the British come out on top.
In the Solomans Japanese airforces intercept a massive battleship column and manage to sink the South Dakota and Idaho, while driving off the Arizona before battle is finally joined in another clash of dreadnoughts. In confused fighting the Japanese lose the battleships Mutsu, Hiei, and Kongo but sink the Indiana and three cruisers. Still, the Americans take control of the South Pacific.
The Marshalls now see the biggest carrier duel in history. The Japanese divide into three groups, each supported by cruisers while the Americans form one big strike group under Vice Admral Ray Spurance, who is in luck, as he sights the carriers Junyo and Hiyo, while he remains undetected. Both carriers are sunk and her escorts are sent flying back to Truk. The American fleet remains undetected, and the second strike is a massacre: carriers Shokaku and Hiryu with three cruisers are lost. The only revenge the Japanese gain is when a submarine damages the Essex. Kwajalein is then taken.

Showdown in the Marianas
Despite protests from the Pacific high command, the British battleships are withdrawn from the Indian Ocean.
The next phase of the Allied counterattack is to retake the Indonesian Islands and storm the Marianas.
In the Indonesian seas the Americans send a host of light carriers to bolster the small British fleet. The operation is a failure, but not a disaster.
Off the Marianas Vice Admiral Halsey is leading the charge and an even bigger carrier battle develops. The Japanese have two carrier groups: a small fast one and a slower but larger force, with a battleship group thrown in. The Americans manage to spot the small fleet, and sink the carrier Zuikaku and a cruiser. The Japanese air counterattack is little better: only the small carrier Cabot is sunk, convincing Vice Admiral Ozawa, head of the operation, to seek a surface fight. The decision is a wise one: American carriers Bunker Hill, Lexington II, and Battan are lost, with only the light carriers Zuiho and Chitose to show for it. Halsey now wants a battleship fight, but Ozawa backs off and manages to sink Hornet II with his remaining planes. Halsey retreats in disgrace, while Ozawa's defense will be studied in naval colleges around the world...
Lae, Guadalcanal, and Maloelap surrender to the Americans.

Another Round in the Marianas and Indonesia
This time the American fleet, under Spurance, drives out the Japanese from the Marianas while sinking the light carriers Shoho and Chiyoda in a confused surface action.
In Indonesian waters Japanese aircraft manage to sink the carrier Belleau Wood and the battleship Mississippi, forcing the Americans to fall back.

Final Fight (No Haggar Unfortunately)
The climatic struggle will come in Japanese home waters. All major warships have been recalled to Nippon to deal with the coming, final battle. Each side, knowing that this will be the final fight, will battle until the last...
The Japanese have a battleship group, a small carrier force,and a large carrier force, while the Americans have two carrier groups and a battleship group. The first phase is a carrier fight. The Americans lose the carriers Ticonderoga and Wasp II, while Japanese carriers Taiho, Unryu, and Amagi are sent to the bottom along with two cruisers. The Japanese then try to close in for a surface attack, but the carrier fight continues with the Japanese sinking the North Carolina, but losing the carriers Shinano and Ryujo, survivor of countless battles. Two cruisers were also lost. Even as the Japanese mange to close in, they are hit with another wave of planes, which this time claim the battleships Yamato, Haruna, Fuso, and Yamashiro although Japanese planes do damage several enemy battleships. The titanic struggle leaves almost the entire Japanese surface force at the bottom while Yorktown II, with battleships Alaska, Iowa and a cruiser are lost by the Americans. The Japanese have lost the last great naval battle and the war...
And all that remains of the Imperial Japanese Navy? The carrier Katsuragi, the lucky carrier Ryuho, the mighty battleship Musashi, and the cruisers Maya, Atago, and Chokai.

Conclusion
A fun and furious game. Unlike War At Sea I think this is a balanced and entertaining game. I highly recommend this Avalon Hill classic.

Thread: Re: VITP: An Ageless Beauty

Blackberry — 2008-08-11T04:36:34+00:00

Thanks for the review. I love this game as well, but I wouldn't say that "luck is not a factor". A really good day at Pearl Harbor to start the game can very much affect the later game and Japan's chances, while an awful day for Japan will almost take them out of the game right away. Usually the results are in the middle, but I've seen both extremes.

Thread: Re: VITP: An Ageless Beauty

2ndPlace — 2008-08-11T03:20:07+00:00

I will have to dig my old copy out and play this game again. I did enjoy it many years ago and never seemed to find the time to play it again. Now I will. Nice review.

Thread: Re: Is This a Complete Game?

gittes — 2008-07-23T20:25:47+00:00

Check the rules and board, too! I bought a copy on eBay and it only had half the board. Eventually I got another copy.

I made sure and it is complete.

Thread: Re: Is This a Complete Game?

rsjrev — 2008-07-23T20:10:30+00:00

Check the rules and board, too! I bought a copy on eBay and it only had half the board. Eventually I got another copy.

Thread: Re: Is This a Complete Game?

elbmc1969 — 2008-07-23T20:01:04+00:00

Having had my butt handed to me consistently by Alan Applebaum, one of the best players in the country, I can testify that VitP is a lot more about skill than about luck!

Thread: Re: Is This a Complete Game?

cratex — 2008-07-23T19:44:59+00:00

Agreed. While I did not care for War at Sea, I recall playing VitP and enjoying it several times when I was a kid. The ship to ship combat system is still kind of strange, but it's a good intro level game and fun to play.

Thread: Re: Is This a Complete Game?

richfam — 2008-07-23T17:22:54+00:00

SimBase Scans (http://www.isimulacrum.com/Scans.php) has a countersheet scan that shows all of the counters, if you want to take the time to count them all:

http://www.thewargamer.com/Scans/VictoryInThePacific.jpg

Paul O'Sullivan wrote:
I don't have a problem with WaS's mechanics, but the situation.
I read your review of WAS, and I think you'll find VITP much more to your liking. The games are so vastly different from one another that it is hard to believe that they actually share the same basic system. VITP, despite its abstract nature, does a surprisingly good job of presenting the strategic realities of the war in the Pacific.

Thread: Re: Is This a Complete Game?

gittes — 2008-07-23T16:56:32+00:00

Thanks. I think the copy seems fine so I'm going to go for it.

Like I I said, I don't have a problem with WaS's mechanics, but the situation.

Thread: Re: Is This a Complete Game?

Rindis — 2008-07-23T16:29:25+00:00

Don't have a copy to compare to, but many of those are correct, and the rest are in the right order of magnitude. 2 submarines - check (one US and one Japanese). 3 Aussie/Dutch ships - check. 13 control markers - check (I remember there's 13 sea areas, check the number of red [major] and green [minor] bases on the board to check the first two numbers). Not sure what a defense factor counter is. 2 POC - check (a '1's and a '10's marker).

Good luck! Glad to see you trying this out despite your experience with WaS!

Thread: Is This a Complete Game?

gittes — 2008-07-23T14:14:18+00:00

I'm looking into scoring a copy of this game on ebay. He says the game comes with these components. is the game complete then (I left out stuff like rules and board).

# 8 Major Port Garrison Counters
# 14 Island Base Garrison Counters
# 2 Submarine Counters
# 70 US Ship Counters
# 52 Japanese Ship Counters
# 18 British Ship Counters
# 3 Australian/Dutch Ship Counters
# 15 Air and Ground Unit Counters
# 13 Control Flag Counters
# 9 Defense Factor Counters
# 2 POC (Points of Control) Counters
# 16 Disabled Markers
# 12 Sunk Markers
# 78 Damage Markers

Thread: Re: Effects of damage clarification

Binzer — 2008-07-13T17:04:54+00:00

No.

Rule 7.73 Airstrikes: When an aircraft carrier's damage is equal to its armor factor, its airstrike factor is reduced to zero. ...

Based on your description, the damage (2) equals its armor factor (2). So the carrier would have lost its 4 airstrike factor entirely. It also, as you already noted, would have lost speed and any gunnery bonus under rules 7.71 and 7.72.

Thread: Effects of damage clarification

Hansolo88 — 2008-07-13T16:04:40+00:00

I haven't played this one in a while and pulled it out to teach it to my dad last night. I managed to do 2 damage to one of his US 1-2-7(4) carriers and was surprised to find in the rules that the only effect this seemed to have was to reduce the carrier's speed to five. In fact, damage seems to have no effect on gunnery or air strike numbers at all, it just reduces speed and gets rid of the gunnery bonus for those few ships that have it.

Is this correct?

Image

icurmt2 — 2008-06-05T00:03:33+00:00

Thread: Re: VITP compared to WAS

moonglum01 — 2008-05-31T11:42:17+00:00

I agree also VITP is the better of the two. VITP can be played over and over again with each game being more interesting than the last. WAS maxes out at 5 or 6 games before it needs to go away fo a few years.

I will say though that I did break out WAS the other day (after 10+ years) and was able to get in a few games with an old gamer buddy in the time it would have taken to get through set up and the first two turns of VITP.

In a perfect world, VITP... in a world of 70 hour work weeks and kids....WAS.

Thread: Re: VITP compared to WAS

Eldard — 2008-05-28T01:05:24+00:00

ctcharger wrote:
Along with the rule variances, the intensity in VITP is 10x that of WAS in my view. Air units, coverting ports, Marine landings, rolling for Aircraft Carrier locations, IJN Main units against the old HMS BBs, massive night battles, massive day battles between land based air units and Aircraft carriers, lucky submarine shots, etc. For me, it is no contest, get VITP!

I totally concur. Victory in the Pacific is by far the better of the two games. Since both sides have similar and various force types (CVs, CVLs, BBs, CAs, land-based air, amphibious forces, and an abstract submarine capability), both players have strategic flexibility and options, requiring careful management of forces.

VITP is a great strategic naval game that offers players the historical challenges and choices posed to WW2 leaders, and all the fun (and unpredictability) that buckets-of-dice combat resolution offers.

Thread: Re: VITP compared to WAS

ctcharger — 2008-05-28T00:35:48+00:00

Along with the rule variances, the intensity in VITP is 10x that of WAS in my view. Air units, coverting ports, Marine landings, rolling for Aircraft Carrier locations, IJN Main units against the old HMS BBs, massive night battles, massive day battles between land based air units and Aircraft carriers, lucky submarine shots, etc. For me, it is no contest, get VITP!

Thread: Re: VITP compared to WAS

moonglum01 — 2008-05-28T00:18:42+00:00

WAS has:
*Air attacks are spread out with only a max of 1 die per enemy ship.
*Subs - only German, and lots of them.
*Carriers and Convoys have extra ASW.
*Convoys & victory points.
*Russians, Americans, Italy have restrictions.
*Neutral port.
*Italian Navy turn 8 rules.
*'Return to base' on a failed speed roll is different in WAS (didn't catch that for a while).
*No Raiders
*Germans remain at sea - turn 1-3
*WAS 1.5 - 2 hours. VITP 5 - 8 hours

Thread: Re: VITP: An Ageless Beauty

theaney — 2008-05-19T21:42:29+00:00

Nice review. Oddly enough, I too was recently thinking about how great this game was and how well it has stood the test of time despite some of the worst desicions in graphic-design history. For me, it is a near-perfect game if not for the length of time to play and the luck of the dice. Yes, luck plays a smaller role than one would expect, but it is frustrating to find a game nearly hinging on a couple of dice after several hours of play.

Still, I LOVE this game.

Thread: Re: VITP: An Ageless Beauty

Tom Jensen — 2008-05-19T20:22:53+00:00

After I opened up VITP the first time I was disgusted; 20 bucks for this butt-ugly game! Then I put it on the shelf for two years. 730 days later I gave the design a shot and discovered the great GAME beneath the day-glo cardboard. Indeed, the more I played, the more I discovered how much skill was necessary to win. I especially like how Guadalcanal straddled two areas, making Henderson Field one of the most vital spots in the Pacific... just like history.

Occassionally, I'd play with the idea of getting some maps from National Geographic to replace the horror that is the gameboard; but in the end, it doesn't really matter. It's the GAME, the GAme, ... the game....

It definitely holds a spot in my Top Ten list.

Thread: Re: VITP compared to WAS

Statalyzer — 2008-05-19T19:54:22+00:00

his tends to make carriers *FAR* more potent in VITP than in WAS (as long as you keep getting day battles, even a single small carrier can eventually annhilate the biggest surface fleet).

Also making them more potent is the fact that most of them get the attack bonus, and many of them get 3 or 4 shots instead of the 2 shots that most WAS carriers get.

Another big difference is that the bases in VITP can change hands based on what you do, and the changing bases not only affects the positioning of your ships, but also the areas that land-based air can be shifted to. LBA are very powerful, since only carriers and other air units can attack them, they cannot be disabled, and they can control an area all by themselves. So a big part of the game is extending your air coverage umbrella by moving forward with a big fleet, capturing a base there with an amphibious invasion, and then the next turn your LBA can use that base to hold down the area while your fleet moves on ahead.

Image

Jim Krohn — 2008-03-20T22:08:26+00:00

Japan's starting carriers - the big 6 and the escort carriers

Image

bendan29 — 2007-12-30T12:53:22+00:00

Set up - Allied Starting Forces

Image

gberry — 2007-11-15T15:13:14+00:00

Victory In The Pacific - Support Counters

Image

gberry — 2007-11-15T15:07:03+00:00

Minor Allies (Ships)

Image

sikeospi — 2007-09-14T12:50:40+00:00

Victory in the Pacific -- in the Pacific

Image

klellingson — 2007-09-10T02:26:39+00:00

A game in progress in the annual tournament at ConQuest SF 2007

Image

morsecrossing — 2007-04-27T00:25:12+00:00

Opening moves on the first turn.

Image

morsecrossing — 2007-04-27T00:23:38+00:00

Japanese Starting Forces and Reinforcements card

Image

morsecrossing — 2007-04-27T00:21:10+00:00

Allied Reinforcements as per each turn.