Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
thirtybrowns wrote: If hit the game is over, if missed, the game is over as there is no further point fighting on.
So you mean it is like most A&A games? 
-
Marco Arnaudo
United States
Bloomington
Indiana
"My spoon is too big!"
-
wonderful review, thank you Sean! As I missed this game the first time around, I think i'll have to pick up a copy soon!
-
Steve Cooley
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
Great review of a great game!
The most fun I've ever had playing a wargame is VITP.I must have read "TKO in Three" (by Alan Moon, now a big shot designer) a dozen times. Love this game. I own probably every strategic Pacific game ever released, and this one is the most fun. And, it gives you such a sense of the flow of the war. Incredible.
I bought L2's War at Sea just to give them incentive to finish VITP. It hasn't worked so far.
Once while playing the allies, it was time to remove the British carriers. Well, they'd been sunk. So, my opponent demanded I remove the Hermes and its one air factor. Since that is a specific "loophole" in the rules, I declined. He called it "The Cheating Hermes" for the rest of the game.
-
Greg Colgan
Australia
Perth
WA
-
Very pleased to read this well deserved thumbs up review of a time-honored classic. I had one of the most memorable PBEM games I've ever played with VITP.....a real nail-biter in which I found myself repeatedly clicking the email button many a time to receive the results of my automated die rolls....6...5.....6.......6.......YES!!!!!
-
Bob Gibson
United States
San Diego
California
-
Thanks for the positive review of this timeless game. Although the components are pretty standard faire, I just find the Japanese red counters to really shine in its brilliant deep red in such a way that just compels me to want to play this game! Every time I open the box and see that red I just want to shout, "Banzai!"
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
tmssteve wrote: I bought L2's War at Sea just to give them incentive to finish VITP. It hasn't worked so far.
If only that worked. The only reason I don't buy L2 stuff is because it is expensive and mostly reprints of games I can get for cheaper elsewhere.
Quote: Once while playing the allies, it was time to remove the British carriers. Well, they'd been sunk. So, my opponent demanded I remove the Hermes and its one air factor. Since that is a specific "loophole" in the rules, I declined. He called it "The Cheating Hermes" for the rest of the game.
That is a little too rule lawyer-esque for me. If I were you I would have pulled back the Hermes in the spirit of the game so to speak.
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
gittes wrote: That is a little too rule lawyer-esque for me. If I were you I would have pulled back the Hermes in the spirit of the game so to speak.
Usually, we agree on things like this. But since the rules specifically define who makes the choice and allows them the option not to, I don't happen to in this case. "The spirit of the game" makes some sense where the rules aren't particularly clear or muddy. When they are, the text trumps other considerations.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
perfalbion wrote: gittes wrote: That is a little too rule lawyer-esque for me. If I were you I would have pulled back the Hermes in the spirit of the game so to speak. Usually, we agree on things like this. But since the rules specifically define who makes the choice and allows them the option not to, I don't happen to in this case. "The spirit of the game" makes some sense where the rules aren't particularly clear or muddy. When they are, the text trumps other considerations.
Really? Well you can tell I have not played a game of VitP in about two years. Any drawbacks for the British keeping such a unit around?
-
Ken
United States
Crystal Lake
Illinois
-
gittes wrote: Really? Well you can tell I have not played a game of VitP in about two years. Any drawbacks for the British keeping such a unit around.
Usually, no, but you may want a ship with better movement options for patrolling under some circumstances. It's not like the Hermes is a world-beating unit. By the time you're pulling off the British carriers, the US navy is already the one doing the bulk of the work and becoming the overwhelming majority of the allied force pool.
-
Jim Eliason
United States
Iowa
-
Once while playing the allies, it was time to remove the British carriers. Well, they'd been sunk. So, my opponent demanded I remove the Hermes and its one air factor. Since that is a specific "loophole" in the rules, I declined. He called it "The Cheating Hermes" for the rest of the game. [/q]
The official clarifications support this interpretation. Hermes is not the same classification as the other British CVs. However, if Valiant is supposed to be removed and is sunk, you might have to remove Prince of Wales instead, since a BB removal must be replaced by a BB if sunk.
-
Bruce Monnin
United States
Minster
Ohio
-
Eldard wrote: da pyrate wrote: The problem with a game like VitP is that it makes you no longer really want to play War at Sea. Agreed. I bought and played VitP and was so impressed with it that I went and bought Wat at Sea -- boy, what a disappointment. VitP is a far superior game, and still a great deal of fun after all these years.
Really? I played Victory in the Pacific many times, but I always come back to War At Sea. It is a shorter game and, for me, a much more enjoyable game.
Nothing against VITP, but War At Sea is still one of my top ten of all time.
-
Steve Cooley
United States
Unspecified
Unspecified
-
gittes wrote: tmssteve wrote: I bought L2's War at Sea just to give them incentive to finish VITP. It hasn't worked so far. If only that worked. The only reason I don't buy L2 stuff is because it is expensive and mostly reprints of games I can get for cheaper elsewhere.
Well, at this stage of my life, I can afford upgrades. L2's production values are higher than Avalon Hill's were. No slight against AH (the day they went out of business was a traumatic one for me), but I think I get my money's worth on the rare occasion L2 publishes.
Quote: Quote: Once while playing the allies, it was time to remove the British carriers. Well, they'd been sunk. So, my opponent demanded I remove the Hermes and its one air factor. Since that is a specific "loophole" in the rules, I declined. He called it "The Cheating Hermes" for the rest of the game. That is a little too rule lawyer-esque for me. If I were you I would have pulled back the Hermes in the spirit of the game so to speak.
As others have pointed out, it's quite clear in the rules. It's been so long I don't remember what my motivation was, but that single air factor can be more important than one might imagine.
I think WAS is fine, but I don't find it near as challenging or as involving as VITP. In VITP, no matter which side I play, I never feel like I have enough units and am always worried my opponent will see the obvious holes in my lines. In my opinion, for sheer excitement, it would get a 10.
-
-
Quote: From what I recall the A&A Pacific victory conditions are nothing like VitP. In VitP, even when the Japs are with the backs against the wall, they still have a chance if they have accumulated enough VPs in the early part of the game and are able to play an aggressive defence. In A&A, there is just a high water mark to either hit or miss. If hit the game is over, if missed, the game is over as there is no further point fighting on.
That is correct. On turn 6, both the Japanese and Allied players are able to make the POC projection for the next three turns and determine where the strategic 'hotspots' are to bring about victory, and where you need not bother fighting. The final turns of VITP are almost chess-like in their precision when both players have come to the correct conclusion. (Well, if chess ever had it that every piece available piles into one square and smashes each other to blazes).
In current tourament play, there are bids as high as '6' POC to play the Japanese. There are a number of suggestions out there to get the bid down to a more reasonable '3' or so.
-
Jim Eliason
United States
Iowa
-
Glenn is right that in current tournament play people will give up as many as 6 POC to play the Japanese. The rules out of the box (and even the most commonly used variants that favor the Allies slightly) highly favor the Japanese once you find the right strategy.
My current favorite way to balance the game is to use three variants: 1) the NT1 turn 1 variant (see John Pack's website http://www.gameaholics.com/vitp_tournament.htm for details), 2) "free Pearl Harbor" where reinforcement units entering the game at Pearl Harbor may move to the US Mandate even if the Hawaiian Islands are Japanese controlled, and 3) San Diego repair where repair points at Pearl Harbor may also be used for American (only) units withdrawn off the map during basing. I've played this three times against top players and the bids ranged from 1 for the Japanese to 0.5 for the Allies.
I've played VITP over 100 times in tournament/ladder games and it is still a favorite. It has completely replaced War at Sea for me, though WAS is a fine game.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
jeliason wrote: Glenn is right that in current tournament play people will give up as many as 6 POC to play the Japanese. The rules out of the box (and even the most commonly used variants that favor the Allies slightly) highly favor the Japanese once you find the right strategy. My current favorite way to balance the game is to use three variants: 1) the NT1 turn 1 variant (see John Pack's website http://www.gameaholics.com/vitp_tournament.htm for details), 2) "free Pearl Harbor" where reinforcement units entering the game at Pearl Harbor may move to the US Mandate even if the Hawaiian Islands are Japanese controlled, and 3) San Diego repair where repair points at Pearl Harbor may also be used for American (only) units withdrawn off the map during basing. I've played this three times against top players and the bids ranged from 1 for the Japanese to 0.5 for the Allies. I've played VITP over 100 times in tournament/ladder games and it is still a favorite. It has completely replaced War at Sea for me, though WAS is a fine game.
Interesting...
So what is the perfect Japanese strategy?
-
-
Jim's got more tournament play in than I do (I might have about half as many games).
There is no 'perfect' Japanese strategy. Generally, you want to convert one red base (normally Oahu, but Samoa a minority of times, often not the original target) and sink the US carrier fleet.
Strategy tends to revolve around the management of critical issues - POC count, fleet strength, carrier strength, base possession. For the Japanese this means aggressive wide-scale attacks into US areas on turn 2-3, followed by more selective offensives on turns 4-5 (usually aiming to covert a green base). After turn 5, the strategy is to fight in certain seas to block access to core areas, or to go after marines (to the same end).
Overwelminingly, the early offensive is 'east' - directed against US holding. 'Western' offensives against the British are rare, because the 'east' appears to be optimal.
-
Sean Chick
United States
Hammond
Louisiana
-
GLENN239 wrote: Jim's got more tournament play in than I do (I might have about half as many games).
There is no 'perfect' Japanese strategy. Generally, you want to convert one red base (normally Oahu, but Samoa a minority of times, often not the original target) and sink the US carrier fleet.
Strategy tends to revolve around the management of critical issues - POC count, fleet strength, carrier strength, base possession. For the Japanese this means aggressive wide-scale attacks into US areas on turn 2-3, followed by more selective offensives on turns 4-5 (usually aiming to covert a green base). After turn 5, the strategy is to fight in certain seas to block access to core areas, or to go after marines (to the same end).
Overwelminingly, the early offensive is 'east' - directed against US holding. 'Western' offensives against the British are rare, because the 'east' appears to be optimal.
Seems about right to me, and so far I have not lost as Japan in any Pacific War game. It is all about the central position.
-
Jim Eliason
United States
Iowa
-
Details always vary due to the vagaries of the dice, but the basic idea with the Japanese is to force the USN to fight before it's ready. To do that you have to threaten things he can't afford to lose: Pearl Harbor and Samoa. If both those bases fall, all USN reinforcements are sunk, and the game is basically over. So patrol HI and USM with 4-6 cruisers each on turn 2, and add at least four CVs each and several BBs to boot, mostly on raid. Yokosuka usually goes to HI to threaten to capture Johnston Island. Then if HI is controlled on turn 2, Japanese air flots can help capture Pearl on turn 3. If the Japanese can control Indonesia, South Pacific, Marshalls, Hawaii and all the bases in and behind those areas, the USN will never be able to catch up in time. Assuming this dominant position can't be obtained, follow Glen's advice. A common strategy is to fight a big battle in HI turn 6, mostly with land based air. American CVs sunk are gone for good, and Japanese losses return turn 8 to fight for Japan. If the Japanese play aggressively and roll really good dice, the Americans have no chance. But with normal luck, they can make a game of it.
The trick with the USN is to commit enough force to the defense of one of those "home" bases that it won't fall, without losing too much of your fleet, and without giving up all the interior bases to capture by isolation. One ploy in the USN arsenal is the "suicide block". The USN patrolls the Marshalls strongly, and sends a single CV to HI and at least three CVs to the Marshalls. If Yokosuka is turned back in HI and the Marshalls is Allied controlled, the Japanese will have little to patrol HI with and Pearl will hold on turn 3 easily, allowing the US fleet to go elsewhere. Throughout the first 5 turns, the idea is to save at least one home base and also punch a hole in the Japanese perimeter and take out an interior area patroller or two, while preserving CVs. Very aggressive play risks having nothing to challenge Japanese land based air, and very passive play gives up too much position.
-
Daniel Blumentritt
United States
Austin
Texas
-
I do like WaS a lot even though it doesn't have the strategic depth of VITP. It's very short and easy to get games in, and like VITP there is an incredible amount of meaningful subtly in seemingly very small decisions. Somebody once told me that in War at Sea "The dice will win you 1/3rd of games and lose you 1/3rd of games no matter what you do (within reason). Those other 1/3rd of games will determine how good you are." And that other 1/3rd is good enough that the game has a decent spread of AREA ratings and the same handful of players are consistently on top and placing high in tournaments.
Quote: The official clarifications support this interpretation. Hermes is not the same classification as the other British CVs.
The clarifications aren't even really needed as the rulebook says directly with no inference needed that the Hermes is not considered the same ship type as the 027 carries for removal purposes.
Quote: Details always vary due to the vagaries of the dice, but the basic idea with the Japanese is to force the USN to fight before it's ready
That's basically it. For beginners, the 2nd move advantage makes the game favor the Allies. Japan's early ship advantage doesn't seem enough to guard everything and you either concede a lot of areas or get destroyed piecemeal. With more experienced players, the Japanese can use their fleet advantage to press hard after the American "home areas" and force their hand somewhat - and forcing their hand negates some of the disadvantages of moving first.
The interesting thing is that there are still several very different ways to do this as Japan. Jim is one of the top VITP players and what he describes is probably the most common Japanese turn 2 attack: ...
Quote: (So patrol HI and USM with 4-6 cruisers each on turn 2, and add at least four CVs each and several BBs to boot, mostly on raid. Yokosuka usually goes to HI to threaten to capture Johnston Island. Then if HI is controlled on turn 2, Japanese air flots can help capture Pearl on turn 3.)
... and yet two of the other top Japanese players usually use different attacks - which vary from the above strategy in opposite ways. One usually splits his force 3-ways and goes after all three of Coral Sea, US Mandate AND Hawaii - figuring the early game US Navy can beat 1/2 the Japanese fleet, but not 2/3rds, so he should win 2 areas instead of 1. Another often mostly ignores both the Mandate and Coral in favor of moving almost all of his surface ships (more than the USN can posssibly handle) into Hawaii with minimal air cover, using the excess CVs to bolster the perimeter and take bases, figuring no matter what the US does he can't gain a surface AND air advantage.
So, even within high level play that can seem scripted at times, there's a lot of variety. And the USN generally has 5 types of responses. Go all in to save one home port. Hit the perimeter as hard as possible to save bases. Block the IJN with control flags next to Truk. Duck and avoid the IJN as much as possible with only minimal fighting. Counterattack in Indonesia with some combination of LBA, British CVs, and American CVs - saving Singapore is tough but when it happens T3 is usually a nightmare for the Japanese.
Quote: Well, at this stage of my life, I can afford upgrades. L2's production values are higher than Avalon Hill's were. No slight against AH (the day they went out of business was a traumatic one for me), but I think I get my money's worth on the rare occasion L2 publishes.
I just kind of hope L2 doesn't redo VITP because then it will make it harder to keep all the players in synch with one another if there are two editions out there with different rulesets.
Quote: The most fun I've ever had playing a wargame is VITP.I must have read "TKO in Three" (by Alan Moon, now a big shot designer) a dozen times
Moon was one of the the most influential players in the developement of VITP strategy. Even though his TKO strategy, executed exactly as presented in his article, has some flaws, the principles he used to develop it are still the core tenets of VITP play and many elements of his TKO attack are still present in most games. Veterans and beginners alike can learn something from his article.
It and a whole list of influential articles are listed on this site:
http://www.gameaholics.com/vitp_articles/vitp_article_index....
TKO in Two and The Maniacal Approach were both counter-strategies intended to parry Alan Moon's attack. The Nuts and Bolts Design is by Richard Hamblin himself explaining how he came up with VITP. Some other interesting files listed there as well.
Quote: While a popular gaming topic, the perfect Pacific game is considered something of a holy grail. Victory in the Pacific, while a naval game, is in the short list of best games on the subject. To me, it is the very best.
I agree wholeheartedly - it's my favorite theater of WW2 and yet it is VERY hard to make a good strategic level game for. VITP is especially impressive considering it was rushed into production on relatively short notice.
-
Jack Defevers
United States
Fort Thomas
Kentucky
-
Thanks for the review; superbly done.
-
|
|
