Zorch
Posts: 7087
Joined: 3/7/2010 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote:
ORIGINAL: Zorch quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote:
ORIGINAL: Zorch quote:
ORIGINAL: warspite1 quote:
ORIGINAL: Grognerd_INC quote:
ORIGINAL: Duck Doc I checked out War on the Sea but... meh. Looking for more of a pure strategy game of the Campaign. Funny, I imagined it would have been worked to death because it was such a tight, back-and-forth campaign just made for gaming. Thanks all! I totally agree with you, one of the tightest mini-campaigns in WW2. warspite1 Along with War In The Mediterranean, this is a campaign that just begs to be properly wargamed. I genuinely don't understand why campaigns like these - which were on a knife-edge and could have gone either way - have not been the subject of proper games. Such an interesting period of time and yet so sorely neglected. Because it requires 3 working frameworks - Land, Sea, & Air. And unlike WitP:AE, there aren't (many) Americans. warspite1 There weren't many Americans involved in the Solomons Campaign?? Er...okay... but I respectfully suggest you are wrong... The Med didn't have Yanks during the critical years, reducing gamer's interest. Med games have to deal with land blitzkriegs that were generally absent from the Pacific War. The land part of AE seems to be the weakest link of land, sea, air. warspite1 But this thread is about the Solomon Islands Campaign. I mentioned WITM only to serve as another example of great campaigns that have been under-gamed. Sadly we know the likely reasons for the Med, but the reasons for the Solomons being so under-represented is more difficult to fathom - unless its simply the difficulty in properly bringing together all three services in one game. Balancing a Solomons Campaign game is problematic. The Japanese are still going to lose the war regardless. In AE, Japan has a small chance to not lose the war. In the Med, the Axis had a big upside if they won. That makes it exciting, as has been explored in various threads.
|