Why no destroyers?

[Timothy]

John,

Thanks for your reply! I look forward to giving the trial version a try when it comes out to give me a better idea of how the game plays.

Best regards.

[Uncle_Joe]

Hi folks,

I just saw this game pop up in the latest Shrapnel Newsletter and it definately caught my eye. I am ALL FOR a Pacific wargame that can be played in a reasonable amount of time. For better or worse, I dont seem to have the time available for gaming that I once did when I was younger...

Anyways, while I wish DDs were present in some form, I whole-heartedly agree with cutting them if their addition would have added dramatically to the complexity and play time. DDs did play a very important part in the war and many actions will not be possible to recreate without them. But I applaud the decision to stay within the game's apparent scope.

From what it looks to me on the surface, this game seems more akin to the classic AH 'Victory in the Pacific'. That game also did not have DDs (well, the Japanese had a few...), but it never seemed to suffer in terms of overall feel for the campaign. I'm hoping for a similar feel with WPP.

Thanks!

[S.R. Krol]

Originally Posted by Uncle_Joe

From what it looks to me on the surface, this game seems more akin to the classic AH 'Victory in the Pacific'. That game also did not have DDs (well, the Japanese had a few...), but it never seemed to suffer in terms of overall feel for the campaign. I'm hoping for a similar feel with WPP.

Exactly. You don't need to include every single bean and bullet in a wargame to capture the conflict as long as you capture what really matters. Destroyers, while the workhorses of the sea, did not impact the war like the struggle of resources did. Oil dependency is in, destroyers are out, and I'm okay with that.