Michael
Valid point, except I can't see anyone wanting to fly the Battle, Blenheim or Lysander pilot's campaign, so why make them in the first place? I think it depends on what the author's aim is, which really brings it all back to Andrew's motivation for BoF after all
- What story is he trying to tell? What experience is he trying to simulate? What insight will we glean from flying those missions?
To generalise
Allied Bombers - hopeless missions against advancing german columns, against a foe that (seemingly) controls the air
Allied fighters - a bit more varied, valiant efforts with (transient) glimmers of hope against a macro-campaign narrative that results in withdrawal to the UK & preparation for the BoB
Axis bombers - milk run - your escorts control the air, you pick your targets & timing (until Dunkirk at least)
Axis fighters - lots of opportunities to rack up significant kills against lower quality opposition, the deck is stacked in your favour
- of course the reverse is also true of later war campaigns - so who would fly a late war German or Japanese bomber campaign?
So, in that case, what campaign structure, other than a macro-historical narrative, exposes the Player to this experience?
I think this conundrum is why Wolfgang (Skylane) advised his SE Asia 1941-42 Malaya/Singapore/NEI packs should be flown as mission sequences & not as campaigns - the Sim campaign hard-coding makes it unlikely that a (losing side) pilot would experience the whole campaign narrative, & thereby the creator's efforts would be somewhat wasted?
Bookmarks