The QT3 review here makes the same point, that Vietnam 65 takes as its starting point the understanding of the war as it stood in the minds of the US command, and plays it completely straight. I seem to remember the TMA podcast expanding on this thought too.
On ‘acceptable’ wargames, it’s not unreasoanble to draw personal limits. I happily played a Falkands game but would balk at a Northern Ireland COIN game. Tim Stone wrote a brilliant Flare Path piece last week about the death of his great-grandfather in a minor battle in the Ypres salient, and his own discomfort at what it means to enjoy games of simulated war.
Sometimes I wonder what Thomas would have made of his great-grandson’s penchant for play – my enthusiasm for representations of war that are both ‘realistic’ and resolutely superficial at the same time. Sometimes I wonder whether I’d happily spend so much time recreating WW2 dramas if I had ancestors who’d perished at Alamein, Arnhem, Stalingrad or St. Vith. Do I need emotional distance to wargame with an easy conscience?
If the answer’s ‘yes’ then maybe I’m closer to those medal-festooned Fates in that far-from-the-front château than I care to admit.