Are there any WW2 games that focus on the North Africa campaign?

>>384251583

No, because it would be boring. The Royal Navy controlled the sea because the Italians didn't have the fuel to send out their whole fleet and the Germans had trouble even getting uboats in because they had to make it past Gibraltar. Then the Nazis got ass fucked when America showed up

The Campaign for North Africa, although it's /tg/ (and detailed to the point of being virtually unplayable)

>Even gamers who were initially fascinated with the idea of an extremely detailed war game might have been chagrined when they opened the box to discover 1,800 counters, maps large enough to cover several tables, and a three-volume rulebook of considerable weight and density. The rules cover logistics in extreme detail, far more so than the combat simulation. It is recommended that each side be played by a five-person team, including a Commander-In-Chief and four subordinate commanders, making a total of ten players needed for a game, although it can be played with the usual two. According to SPI, a complete game can run over 1,500 hours. However, the logistics of keeping a ten-person group together for fifteen hundred hours of gaming was a feat beyond even most hardcore wargamers, and completed full games of The Campaign for North Africa are rare.

Panzers Phase II had you fight Italians and Germans. The game is from around 2004 tho

>>384251583
call of duty 3

>>384252548
And 2.
Fuck yeah, trench gun.