Settle down, Kellyanne. Regardless of whether anyone is playing it, you’ve concluded the game is bad without playing it? I hope you remembered to bend your legs when you made that leap!
Anyway, while it’s my opinion the game is fantastic, we can all agree that a fact is that Afghanistan '11 is playable, despite justaguy2’s weird screeds.
If you ever decide to play the game, you’ll discover that completing a skirmish can take about three or four hours. So, yes, in the game’s first 48 fours, I doubt many people poopsocked their way through 15 to 20 hours of gameplay without quitting a losing mission and starting over. I’ve had a copy of the game for about a week. Not counting the campaign, I’ve played about five games of Afghanistan '11. I’ve completed (i.e. made it to turn 60) one of them. The others I either restarted or ended in political defeat.
Your game should have saved the turn it crashed. I’ve had a few crashes, but I’ve never lost more than one turn. Is your saved game corrupted? Can you not choose “continue” from the main screen.
Well, there are only two levels in Vietnam '65. “Baby level” and “actually playing the game as designed”. I’m surprised to hear that winning twice made you feel it had no replayability. To me, it’s one of those games – along with Afghanistan '11 – where the unit variety and especially the procedurally generated maps gives it a nearly unlimited replayability. If you didn’t feel that way, I doubt there’s anything in Afghanistan '11 that’s going to change your mind.