Game design and 'fudge' factors

Gary Grigsby's strategic level wargame covering the entire War in the Pacific from 1941 to 1945 or beyond.

Moderators: Joel Billings, wdolson, Don Bowen, mogami

User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors

Post by m10bob »

Found this interesting tidbit looking up Friendly fire stats....

Friendly Fire

quote:


Casualties on US Ships Hit by Allied Gunfire During WW2

1942 1943 1944 1945 Total
Ship Type WIA KIA WIA KIA WIA KIA WIA KIA WIA KIA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier 0 0 0 0 0 0 115 16 15 16
Destroyer 8 5 0 0 21 3 80 10 109 18
Battleship 0 0 0 0 0 0 99 21 109 21
Submarine 0 0 0 0 0 83 0 0 0 83
PT Boat 0 0 0 0 23 22 0 4 23 26
Landing Ship 0 0 0 0 0 0 35 3 35 3
Salvage Ship 0 0 18 8 0 0 0 6 18 14
Cruiser 0 0 0 0 0 0 21 2 21 2
Transport 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 1 8 1
Patrol Craft 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 1 6 1
Minesweeper 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 1 3 1
Cargo Ship 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0
Seaplane Tender 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hospital Ship 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 8 5 18 8 44 108 368 65 438 186

Source:
Gauker, Eleanor D. and Christopher G. Blood. "Friendly Fire Incidents During World War II Naval Operations." Naval War College Review 48, no.1 (Winter 1995): 115-22.

My dad-in-law served on the Wakefield, and later on the Callaway. From the stories he told me, the high number of friendly fire casualties in 1945 were inflicted by the proximity fuses on the a/a guns.. He claimed it was so thick, the ships were all "rained on", but they were willing to take the risk as it stopped the kamikazes.
Image

User avatar
m10bob
Posts: 8583
Joined: Sun Nov 03, 2002 9:09 pm
Location: Dismal Seepage Indiana

RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors

Post by m10bob »

The big problem with "naval strike" is you CAN'T give it any orders, you CAN'T specify any priorities, you CAN'T even suggest a direction.

Remember Gary Grigsby's old game "Carrier Strike"..
Amongst its' great features, was the ability to "micro-manage" the carrier planes, all the way from the load out of the planes, to the *direction* and target they were to attack.
Once the planes arrived at the "last known sighting", the planes would report y radio giving the player the option to have them linger in that same spot, or go for another target.
This option was taken even with fuel being a consideration, (meaning you could opt to have them run out of fuel!!!!)
The ONLY thing that forced the planes back beyond orders was if daylight was fading.
(We all remember when Admiral Marc Mitscher ordered the carriers to turn on their lights to recover his planes. Sometimes there are moments which lend inspiration........)
HE was no "Haul-Ass Jack."
Image

User avatar
treespider
Posts: 5781
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 7:34 am
Location: Edgewater, MD

RE: Game design and 'fudge' factors

Post by treespider »

This entire list is potentially useless as it does not even credit the Atlanta, hit by ships in her own TF at 1st Guadalcanal.

Here is the source...

http://www.history.navy.mil/faqs/faq11-1.htm
Here's a link to:
Treespider's Grand Campaign of DBB

"It is not the critic who counts, .... The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena..." T. Roosevelt, Paris, 1910
Post Reply

Return to “War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945”