Force Z

[geofflambert]

I made the mistake of asking in the Tech Support Forum why Force Z (Prince of Wales and Repulse et al) sallied forth on Dec. 7 (in the full campaign game) and were sunk when historically they were not attacked until Dec. 10. I was properly chastised for my error and will be careful to tiptoe around what I presume to be the lair of the moat monster whose true avatar I present below. Now I theorized that the game designers wanted to include in the concept of "surprise" the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse by forcing the Brits to make that historical blunder. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I'd just like to know why. You may be aware that at the beginning of the Dec. 8 scenario Force Z is safely in port at Singapore. The moat monster advised me that this question has been asked many times before (I have no doubt) and answered, but I'm too much of a dumbass to find these occasions through searches (I have tried). Can anyone supply this humble nincompoop the answer?

[Ketza]

Most PBEM games allow force Z to be moved as the Allied player sees fit.

As far as AI games it seems silly to have it behave so it gets sunk but it is what it is.

[Mac Linehan]

geofflambert -

If playing as the Allies vs Japan (AI) you can change Force Z's sailing orders on turn one.

If playing as the Japanese vs the Allied (AI), just set the game to hot seat and change Force Z's orders when in the Allied turn - then hit end turn. Once the turn has been resolved, save / exit and reset the Allies to AI control; then continue on with your effort to expand the Empire.

When playing a pbem, it is usually negotiable, as Ketza has pointed out.

I know that all of the above is obvious; and are just some suggestions.

And:

I respectfully submit that Alfred is a very knowledgeable, experienced player (I choose my words carefully) who will take the time and effort to do the research on each aspect or question of or on the game. He is always courteous, and will answer most questions with exactness, conciseness and accuracy. I have learned much from his posts and comments; and do my best to read them all. I have also received merited correction from Alfred more than once - especially when I was off track, and am a more knowledgeable player because of it.

Just my perception, Sir.

Welcome to the forums; not only is AE a First Rate game, but the community members (and support you will receive) are absolutely Outstanding. Even the Abby Normal ones... <grin>

I do hope you will join us.

Mac

[Alfred]

This is the best thread on the rationale

tm.asp?m=2179438&mpage=1&key=historical ... e&#2179757

Good to see you have modified your inquiry to reflect the historical facts. The original complaint made in the tech support forum was based on an entirely false historical premise. So yes I can turn in to a moat monster when someone makes a serious accusation based on the presentation of false facts and no evidence of knowledge or research is displayed before just making another opinionated assertion that developers are wrong, they are correct. Too many of that ilk have been recently spotted in that particular sub-forum.

Alfred

[geofflambert]

Thanks Mac, I'm sorry I didn't say it's PBEM with Dec 7 surprise on and historical first turn on. I didn't think to negotiate that as I'd only played the Dec 8 scenario before. I'm just going to live with it though.

Thanks Alfred, for the link. I was just teasing. If I do more posts in the future you'll see me teasing someone most of the time, that's how I am. I have read many of your posts, and Mac is right. You do seem a little cranky some of the time though. With all the effort you've put into this game I can understand your reaction when smartalecks like me show up. I do like this game very much.
Perhaps I will record my future exploits in the After Action Reports forum...

[Mac Linehan]

geofflambert -

While the loss of a major capital ship is painful to us all, you have - as the Allied player - an incredibly powerful mix of ships in the pipeline, coming your way. I must often remind myself that AE is 1600 plus turns long; and thus try not to get my undies in a wad (which sometimes seems so hard to do - *sigh*) when faced with the loss of a favorite ship.

As AE is perhaps one of the most detailed, challenging and time consuming strategy games on the market, it would be safe to say that none of us could be considered "normal". I do believe that you will fit right in; we want people who think differently...

Love that Avatar! Where did you find it? I am a school bus driver; the picture and caption really captures my reaction to the Back Seat Boys (Middle Schoolers; who are hormonally unbalanced, mentally unstable and thus feral) when they have - yet again - made a serious tactical error. Perhaps I could find a larger version of the Avatar and use it as a Training Aide?

Mac

[geofflambert]

I believe I just googled Star Trek. Anyway, someone else wishes to scold me over my treatment of Alfred...

[dr.hal]

Alfred breaths fire as well....

[HansBolter]

ORIGINAL: Mac Linehan

geofflambert -

If playing as the Allies vs Japan (AI) you can change Force Z's sailing orders on turn one.


Mac

Only if you are not playing with a Historical First Turn. Historical First Turn doesn't allow any Allied commands to any units until December 8.

[freeboy]

historical turn one
&nbsp;ouch..
what is really bad is playing your pbem buddy forthe fifth campeign as allies, and not getting them away cleanly..
that was a lesson learned...

[Canoerebel]

In my game with Q-Ball, I forgot to issue orders to Force Z, partly because our "Orders only to TFs at&nbsp;sea on&nbsp;Dec. 7" home rule did not mean I couldn't issue orders to Force Z, which was at Singapore.&nbsp; So, I lost the BC and BB that turn.&nbsp; I was so ashamed that I didn't even ask for a re-do.&nbsp; My opponent was so ashamed for me that he didn't offer one.

[freeboy]

This last game I order them and they REACTEDE! I almost pooped my pants.. forgot to set the reaction to 1 or 0, fortunately they escaped and are now all the way to pearl.. hot date with a wave...
The brits shall rise again! lol

[jwilkerson]

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I made the mistake of asking in the Tech Support Forum why Force Z (Prince of Wales and Repulse et al) sallied forth on Dec. 7 (in the full campaign game) and were sunk when historically they were not attacked until Dec. 10. I was properly chastised for my error and will be careful to tiptoe around what I presume to be the lair of the moat monster whose true avatar I present below. Now I theorized that the game designers wanted to include in the concept of "surprise" the sinking of the Prince of Wales and Repulse by forcing the Brits to make that historical blunder. I don't necessarily have a problem with that, I'd just like to know why. You may be aware that at the beginning of the Dec. 8 scenario Force Z is safely in port at Singapore. The moat monster advised me that this question has been asked many times before (I have no doubt) and answered, but I'm too much of a dumbass to find these occasions through searches (I have tried). Can anyone supply this humble nincompoop the answer?

As you have heard, this question has been asked - and answered - many times before. The link provided below by ALFRED is as good an example as any of a discussion of the topic.
As always, my answer is, I am the only one you need to blame. I included this in the historical start option of scenario one because I believed the historical start should include at least the possibility of a historical outcome. Any other start option would not. Some players have other opinions. I allow them their opinons, if they allow me my opinion. Those with other opinons do have options. They can choose the a-historical start option of scenario one or they can play any number of other scenarios which ensure that PoW and Repulse will survive. They can use the editor. But the historical start for scenario one does allow the possibility that PoW and Repulse might be sunk as they were historically. Usually one or both are damaged - I've never seen both sunk - in games I've played. I've seen them hit the transports and get away several times.

[Alfred]

No one is to blame for the decision.

AE is a game of abstracts. Every abstract is based on a series of subjective decisions. Ultimately the call on any subjective decision falls solely on the game developers. Every subjective decision has been carefully considered by the developers. Players who don't agree always have alternatives provided and finally have recourse to the game editor.

Alfred

[LeeChard]

Many admirals, maybe most, did not believe it likely or even possible to sink a BB maneuvering at sea. When I play the allies against AI I let Force Z take it's chances as I like to model the lack of intelligence that I have of the actual Japanese abilities.
In one game Force Z made it to the beaches and slaughtered the invasion fleet. You never can tell.

[pompack]

ORIGINAL: Ranger5355

Many admirals, maybe most, did not believe it likely or even possible to sink a BB maneuvering at sea. When I play the allies against AI I let Force Z take it's chances as I like to model the lack of intelligence that I have of the actual Japanese abilities.
In one game Force Z made it to the beaches and slaughtered the invasion fleet. You never can tell.

Quite possibly true. More than that however, virtually all did not think it possible to sink, by bombing, a maneuvering BB at sea. The presence of torpedoes came as a great and totally unexpected shock to the British according to all of the accounts of the action that I have read. In fact, this is quite well modeled in AE; unless dive bombers can manage to hit a BB a gazillion times, a BB is unlikely to be sunk at sea without torpedo hits.

[mike scholl 1]

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Good to see you have modified your inquiry to reflect the historical facts. The original complaint made in the tech support forum was based on an entirely false historical premise. So yes I can turn in to a moat monster when someone makes a serious accusation based on the presentation of false facts and no evidence of knowledge or research is displayed before just making another opinionated assertion that developers are wrong, they are correct. Too many of that ilk have been recently spotted in that particular sub-forum.

Alfred

Is it really historical, Alfred? Force Z didn't sail from Singapore until the evening of the first turn (December 7th/8th depending on which side of the dateline your on.) Given that WITP has two 12-hour phases per turn (a 6pm to 6am NIGHT phase followed by a 6am to 6pm DAY phase), and the night phase is dropped on turn one..., there is a good historical case to be made that Force Z didn't even leave Singapore until turn two in game terms. [8D]

[wildweasel0585]

There's a small chance that strikes won't fly against TF Z on the first turn. I've only seen it once though.

[Mundy]

That happened for me once in a PBEM.&nbsp; I wound up sinking one of the Harunas with nary a scratch on the PoW.&nbsp; [:'(]
&nbsp;
Ed-

[JeffroK]

ORIGINAL: mike scholl 1

ORIGINAL: Alfred

Good to see you have modified your inquiry to reflect the historical facts. The original complaint made in the tech support forum was based on an entirely false historical premise. So yes I can turn in to a moat monster when someone makes a serious accusation based on the presentation of false facts and no evidence of knowledge or research is displayed before just making another opinionated assertion that developers are wrong, they are correct. Too many of that ilk have been recently spotted in that particular sub-forum.

Alfred

Is it really historical, Alfred? Force Z didn't sail from Singapore until the evening of the first turn (December 7th/8th depending on which side of the dateline your on.) Given that WITP has two 12-hour phases per turn (a 6pm to 6am NIGHT phase followed by a 6am to 6pm DAY phase), and the night phase is dropped on turn one..., there is a good historical case to be made that Force Z didn't even leave Singapore until turn two in game terms. [8D]

After 0400 8 Dec 1941 Singapore time
Wild and innacurate AA fire from the inexperienced gun crews, aided by the big guns of the Prince of Wales and Repulse caused only minor consternation amongst the japanese airmen.
Bloody Shambles v1 p86

At 1753 however, Prince of Wales and Repulse belatedly put to sea with an escort provided by four destroyers, Tenedos, Electra , Express and the RAN's Vampire.

Bloody Shambles v1 p109

Force Z sailed at 1735 on 8th December
and proceeded at 17.5 knots to pass to eastward
of Anamba Islands thence to the northward.
Despatch on the loss of PoW & Repulse by Vice Admiral Layton.http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/UN/UK/L ... /38214.pdf

The Official British History of WW2 at Sea shows Force Z leaving Singapore at 1735 on 8th December Local Time.

Clearly Force Z was not at sea at the start of the game, at the time of the attack on Pearl harbor it was in port.
To fit in with WITPAE processes, it should probably be a TF but situated at Singapore and having its course plotting towards Singora, Patani, putting it in the right place and on the move on Day 1. This should put it out of torpedo danger on the first day and after that its up to the player to choose its course.

PS Its replies like Alfred's here that scares away more players than the misplacement of Force Z.