Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition



Message

ADB123 -> Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/15/2009 10:17:07 PM)

A kind reader of my AAR pointed out to me that the Prince of Wales and the Repulse were sunk on the 10th of December and not the 7th of December, so there wasn't really any need for me to send them to their doom on the 7th of December in a non-historic start. I thought about it, felt pretty silly for having done what I did, and I agreed with the reader that his observation made perfect sense for future non-historic starts.

But then as I thought about it more, I was struck with the oddity in the "Historic" game start - that the PoW and Repulse are sent out by the starting script on the 7th in a historic start, and as far as I've ever observed in AE or WitP, they are always sunk (or extremely badly damaged) on the 7th.

My question to the kind folks who are working as Devs for the Game - why is the "Historic" start script set up this way? Why not set it up so that Force Z is only under threat as of the 10th? This way an Allied player (or the Allied AI) can decide to take a chance on intercepting the Malaya invasions, or not.



eMonticello -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/15/2009 10:44:13 PM)

Force Z forces were sunk on Dec 10th local time (Dec 9th PHT), but left Singapore on Dec 8th (Dec 7th PHT). WITP-AE only recognizes Pearl Harbor Time, so adjust your watches accordingly.



spence -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/15/2009 10:54:39 PM)

It is hard coded Allied stupidity. The hide bound, fanatically traditional, never even think-about changing an order from above democracies must be humbled by the incredibly flexible, far-sighted feudal samurai from the Land of the Rising Sun



Arnhem44 -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/15/2009 10:58:56 PM)

In the interests of being accurate, time zones need to be taken into consideration here. Force Z left Singapore on the evening of 8 Dec local time which would have been slightly more than 12 hours after PH had already been bombed. They then spent most of 9 Dec moving towards Singora/Kuantan before turning back for Singapore sometime in the evening/night of 9 Dec. The 2 ships were engaged on the morning of 10 Dec local time and sunk sometime around noon on 10 Dec local time which would make it 9 Dec US Pacific time? It's still more than a day's gap no matter what time zones you use.

I think it would be impossible to accurately setup Force Z to follow it's historical fate than what is the status quo now due to the mechanics of the game, at least from a PBEM perspective. No Allied player is going to knowingly send them to their doom if you start the ships out docked in Singapore. Of course if the you're playing against the AI then presumably a script could be written to sortie Force Z but even then if you were a Japanese player playing against the AI/PBEM wouldn't you be tempted to bomb them while they're docked? It's not perfect but I guess it's the best way to model what happened historically.





ADB123 -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/15/2009 11:14:37 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnhem

In the interests of being accurate, time zones need to be taken into consideration here. Force Z left Singapore on the evening of 8 Dec local time which would have been slightly more than 12 hours after PH had already been bombed. They then spent most of 9 Dec moving towards Singora/Kuantan before turning back for Singapore sometime in the evening/night of 9 Dec. The 2 ships were engaged on the morning of 10 Dec local time and sunk sometime around noon on 10 Dec local time which would make it 9 Dec US Pacific time? It's still more than a day's gap no matter what time zones you use.

I think it would be impossible to accurately setup Force Z to follow it's historical fate than what is the status quo now due to the mechanics of the game, at least from a PBEM perspective. No Allied player is going to knowingly send them to their doom if you start the ships out docked in Singapore. Of course if the you're playing against the AI then presumably a script could be written to sortie Force Z but even then if you were a Japanese player playing against the AI/PBEM wouldn't you be tempted to bomb them while they're docked? It's not perfect but I guess it's the best way to model what happened historically.





Hmmm - I understand what you are saying, but I'm not totally convinced that the event needs to be reinacted. Oh well, I'll just remember this in future games.

Thanks



SuluSea -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/15/2009 11:38:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

It is hard coded Allied stupidity. The hide bound, fanatically traditional, never even think-about changing an order from above democracies must be humbled by the incredibly flexible, far-sighted feudal samurai from the Land of the Rising Sun



[:D] True.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 12:28:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence
It is hard coded Allied stupidity. The hide bound, fanatically traditional, never even think-about changing an order from above democracies must be humbled by the incredibly flexible, far-sighted feudal samurai from the Land of the Rising Sun



RIGHT! Only the Japanese player should be allowed to correct historical mistakes. Hard-code them for the Allies. Admiral Phillips MUST be an idiot..., but Admiral Nagumo should of course be allowed to correct his mistake. JFB baloney!!!



JeffroK -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 1:08:42 AM)

As either Repulse or PoW was at sea, RETURNING TO SINGAPORE, after some stupid scheme to link with eith the RAN or USN, I cant see how they could be 200 odd miles into the Gulf of Siam.

Its another case of the devs/scenario makers enforcing an ahistorical event upon us.

At best, Force Z formed but at Singapore with orders for a patrol into the Gulf of Siam, iff reality meant anything, at their proper historical location.



Skyros -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 1:57:52 AM)

Mike, in a historical first turn Nagumo has to attack PH and not the subs at Manila or some other target. Some believe the PH attack to be stupid and would rather have the attack fall on the subs in the PI.

I usually start play with scenario 6 which starts on the 8th and I can then do with Force Z as I want.




jazman -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 1:58:28 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

It is hard coded Allied stupidity. The hide bound, fanatically traditional, never even think-about changing an order from above democracies must be humbled by the incredibly flexible, far-sighted feudal samurai from the Land of the Rising Sun


By golly, this opened my eyes. Much of the Pac War makes sense to me now.



Mike Scholl -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 2:28:47 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

Mike, in a historical first turn Nagumo has to attack PH and not the subs at Manila or some other target. Some believe the PH attack to be stupid and would rather have the attack fall on the subs in the PI. I was referring to the player's freedom to make several days worth of follow up attacks on PH.

I usually start play with scenario 6 which starts on the 8th and I can then do with Force Z as I want. That's what Sonny and I have agreed to do for our next start...






Kull -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 3:04:25 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl



Mike, you could be in hospital, in a coma, and moments from death.....but if a new "Force Z" thread appeared in the forums you'd fight your way back from the brink and be posting within minutes! [;)][:D]



jwilkerson -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 3:46:45 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kull

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mike Scholl



Mike, you could be in hospital, in a coma, and moments from death.....but if a new "Force Z" thread appeared in the forums you'd fight your way back from the brink and be posting within minutes! [;)][:D]


Yeah Mike is pretty upset with me for doing this ... but he knows I am just borrowing the original rule from the original witp from 30 years ago.



Fishbed -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 6:44:27 AM)

quote:

It is hard coded Allied stupidity. The hide bound, fanatically traditional, never even think-about changing an order from above democracies must be humbled by the incredibly flexible, far-sighted feudal samurai from the Land of the Rising Sun


quote:

RIGHT! Only the Japanese player should be allowed to correct historical mistakes. Hard-code them for the Allies. Admiral Phillips MUST be an idiot..., but Admiral Nagumo should of course be allowed to correct his mistake. JFB baloney!!!


Is being that overwhelmingly sarcastic a need when criticizing a feature you're not even obliged to endure if you agree with your opponents to change the original orders? Does it actually kill you or do some people here just can't live without being unfair a*ses once everyday? Just asking.
Change the orders and let's be done with it...





33Vyper -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 7:11:38 AM)

And the great and mighty developer gods gave unto thee

an editor

"And so spake the great developer gods ....
If thou does not liketh thy battleships being smited
Thou mayest use thy editor and have thy battleships never leave harbour."

And thus both JFB & AFB were satisfied....

Of course there is always the holy hand grenade....that can fix most problems..but that is a solution for another day :)




stuman -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 9:14:18 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: 33Vyper

And the great and mighty developer gods gave unto thee

an editor

"And so spake the great developer gods ....
If thou does not liketh thy battleships being smited
Thou mayest use thy editor and have thy battleships never leave harbour."

And thus both JFB & AFB were satisfied....

Of course there is always the holy hand grenade....that can fix most problems..but that is a solution for another day :)





[:D]

We just watched that movie again, maybe for the 10 th time [:)]



spence -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 12:28:24 PM)

If the Historical First Turn was historical then there would be no such problems.

The game can proceed according to system dynamics (not entirely realistically from the command/control system on both sides) from the moment the first shot is fired. No matter how you figure the time zones the PoW & Co were not irrevocably committed to sailing to destruction. Much more than 24 hours of decision time intervened between the bombs falling on PH and Force Z's destruction.



HansBolter -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 12:49:32 PM)

While I won't defend the obvious Japanese bias of forcing the vulnerability of two capital ships, I will point out that even with this incredible bias the destruction of the two ships in question is not a foregone conclusion.

In my last game the POW escaped unharmed while the Repulsive limped into Batavia with 30 some system damage and 30 some flotation damage.

In my latest game they both escaped unscathed. The Japanese made only one bombing run with 12 Nells, 5 of which were shot down by Buffalos out of Singapore.

Those arguing for the histporical accuracy of this as a rationale for the hard coded command stupidity are probably the same bunch who argue in defense of the the difficulty of hard coding drydock immunity to torpodeos! Hard coding in historical accuracy is something they stand up for when it places Allied ships in a position to to sunk by the Japanese, but when it would place an Allied ship out of harm's reach it is "just too much work for the devs"? The old double standard rears it's ugly head![8|]



xj900uk -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 1:45:08 PM)

You can't blame Admiral Phillips for the loss of force 'Z', he was acting under orders direct from Churchill, who was confident that the RN's finest (the PoW was his personal favourite ship) would soon see off the 'little yellow men', as he derisevely referred to them in Cabinet meetings up to & including 7th of December.
Perhaps up until PH there was still a generally-held belief that the BB was the supreme capital ship of the oceans, and that it could overcome any opposition.  Having said all that,  PH showed that Force Z's position was untenable, and it's original sailing orders to harass, sink and put to flight any Malaysian-bound invasion forces,  were simply no longer viable.  Admiral Phillips could have contacted london for new orders,  or Churchill/The War Cabinet could have had a re-think after PH and directed him differently.
For what it's worth,  the war cabinet were told of PH in an emergency session,  and at Churchill's insistance Singapore (and Admiral Phillips) were reminded of their duty and orders in a sternly coded signal to stop the Japanese from attacking/invading Malaysia.  So you could say that the fault doubly-lies with Churchill and his pig-headedness,  he was personally convinced the PoW coud turn back the might of the Japanese all by herself (Repulse doesn't really count, it dated from WWI and its weapon systems had never been properly updated,  it's one advange was that it was relatively fast and manoeverable for such a big and dated ship,  and so it proved dodging the first wave of 19 torpedos without a single hit...)



jwilkerson -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 3:48:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arnhem

In the interests of being accurate, time zones need to be taken into consideration here. Force Z left Singapore on the evening of 8 Dec local time which would have been slightly more than 12 hours after PH had already been bombed. They then spent most of 9 Dec moving towards Singora/Kuantan before turning back for Singapore sometime in the evening/night of 9 Dec. The 2 ships were engaged on the morning of 10 Dec local time and sunk sometime around noon on 10 Dec local time which would make it 9 Dec US Pacific time? It's still more than a day's gap no matter what time zones you use.

I think it would be impossible to accurately setup Force Z to follow it's historical fate than what is the status quo now due to the mechanics of the game, at least from a PBEM perspective. No Allied player is going to knowingly send them to their doom if you start the ships out docked in Singapore. Of course if the you're playing against the AI then presumably a script could be written to sortie Force Z but even then if you were a Japanese player playing against the AI/PBEM wouldn't you be tempted to bomb them while they're docked? It's not perfect but I guess it's the best way to model what happened historically.



Wow I could've written these words to explain my rationale - great job arnhem!!! Actually I have written similar words a number of times - every time we have one of these "Force Z" threads.


quote:

ORIGINAL: spence

If the Historical First Turn was historical then there would be no such problems.



Part of what is being modelled at the start of the game is the transition from pre-War (in the Pacific) to War (in the Pacific). Pre-war the governments and high commands of both sides had more say in the orders that were issued - once the war actually began - the military (and naval) commanders on the spot (the players) had to make all the decisions. So in the "Historical Start" both sides are saddled with these pre-war decisions - like the Japanese having to launch pre-set invasions as well as the attack on PH being locked in. And I added in the pre-war decision to commit Force Z to defend Malaya. Players can easily switch the toggle to the a-historical start and change the pre-war orders - on both sides.


quote:

ORIGINAL: HansBolter

While I won't defend the obvious Japanese bias ...

the destruction of the two ships in question is not a foregone conclusion ...



Oh I've been accused of being a JFB and I've been accused of being an AFB - and I've been called plenty of other names that are allowed (on the forums) and plenty that aren't - comes with the territory. But Hans is correct in that in all of my AE starts ... I've actually never seen the historical result - that both ships are sunk - and about 1/6th of the time I've seen both escape unscathed. Usually both get damaged - usually one heavily one not so heavily - but I suspect in most games - both will be back in action by mid-1942.



captskillet -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 4:05:38 PM)

quote:

I've actually never seen the historical result - that both ships are sunk - and about 1/6th of the time I've seen both escape unscathed. Usually both get damaged - usually one heavily one not so heavily - but I suspect in most games - both will be back in action by mid-1942.


Thats what I got jw........Its Aug. 42, Repulse just came back on line and POW should be back in about 30 more days.



TommyG -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 4:17:49 PM)

In my two PBEM historical starts since Patch 2, both ships have been sunk both times; albeit once Repulse was taken by the now invincible sub as she limped back to Singapore with 87 in flotation damage



KenchiSulla -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 8:19:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skyros

Mike, in a historical first turn Nagumo has to attack PH and not the subs at Manila or some other target. Some believe the PH attack to be stupid and would rather have the attack fall on the subs in the PI.



I looked into attacking Manilla port with KB, but then I realised the torpedo's mostly dud and the Yanks get mucho SS as reinforcements during '42 and '43.... Kind of disheartened me there and decided to bash the antiquated battlewagons at Pearl Harbour for a laugh....

I don't think it would be worth the trouble to code a force Z sortie later in the scenario tbh.




PzB74 -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 8:30:32 PM)

If you allow Force Z to have options this should also be reflected at PH.
What if the Allied carriers didn't sortie from PH but were delayed, what if they were closer and charged to attack the Kido Butai? What if PH was waiting for the Jap carriers?

The outcome could change history considerably...both ways - but Japan can afford to loose a carrier if they in return can sink 2 US.

These options are available as the "surprise options" in WitP if I remember correctly.



ADB123 -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/16/2009 11:52:10 PM)


[/quote]
Oh I've been accused of being a JFB and I've been accused of being an AFB - and I've been called plenty of other names that are allowed (on the forums) and plenty that aren't - comes with the territory. But Hans is correct in that in all of my AE starts ... I've actually never seen the historical result - that both ships are sunk - and about 1/6th of the time I've seen both escape unscathed. Usually both get damaged - usually one heavily one not so heavily - but I suspect in most games - both will be back in action by mid-1942.

[/quote]

I've done five AE historical starts against the AI and one pbem non-historical start in which I let the PoW and Repulse sail according to existing orders. In all six starts I lost both ships. The AI starts were at both Patch levels.



jazman -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/17/2009 1:38:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

I've done five AE historical starts against the AI and one pbem non-historical start in which I let the PoW and Repulse sail according to existing orders. In all six starts I lost both ships. The AI starts were at both Patch levels.


Now you know why your friends don't take you along when they go to Vegas.



ADB123 -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/17/2009 4:08:11 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: jazman


quote:

ORIGINAL: ADB123

I've done five AE historical starts against the AI and one pbem non-historical start in which I let the PoW and Repulse sail according to existing orders. In all six starts I lost both ships. The AI starts were at both Patch levels.


Now you know why your friends don't take you along when they go to Vegas.



Hey, it's probably more true than you think... My Dad would never let me stand by him when he gambled, he would go from winning to losing as soon as I got within a few feet of him... [:D]



xj900uk -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/17/2009 1:48:58 PM)

Fortunately in my game against the AI the Japanese Nellies couldn't find Force Z  because of bad weather, in the afternoon they ran into a flight of Buffallo's & lost aobut half a dozen planes for their pains as well.
Next turn I recalled Force Z hastily to Singapore with a nice big LRCAP of Buffallos over it, then after refueling sent it (with a couple of extra CL's) to Ceylon up the western side of Malaysia,  again with constant LRCAP's of Buffallo's & Blenheims to provide a protective umbrella.
The IJAAF Nellies tried to get at it,  lost a few planes to my defensive fighters (one Blenheim pilot managed two victories!) and one british DD was torpedo'ed & sunk just before the big westward turn near that Star place



Walker84 -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/17/2009 7:59:12 PM)

Well, as ADB's PBEM partner I'm not allowed to read his AAR so glad you put your head above the parapet buddy so I can add a few general comments [;)]
'
IMO some of this gets to the heart of the 'game as an historical simulation' discussion which has appeared in many threads passim. With 20:20 hindsight would we do the same thing as happened IRL i.e let Force Z steam off up the coast when we know in game terms its safer to cut and run for Trincomalee under LRCAP protection. Would Churchill have sanctioned this politically however? Also we know that the Allies seriously underestimated the capabilities of Japanese pilots and consequently the risks of using capital ships in waters with inadequate air support. They learned the lesson the hard way. Speaking as a Brit its still painful to see those 2 battlewagons go down but there was something of an air of inevitability about it although I have played the odd start where the weather causes the Nells to misfire and Force Z survives.

Although we opted for a non-historic start, readers of the AAR (not me I hasten to add!) will note that I elected to continue with the PH raid and most of the historical landing objectives because this seemed like absolutely the right course of action. This is not to say that I won't throw a few surprises in to keep ADB on his toes but I like to test each one to see how it stands up to my own internal House Rules which could be summarised as 'be adventurous but not outlandish as you plan your actions'. I.e. I would not invade somewhere like palembang on turn 1 even if i figured I could get there because i do not think it fits well with the historical doctrine. As the game develops different options will obviously present themselves - dictating whether to go for the India or Pacific expansion strategies etc and that's where the game can really depart from and also change history which is why i love to play it!

Of course these are my own observations and I'm not suggesting that anyone should play any way other than what suits them but thought I would share anyway!



Nikademus -> RE: Why the 7th instead of the 10th for the PoW and Repulse? (12/17/2009 8:06:19 PM)

I once sank PoW with an iboat with six torpedo hits before any planes, BB's cruisers or transports got their licks in or got licked.

Such JFB Nonsense!!!!!!!!! [:D]



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.015625