Having actually sailed through the straits on a Carrier they are not very wide and there is little to no room for maneuver in the navigable channels.
The fact that the British guns were not targeting the strait was not a known fact at the time and not even the craziest Admiral would chance running a Battle Group through that gauntlet with the airfields in and around Singapore in enemy hands and operational.
The harbor defense guns could possibly have been discarded but any infantry artillery would have been able to be positioned to pound passing ships. Old fashioned fire ships or channel blockers COULD have been employed to create serious havoc.
Just because something was possible with the perfect knowledge of hindsight doesn't make it something that could be casually done without considering the risk and the unknowns in the present (game time).
Not trying to hijack, so last one on this for me. I just haven't ever seen a discussion of the sailing-past-Singers issue in the forum before and it tweaked my interest.
I have not consulted nav charts of the passage, but atlas maps seem to show a strait about 7-8 miles wide for most of its length. I don't know how wide the dredged channel would have been in 1941, pre-supertanker, but less.
As I thought about the FC issue I also thought about a tactical topic which I've never seen discussed re WITP or AE at all, and that is the absence of smoke as a screen in the game engine. DDs had smoke generators as far back as WWI or earlier, and smoke was used quite a bit in the PTO, at least as late as Leyte Gulf (Taffy 3 action.) Also, in sum, the 15in batteries constituted less than one BB's-worth of tubes, and there were widely separated in known, fixed positions. Smoke rounds and/or harrassment fire from escorts could have helped a passage. And the 6in and any army artillery which could be brought up would not trouble BBs or CAs. Mobile arty would have been fully exposed to counter-fire from the ships as well. At flank a passing force would have been in range for about 90 minutes, give or take. I don't know the rate of fire for the 15in batteries, or the amount of ready ammo, but five tubes would have been an acceptable risk IMO. Admirals in many wars, from the ACW to the RN in the Napoleonic era, challenged shore batteries when necessary. It could be done.
Of course, the IJN didn't need to do it, so it wasn't done. But in game terms I think an HR forbidding it being tried is unwise. As I believe GJ said, the routing rolls sometimes blunder ships into Singer's hex even when told not to; I've had that happen with subs I've sent past which fell to mines. And the air threat is also a factor. But a Japanese player willing to take the risk, and to be cut off from fuel as he goes north up the Burmese coast, ought to be allowed to try. And the narrow strait rules are there to let him. Or, in this case, aren't there.
If they are able to fire into the straight, the risk is too high. A single gun in a fixed position usually can aim more easy than a moving target, right? 6in are more than enough to seriously damage a CA, and the Japanese knew very well that damage above the armour can be sufficiant to sink any ship by damage and fire - they did so themselves in 1895 and 1905.
Would you really risk ships in a small shipping channel that might even be mined while getting under fire from various guns between 6 and 15in? What gains justify such a gamble?
One 15in hit in the right spot against a possible well trained battery that can easy measure fireing distances by former training - no matter that is true or not, you have to anticipate it...
Well, good luck and let's hope you aren't an admiral for Carthago which crucifies you when you loose a battle...
Without any doubt: I am the spawn of evil - and the Bavarian Beer Monster (BBM)!
There's only one bad word and that's taxes. If any other word is good enough for sailors; it's good enough for you. - Ron Swanson