Noumea more valuable to the allies?

[Icedawg]

What is the deal with the VP level for Noumea?

Just about all other bases award more VP's to the side that historically would not have had an easy time capturing and holding the base (examples - Pearl Harbor - lots of points for the Japanese if they somehow capture it, but few points for the Allies for holding it; Tokyo - lots of points of the allies if they capture it, but few points for the Japanese for holding it). Basically, every base on the map fits this pattern.

Why then is Noumea's base victory point multiplier 100 for the allies but only 5 for the Japanese? Shouldn't it be the other way around? If the allies hold it, it wouldn't be a big deal. But if the Japanese take it, it should be worth a ton.

[KDonovan]

Noumea is worth alot to the Japanese if they take. Don't remember the exact values, but if Noumea is worth 2000 VPs to the Allies and only 10 VP's to the Japanese......when Japan captures Noumea, the Allies lose 2000 VP's...which is the same as if the Japanese gaining 2000 VP's.


When calculating base VP value, best not to think of it in terms of "worth" for once particular side vs the other, but to just add up the values worth for each side to figure out the net VP value of a base

[qgaliana]

And if you play for the VPs, removing 1000 pts from the allies is 4000 pts less you need as Japan. That being said, I've always thought some of that South Pacific real estate is overvalued in victory points, even if it is strategically important.

[Feinder]

It's probably a hold-over from UV.  Noumea would have been -THE- base to hold as Allies, and the 100 VP multiplier probably set the base-line for the points in the scenario(s).
 
-F-

[Icedawg]

I understand your logic/math (if your opponent loses VP's, you've effectively gained them; you can shift a ratio by altering either of its components), but why are Noumea's VP multipliers set up to be the reverse of all of the other bases? Why is it the "ugly duckling"?

[Feinder]

(see my just just above yours)
 
-F-

[tsimmonds]

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I understand your logic/math (if your opponent loses VP's, you've effectively gained them; you can shift a ratio by altering either of its components), but why are Noumea's VP multipliers set up to be the reverse of all of the other bases? Why is it the "ugly duckling"?

It is how much it shifts the ratio that is important. At the end of 1942, subtracting 1000 from the Allies is the same as adding 4000 to the Japanese. At the end of 1943, subtracting 1000 from the Allies is equal only to adding 3000 to the Japanese. End of 44, 1000 = 2000. It is a way to give extra significance to IJ holding Noumea at the end of 1942.

I guess someone wants to make you fight to hold Noumea in 1942[;)]

[niceguy2005]

ORIGINAL: irrelevant

ORIGINAL: Icedawg

I understand your logic/math (if your opponent loses VP's, you've effectively gained them; you can shift a ratio by altering either of its components), but why are Noumea's VP multipliers set up to be the reverse of all of the other bases? Why is it the "ugly duckling"?

It is how much it shifts the ratio that is important. At the end of 1942, subtracting 1000 from the Allies is the same as adding 4000 to the Japanese. At the end of 1943, subtracting 1000 from the Allies is equal only to adding 3000 to the Japanese. End of 44, 1000 = 2000. It is a way to give extra significance to IJ holding Noumea at the end of 1942.

I guess someone wants to make you fight to hold Noumea in 1942[;)]

So I think the answer is nobody really knows WHY it is opposite the rest of the game, but it's really not an issue as it is the point difference that matters.