Expand Port Option Ghosted

[s96825]

Hi, I am playing the Guadalcanal Scenario (Allies) and I cannot seem to get the port of Noumea to expand. The expand port option is ghosted. The size is still 7 like it was at the start of the scenario.

Is there anything I can do to expand Noumea?

Thanks

[Platoonist]

Is there anything I can do to expand Noumea?

Hi. Due to geography or infrastructure not every port can be a ten. Seven which it starts the scenario at, is as big as it can get. Noumea has a standard potential size (SPS) of four, which it has already exceeded by three, so it can't be enlarged further. It's already been maxed out and the airfield as well. See page 44-45 of the manual for more details.

Noumea SPS.jpg (19.78 KiB) Viewed 1089 times

[RangerJoe]

Also, welcome to the game!

[s96825]

Thanks!

[Jaus1]

Section 9.5 of the manual says that, for each engineering squad involved in costruction, one supply point is consumed every twelve hours of construction operations.

It goes on to say that "Construction costs to increase an airfield or port by one increase as the current size of the airfield or port increases (i.e. it takes longer to go from a size 6 to size 7 than from a size 5 to a size 6). "

How much do the costs and time increase as size increases?


Section 9.5 goes on to say:
"Once a port or airfield reaches its SPS, the cost of additional construction increases significantly, You should consider halting construction or else risk consuming large quantities of supplies for possibly little benefit. In addition to the normal costs, it takes 10 times longer than normal to increase a current size 0 airfield with a SPS of zero to a size of 1. These size zero locations were very unsuitable for airfields (such as Wau, which was built on the side of a mountain). "

What is the additional cost of going beyond SPS? The line about 10x cost for going from airfield 0 to 1 sounds like a specific case that would not apply to, say, going from 6 to 7 for an SPS=6 base.

[Trugrit]

Section 9.5 of the manual says that, for each engineering squad involved in costruction, one supply point is consumed every twelve hours of construction operations.

It goes on to say that "Construction costs to increase an airfield or port by one increase as the current size of the airfield or port increases (i.e. it takes longer to go from a size 6 to size 7 than from a size 5 to a size 6). "

How much do the costs and time increase as size increases?


Section 9.5 goes on to say:
"Once a port or airfield reaches its SPS, the cost of additional construction increases significantly, You should consider halting construction or else risk consuming large quantities of supplies for possibly little benefit. In addition to the normal costs, it takes 10 times longer than normal to increase a current size 0 airfield with a SPS of zero to a size of 1. These size zero locations were very unsuitable for airfields (such as Wau, which was built on the side of a mountain). "

What is the additional cost of going beyond SPS? The line about 10x cost for going from airfield 0 to 1 sounds like a specific case that would not apply to, say, going from 6 to 7 for an SPS=6 base.

Graymane figured it out back in 2011 and I don't think his numbers have ever been challenged.
Read the whole thread.
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 8#p2742878

In his second post in the thread is a chart on cost.

Somewhere on the forum he has a part 2.

[Chris21wen]

Simply not a figure I've ever been intereseted in, I've never seen that guide by Graymane until now. The manual has always been enough to warn and inform. This and experience has shown me to stop once SPS has been reached except for some specific strategic location, like Noumea, and bases in range of heavies (e.g. Saipan etc). If you play Japan then stopping at SPS is vital, I'd go even further and say retricting constuction up to SPS is also vital. For the Allies it can mostly be ignored but expanding beyond SPS depends on time and area when supplies can get tight.

[BBfanboy]

Port and AF levels are determinants of VPs for owning the base. The Allies often need to develop bases in a hurry in 1942 to stave off auto-victory by the Japanese in January 1943. That includes over-developing bases beyond military needs to get the VPs. Another reason the Allies need all the supply they can get in 1942.

[Trugrit]

Port and AF levels are determinants of VPs for owning the base. The Allies often need to develop bases in a hurry in 1942 to stave off auto-victory by the Japanese in January 1943. That includes over-developing bases beyond military needs to get the VPs. Another reason the Allies need all the supply they can get in 1942.

Yes,

A reason that all the new Bases added to the new Beta need to be studied
for supply and what it does to the victory points calculations.

[Jaus1]

I'm puzzled by the header in Graymanes first table. The header describes "Combined SPS (Port SPS + Airfield SPS)", but the values only go up to 9 and combined SPS's frequently exceed that. What am I missing?

[RangerJoe]

I'm puzzled by the header in Graymanes first table. The header describes "Combined SPS (Port SPS + Airfield SPS)", but the values only go up to 9 and combined SPS's frequently exceed that. What am I missing?

Once they reach level 9, there is an unlimited supply and fuel storage capacity. Other than that, I don't know. But at airfield level 9, there are bonuses to the Air Support plus I do believe that an airfield complex that large has unlimited stacking capacity.

[BBfanboy]

It's level 8 AF to get doubling of the Air Support value and level 9 AF to get unlimited aircraft and squadrons.

[BBfanboy]

I'm puzzled by the header in Graymanes first table. The header describes "Combined SPS (Port SPS + Airfield SPS)", but the values only go up to 9 and combined SPS's frequently exceed that. What am I missing?

SPS is the 'normal' (easily buildable) size of the base. You can build up to three levels beyond the SPS to make it an 'expanded' port or AF (with extra resources required to do so). What you have been seeing "beyond SPS" is actual build, not the SPS levels. And of course, if the SPS is 7 or 8, you cannot raise it three levels - level 9 is the max for what you can build. The level 10 Ports and AFs in the game are that way at game start.

[Jaus1]

I don't think I got my question across. I'm not confused by the actual size vs. SPS, I'm questioning Graymanes header that uses 'Combined SPS (port SPS + airfield SPS)', i.e. you add the two together.

[Dewey169]

I don't think I got my question across. I'm not confused by the actual size vs. SPS, I'm questioning Graymanes header that uses 'Combined SPS (port SPS + airfield SPS)', i.e. you add the two together.

Reread BB’s answer. The max is 9. You cannot build anything larger than 9 so the combined will never exceed 9.

[Jaus1]

Huh? 9+9=9 ?? I'm looking at Sydney right now and it is 9(9) and 8(7), combined SPS 16.

[LBrown]

Maybe we're all saying the same thing but here is my take.

Graymane says in Note 10: " The total SPS of the base (port SPS + airfield SPS) impacts the total number of engineers allowed to work on the base up to a maximum SPS of 9."

Engineers present above the number on his chart in column 9 (Combined SPS of 9) will not count. So adding additional columns is not required. Thus Pearl harbor (scenario 1) has an SPS port of 5(max 8) and an SPS airfield of 7(max 10) totaling 12. But the max number of engineers to build to a level 6 port is 988 shown under column 9.

Clear as mud?

[Jaus1]

Perhaps that is what he meant (and he left the '+' off after the '9'), but since the % associated with 'Build to size'=9 and combined SPF=9 is only 50% I would have thought there would be more engineer allowance for combined SPFs greater than 9. But maybe not...

[RangerJoe]

Perhaps that is what he meant (and he left the '+' off after the '9'), but since the % associated with 'Build to size'=9 and combined SPF=9 is only 50% I would have thought there would be more engineer allowance for combined SPFs greater than 9. But maybe not...

I think that he meant port or airfield. So to get Sydney to 9(9), one would use the last (9) column. To get Sydney to 8(7), then one would use the third from the right (7) column and then go down to level 8. It does not matter if it is the port or airfield, the cost, time, and the number of engineers allowed are the same.

[Jaus1]

That was my first thought and seems to be the one that makes the most sense.