Matrix Games Forums

Inquisitor,

Dead on point here. Messing with the VP for bases is a dangerous thing as you may activate the law of unintended consequences. I am working with an idea where base VP will be rationalized. By that I mean bases will be worth the same if they share the same general locale. At present certain bases are worth more because in RL they were considered more important. However, a point could be made that once we diverge from reality on Turn 1, the players choose what is important. Also, both sides get very few VPs from holding their own territory but see large VPs assigned to the opponent if they lose it. For example: Akita has a base VP of 1 for Japan and 50 for Allies. Conversely, Los Angeles had a base VP of 100 for Japan and 1 for Allies.

I am considering changing that paradigm. You need to hold your own stuff and should be rewarded for doing so. If I am able to figure it out, VPs from base points will remain nearly the same but will be alloted differently. The goal will be to create potential "knock out punches" because if you lose a vital base not only does your opponent get a big VP boost but you lose a bunch. On the decreasing VP sides, many bases will simply be worth 1 VP to both sides. At present, a Japan player can nab some fairly hearty VPs by taking NE Oz (Exmouth, Port Hedland, Broome, et al). Those will be decreased significantly but you get below the "line of death" and now we're talking. If the japan player has the cajones to cross the line, he should be rewarded. Conversely if he/she chooses to just dance around in Oz or India with no intention of crossing the line then "No VPs for you!"

On an aside, I fully intend to change the LOD reinforcements. If one were to assume that this would occur most likely in either late '42, or early '43 then the only forces not in contact with the Germans at the time were US forces. The reinforcements would be USA specifically the Torch forces. I know many would disagree with me on that but its my Mod and that's the way it is going to be. So yes, cross the LOD in Oz and you get a full US Armored Division added to the Allied OOB (if the game would allow for leaders to be tied to units prior to reinforcement, I'd put Patton in charge)

These are just thoughts in my mind right now and need serious filling out

You have a lot of moving parts, so it is unclear how this might play out. Since both sides are manifestly reduced, wouldnt one likely potnetial outcome even more favor the aggressive and better player, since the other side wont have nearly as many ground forces available to move around until later in the game. I think it becomes more of an early naval simulation with these changes.

I also get a bit confused at the cargo capacity reductions and DEI fuel swapouts. I think the devil is in the details there. Since we all know a mostly historical empire capabilties simulation without any upward potential through good luck and good play would not be very interesting to many players, what is the desired new balance point in the game? Without a material capability to strip Manchukuo (and nsome of the other restrictions), I would expect Oz and India are never going to be in danger in real terms, handing a large factor to the allies.

Am I seeing this wrong?