Matrix Games Forums

Though VPs for bases are subtracted from one side's total when the base is lost and added to the other, so it does effect both sides on a 1 to 1 basis. If it's still a concern, I recommend bumping the VP multiplier for the atoll bases that are being reduced, or at least many of them. Add a point to most of the bases that are having port build reduced and this should cover most of the VP loss.

The Allies have the ability to boost their VP total by building up many backwater bases to max build. By 1944 the Allies usually have lots of extra construction units looking for work and a lot of extra supply.

Bill

ORIGINAL: wdolson

Though VPs for bases are subtracted from one side's total when the base is lost and added to the other, so it does effect both sides on a 1 to 1 basis. If it's still a concern, I recommend bumping the VP multiplier for the atoll bases that are being reduced, or at least many of them. Add a point to most of the bases that are having port build reduced and this should cover most of the VP loss.

The Allies have the ability to boost their VP total by building up many backwater bases to max build. By 1944 the Allies usually have lots of extra construction units looking for work and a lot of extra supply.

Bill

That would alleviate my concern I think. I do build backwater bases for VPs in an (abstracted) game where Japan routinely these days conquers all of China and mounts major offensives in India and/or Oz. History is history and the game is the game. I look at that focus as using up my Seabees on backwater bases though, and having fewer to use up front without shipping delays. It's a trade-off.

I'd also worry in this plan that the USN gets historical numbers of tenders, but things like torpedo Netties are also abstracted. No need for av gas, and torpedoes are very "cheap" in logistic terms. If a Japan player went hard after the finite numbers of tenders he could effectively prevent a mid-Pac strategy, or a NorPac too pretty much, or make them so slow as to not be feasible. That would channel the Allies into a NG/PI, or a western Sumatra axis.

It's an interesting idea, but in this game the elbow's connected to the wrist bone and so forth. "Minor" changes to better target history can blow up.

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: mind_messing
Game balance as well.

What you're proposing is a step towards realism, but very much in favour of the Allies (with their abundance of tenders) while severely limiting Japanese fleet operations.

My suggestion to counter this would be to reduce the time it takes to convert some Japanese merchant ships into tenders.

Babes isn't balanced.

That may be so, but I think offering the Allies the ability to convert some merchant hulls into tenders as well would be a good move. Considering that the Allies could (and probably will) lose a great many tenders in the Philippines as well as Pearl, it locks them out of the Central Pacific for the time to complete the conversions, rather than until enough reinforcement tenders arrive.

Not planning to make any changes to BabesLite (Scens 026 and 027). Those are intended to be, and will remain, faithful to the stock paradigm. So one retains complete compatibility with the AI and the VP schema in BabesLite.

Major adjustment of base sizes is part of the Mongo re-do of everything for the “Tool Kit”. This is a heavily modified set of files that can be used to develop super-grainy, smaller map, shorter time, highly detailed scenarios. Some of its features will be ported to DaBigBabes, but clearly not an extensive set: there’s nowhere near enough slots [8D]

Will be messing with certain bases in DBB, but making up the reduction in size with the ships that were known to be there, and more robust (actual) base LCUs.

I know smaller, "grainier" scenarios is a particular passion you have and have had for years. In that type of scenario I can understand how making atolls more realistic makes sense.

Figuring out the exact VP implications in a GC game is a spreadsheet exercise I'm not eager to undertake. It might not be a big deal. In a few places it would affect local ops to uber-protect support ships from the somewhat over-strength IJN naval torpedo bomber threat.

Overall I think the Babes portfolio is large enough to give most everyone something they can like after they've wrung out the stocks.

This sounds like another great step!

Question - will this also have the effect to limit the ability of atoll bases to maintain large stocks of fuel? That would be another hurdle for players as they would have to keep fuel stocks on ships, staging valuable tankers (and perhaps warships, ala Yamato at Truk) as refuel sources.

Well Yamato et al were stationed in Truk and small repairs were available so that must e taken in consideration.

ORIGINAL: IdahoNYer
This sounds like another great step!

Question - will this also have the effect to limit the ability of atoll bases to maintain large stocks of fuel? That would be another hurdle for players as they would have to keep fuel stocks on ships, staging valuable tankers (and perhaps warships, ala Yamato at Truk) as refuel sources.

I wish that could be so, but we have to use the game code. But smaller sizes mean more wastage, slower refuel daily amounts, fewer ops points, and so on. Makes it handy to have some AOs in town for a quicker picker-upper, and some TKs to replenish the "port" that then replenishes the AOs. Strained, but workable, and it does require more effective use of tanders and tankers.

Possible that we can get Michaelm to adjust stockpiling at places coded as 'atoll' + 'small', but it's unlikely. Too much invested in the 'regular' game to perturb it in this way. Would also cause primal screaming, terminal ennui, dogs and cats living together, you know, real wrath of God stuff from the regular group.

Ciao JWE

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Figuring out the exact VP implications in a GC game is a spreadsheet exercise I'm not eager to undertake. It might not be a big deal. ...

Don't think it would be too hard. Most of the reductions would only be -1 or -2 to port SPS and some similar reductions to certain airfield SPS. Bill's suggestion is well taken, though. The VP calculation is well established and the math is pretty simple. Should be a no-brainer, if we tweak port/airfield numbers, to compensate with tweaks to the A/J VP fields.

ORIGINAL: Symon

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58
Figuring out the exact VP implications in a GC game is a spreadsheet exercise I'm not eager to undertake. It might not be a big deal. ...

Don't think it would be too hard. Most of the reductions would only be -1 or -2 to port SPS and some similar reductions to certain airfield SPS. Bill's suggestion is well taken, though. The VP calculation is well established and the math is pretty simple. Should be a no-brainer, if we tweak port/airfield numbers, to compensate with tweaks to the A/J VP fields.

Agree. It wouldn't be a huge total of VPs. So maybe you'd have to increase it from a *1 to a *2 multiplier on Ulithi - big deal! Given that we're already talking about pretty small bases to begin with, it shouldn't be more than a couple hundred VPs, I'd think.