Matrix Games Forums

I have started a through review of all my bases, looking at Engr assets and other matters. I was looking at bases in the rear areas that could be upgraded by Restricted movement HQs and I found a number of them. Even though a BF cannot leave the USA does not mean it cannot earn VPs by upgrading a base. I moved from west coast, SE Pac, SOPAC. SWPAC. Burma/Bengal etc. Then I get to India and I find there is no reason at all to expand some bases as the VP multiplier is zero. Amritsar is one and there seem to be a few others around that area.
Is this a reflection of the OTL problems there or are there other areas where the local VP is Zero?

There are no zero VP multipliers in the official scenarios.

Alfred

I am running scenario 6 the 8th of Dec scenario. I presume this is an official scenario?
It is late at night here so I will postpone any posting of screenshots until AM my time. I assure you there is a VP for allies of (0)0 for Amritsar on my computer.

ORIGINAL: LGKMAS

I have started a through review of all my bases, looking at Engr assets and other matters. I was looking at bases in the rear areas that could be upgraded by Restricted movement HQs and I found a number of them. Even though a BF cannot leave the USA does not mean it cannot earn VPs by upgrading a base. I moved from west coast, SE Pac, SOPAC. SWPAC. Burma/Bengal etc. Then I get to India and I find there is no reason at all to expand some bases as the VP multiplier is zero. Amritsar is one and there seem to be a few others around that area.
Is this a reflection of the OTL problems there or are there other areas where the local VP is Zero?

You are probably confusing the Standard Potential Size (SPS) number with the multiplier. The Base screen shows the SPS number in brackets after the Port and AF current size. You can only see the multiplier by doing a mouse rollover of the base where the number in brackets is the multiplier.
See the manual for explanation of SPS.

ORIGINAL: Alfred
There are no zero VP multipliers in the official scenarios.

Stock 2 here, newer version from AndyMac. Not that it matters much, 0/1 multipliers are all negligible

Well then, not much of a need to garrison them, is there? Let the Japanese paradrop on them if they haven't been north of Delhi yet. [;)]

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Alfred
There are no zero VP multipliers in the official scenarios.

Stock 2 here, newer version from AndyMac. Not that it matters much, 0/1 multipliers are all negligible

That is a typo error.

All official scenarios are meant to have a non zero VP multiplier.

Alfred

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: Alfred
There are no zero VP multipliers in the official scenarios.

Stock 2 here, newer version from AndyMac. Not that it matters much, 0/1 multipliers are all negligible

Was not aware of that change - the 0 multipliers for the Allies appear to be an oversight - there should be some reason for wanting to take a base and build it.

I am not sure about the garrison consequences - you might still lose the VP and suffer facilities damage if you don't garrison the base, even if it has no VP value when you hold it. Abandoning the base might mean you lose a VP every turn until the Japanese decide to take it or you send troops back.

EDIT: Alfred confirmed the oversight. It is easily fixed in the Editor where you can set the multiplier value. If the Scenario is protected from changes, just copy it to a blank scenario slot, then change the (0) values in the locations tab, Allied VP field.

In the stock scenario 1 and 2 there are 4 Indian and 1 Australian base with 0 VP multipliers.

In India: Aligarh, Ambala, Amritsar, and Bikaner.
In Australia: Winton

In the BTS scenarios they have been corrected.

In DBB at least these 5 are also set to 0.

Special note, Winton is also set to 0 for the Japanese.

ORIGINAL: Nomad

In the stock scenario 1 and 2 there are 4 Indian and 1 Australian base with 0 VP multipliers.

In India: Aligarh, Ambala, Amritsar, and Bikaner.
In Australia: Winton

In the BTS scenarios they have been corrected.

In DBB at least these 5 are also set to 0.

Special note, Winton is also set to 0 for the Japanese.

In other words, nobody really wants Winton!

Winton got a mention in despatches in the national news only a few weeks back:
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.abc ... e/12885022

ORIGINAL: jdsrae

Winton got a mention in despatches in the national news only a few weeks back:
https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.abc ... e/12885022

Interesting - Canadian airlines too owe a lot of their roots to the bush pilots who flew to isolated northern settlements, a parallel to remote outback settlements in the early 1900s I think.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Was not aware of that change - the 0 multipliers for the Allies appear to be an oversight - there should be some reason for wanting to take a base and build it.
...

EDIT: Alfred confirmed the oversight. It is easily fixed in the Editor where you can set the multiplier value. If the Scenario is protected from changes, just copy it to a blank scenario slot, then change the (0) values in the locations tab, Allied VP field.

As I've said, small multipliers do not matter and do not affect the game the slightest. Also, for most of the bases on the map the main reason to have it is location and interdiction. Only relatively few important ones are taken primarily for VPs

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Was not aware of that change - the 0 multipliers for the Allies appear to be an oversight - there should be some reason for wanting to take a base and build it.
...

EDIT: Alfred confirmed the oversight. It is easily fixed in the Editor where you can set the multiplier value. If the Scenario is protected from changes, just copy it to a blank scenario slot, then change the (0) values in the locations tab, Allied VP field.

As I've said, small multipliers do not matter and do not affect the game the slightest. Also, for most of the bases on the map the main reason to have it is location and interdiction. Only relatively few important ones are taken primarily for VPs

As recent elections have shown, sometimes a few miserable votes can make the crucial difference. So it is, sometimes, with the race for Auto-Victory. A few points in the denominator side of the VP ratio can mean much more on the numerator side. I spurn no VPs that I can get! [:)]

Just as an example, I discovered Socotra, that little island just below Aden, has a port rated at 0 so can be upgraded to a port of 3. The airfield has a base of 5 so can be upgraded to 8. That gives a basic VP total of 3 + (8x2) or 19. The kicker is that the VP multiplier or whatever it is called is 10. So by putting a small engr party there early and keeping it supplied, you can easily get it up to 190 VPs just by leaving them there to do their thing. How many ships do you have to sink to get 190VPs?
And Diego Garcia is similar. max port is 5 and max Airfield is 6 so 17 x 10 = 170 VPs. Again, dump a small engr party there and let them do their own thing. Together they add up to 360 VPs. Again, what do yo have to sink or shoot down to get those sort of returns?
I am using restricted BFs and units that have engrs such as the West Coast Divisions to expand all over the USA. They can't go anywhere so they may as well do something while they exist and the supply situation in the USA is not a problem. If I can get 10 of these rear area towns up from 1 to 17 then that is an extra 160 VPs. Money for Jam!

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy
Was not aware of that change - the 0 multipliers for the Allies appear to be an oversight - there should be some reason for wanting to take a base and build it.
...

EDIT: Alfred confirmed the oversight. It is easily fixed in the Editor where you can set the multiplier value. If the Scenario is protected from changes, just copy it to a blank scenario slot, then change the (0) values in the locations tab, Allied VP field.

As I've said, small multipliers do not matter and do not affect the game the slightest. Also, for most of the bases on the map the main reason to have it is location and interdiction. Only relatively few important ones are taken primarily for VPs

As recent elections have shown, sometimes a few miserable votes can make the crucial difference. So it is, sometimes, with the race for Auto-Victory. A few points in the denominator side of the VP ratio can mean much more on the numerator side. I spurn no VPs that I can get! [:)]

That's too general a statement on your side. There is a bazillion of bases on the map, which cannot be said about engineering units or land troops. You can always pick a more than viable alternative to capturing/building 0/1 base for VPs. Nobody does it for VPs, and if he does he should reconsider the priorities

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: GetAssista

As I've said, small multipliers do not matter and do not affect the game the slightest. Also, for most of the bases on the map the main reason to have it is location and interdiction. Only relatively few important ones are taken primarily for VPs

As recent elections have shown, sometimes a few miserable votes can make the crucial difference. So it is, sometimes, with the race for Auto-Victory. A few points in the denominator side of the VP ratio can mean much more on the numerator side. I spurn no VPs that I can get! [:)]

That's too general a statement on your side. There is a bazillion of bases on the map, which cannot be said about engineering units or land troops. You can always pick a more than viable alternative to capturing/building 0/1 base for VPs. Nobody does it for VPs, and if he does he should reconsider the priorities

Agreed - but in the India bases with (0) multiplier example, if I have to have troops at the base to stop the enemy from using it, I want the VPs for having those troops there. I get your point that you can ignore the base most of the time, but sometimes you have to put blocking forces out there.

Then you have a military reason for holding the base, not just to occupy it for victory points.

But please leave elections and any references to them off the threads.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

Then you have a military reason for holding the base, not just to occupy it for victory points.

But please leave elections and any references to them off the threads.

Politics are forbidden. The fact of election results without mention of political players says nothing about politics.