Matrix Games Forums

Hi all
Just having a browse through my bases and realised that, although I had known of the different values assigned to each side for bases, I hadn't quite grasped some of the finer points.
Early on I had a perceived need to drop an engr unit on Tahiti. Socotra was another, where I thought of using it as an on map Aden, Patrol base etc, and it had it's own BF.
I forgot about Tahiti for a few months and then clicked back on it. I then realised that Tahita had an allied multiplier of 20 ! So any AF increase of 1 meant 40 VP for me. I looked at Socotra and found it had an allied multiplier of 10.
Okay, neither base could be upgraded to a 9 Port and a 9 AF but it meant that by dropping an engr unit at Tahiti , far from the action, I could eventually get 340 VPs and Socotra gave me an additional 190.
I know engrs are scarce at the start but if giving up one or two to work quietly in the background can get me so many VPs then it might be worth it.
A quick look seems that most allied bases have a multiplier of 1, Malaya and DEI have a multiplier of 2 and the coastal Chinse have a 3. The Japanese home islands seem to have a 15. The closer you get to Japan, obviously the higher the base multiplier.
So the question is - Has anyone done a list of the value of the bases? I don't really want to spend a few days listing every base, clicking on them and working out the multiplier, if it has not been done already. But is anyone aware of any other oddities such as Tahiti and Socotra that have high multipliers, but are rather out of the way so that dropping a low AV Engr unit there would not be a risk?

The bases that have higher VPs allocated to them appear to have strategic importance. Also note that the VPs assigned to them are different for the different sides.

RangerJoe wrote: Tue May 07, 2024 11:17 am The bases that have higher VPs allocated to them appear to have strategic importance. Also note that the VPs assigned to them are different for the different sides.

I am not sure about that because some bases that seem to have a great position (like Cam Rahn Bay) do not get high multipliers. IIRC, Fusan does not get all that high a multiplier either but Keijo and Heijo do!
Noumea gets a very large multiplier while the two other bases on New and Improved Caledonia do not. Go figure.

Size, location (strategic and operational) and historical significance all affect the base value. Taking Noumea as an example. In v26b with it's high Allied base value of 50 is potentially much bigger than the other two and given it's location much more important to the Allies than Japan.

Another example is Midway. It has a Japanese base value 3, Allied 1. It's small island in the middle of nowhere useful as a refueling point only and then only to the Japanese. The Allies where never or would never go dirrectly to Japan form PH, even if they did it's too far away to support any TFs.

And then you have the designers rim....

I was more interested in the oddities. Why Tahiti has such a large multiplier? Why Foochow has a 3 multiplier while Wenchow does, closer to Shanghai and the Home Islands only have a 1 multiplier?
I am sure there are a few quirks put in by the designers. I was just asking if anyone had done a review of these?
I can somewhat understand that Socotra has a large multiplier but why so high compared to other in the region. And why, for such a base close to the Indian Ocean convoy routes is the Japanese multiplier not higher?
And yes, I can understand that the closer the Allies get to Japan, the higher the multiplier. Building up bases in Australia when the multiplier is only 1 looks a waste of resources if you can get a 2 multiplier in PNG and the DEI and a 3 in other areas.
Still, for those USA based units with engrs that cannot be bought out, it does give them something to do! So all the West Coast units unable to deploy overseas quickly received expand port/AF orders. So what if it takes them six months to upgrade an AF to 4, At least they are doing something other than using up supplies.

Udpated stock scen001

Chungking 100 VP
Noumea 50 VP
Canberra 30 VP
Krasnoyarsk, Tahiti, Pearl Harbor - all 20 VP (Pearl Harbor airfield cannot be developed more)
Auckland, Anchorage, Irkutsk, Socotra, Diego Gracia, Changsha - all 10 VP

And don't forget

Kunming - 5 VP
Plain de Gras (N of Noumea) - 4 VP
Ichang - 3 VP

I understand that the multipliers do vary. '
but I am interested in the differences.
Wenchow has a multiplier for Japan of 10 while the allies have a multiplier of 1 Yet Foochow has a multiplier of 1 for the Japanese while the allies have a multiplier of 3. And Pucheng has a Japanese multiplier of 10 while the allies only 1?
There seem to be many odd allocations of multipliers. Why does Wenchow have a Japanese 10 with an allied 1 while Foochow, only a few hexes away has a Japanese 1 with an allied 3? yet Wenchow is closer to Shanghai and also within air range of the Home Islands>

The developers have set these values based upon their impression of the relative value of these bases for each side. It may be more important for one side to hold the base than the other. You may want to keep in mind that while it may be listed as more important for your opponent than for you, taking it from him reduces his VP total by that value.

In the long run, I choose to hold or take locations based upon what I consider their value to my campaign: bases that can be developed into L9 airfields being the most important.

About the only time you need to worry about VPs in Tahiti or Socotra (oops, I mean Scoodra) is if the IJ is threatening an auto-victory. I've seen at least one AAR where the IJ player got close, and the Allied player was building up bases in the middle of nowhere. Otherwise, I think play the game as if VPs don't matter until you see a chance for auto-vic yourself. Of course, taking points away from IJ is often more impactful than building your own points at that stage.

Cheers,
CB

For me, the reason for building up some of those rear area bases is in case the Japanese manage to drive deep towards blocking the vital sea routes to Australia. Should I need to re-route my convoys further south they will need refueling stops for that longer route. Once the threat is resolved, those engineers and base units can be brought forward to build up new bases.

LGKMAS wrote: Tue May 14, 2024 11:05 am I understand that the multipliers do vary. '
but I am interested in the differences.
Wenchow has a multiplier for Japan of 10 while the allies have a multiplier of 1 Yet Foochow has a multiplier of 1 for the Japanese while the allies have a multiplier of 3. And Pucheng has a Japanese multiplier of 10 while the allies only 1?
There seem to be many odd allocations of multipliers. Why does Wenchow have a Japanese 10 with an allied 1 while Foochow, only a few hexes away has a Japanese 1 with an allied 3? yet Wenchow is closer to Shanghai and also within air range of the Home Islands>

Check the ownership of the bases at the start of the game and that will give you a clue as to the reason for the multiplier.

Been doing some looking at base values, listing them at start values and maxed out values and a number of other issues. Still looking at the results. A couple of points are of interest.
Indochina seems a neutral area, neither side gets a multiplier of more than 1 except for Saigon. All the other provincial capitals in FIC, Hanoi, Phnom Penh, Ventiane get only a 1. Saigon gets a 25. Even Bangkok only gets a 1. Interesting.
But what puzzles me more is that there are a number of British bases in India with a 0 multiplier. ie no matter what size the base, the Allies get zero VPs for them. Now, they are all clustered around Amritsar.
They are Aligarh (51,19), Ambala (54.15) Amritsar ( 55.11) and Bikaner (49, 13) One thought I did have was that this was an area of unrest for British India so maybe the developers made this area difficult for the British. They still need garrisons and they can develop Airbases as much as they like but no VPs? Thoughts?
And another zero base, this time for both sides is Winton (86,147)! Okay, Winton is deep in the outback, back of beyond and then some. but giving neither side a VP for holding it? Doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe just an oversight?
regards

I think the reason is that area around Aligarh (51,19), Ambala (54.15) Amritsar ( 55.11) and Bikaner (49, 13) was notoriously rebellious area, but might be wrong.

Still, it'd be plausible explanation.

Sardaukar wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 6:58 am I think the reason is that area around Aligarh (51,19), Ambala (54.15) Amritsar ( 55.11) and Bikaner (49, 13) was notoriously rebellious area, but might be wrong.

Still, it'd be plausible explanation.

Well you get rebellions, damage and VP loss at the other bases that have points for their bases so I am not sure that is the reason. It would eat up some small garrison units but since there is no point in building up a base that has a 0 VP value, no engineers are required. There are a number of engineerless small Indian units like that - park them in those locations and forget them evermore! Pick the ones with the lousiest leaders (which have insane PP replacement costs!).

LGKMAS wrote: Fri Jun 21, 2024 4:31 am Been doing some looking at base values, listing them at start values and maxed out values and a number of other issues. Still looking at the results. A couple of points are of interest.
Indochina seems a neutral area, neither side gets a multiplier of more than 1 except for Saigon. All the other provincial capitals in FIC, Hanoi, Phnom Penh, Ventiane get only a 1. Saigon gets a 25. Even Bangkok only gets a 1. Interesting.
But what puzzles me more is that there are a number of British bases in India with a 0 multiplier. ie no matter what size the base, the Allies get zero VPs for them. Now, they are all clustered around Amritsar.
They are Aligarh (51,19), Ambala (54.15) Amritsar ( 55.11) and Bikaner (49, 13) One thought I did have was that this was an area of unrest for British India so maybe the developers made this area difficult for the British. They still need garrisons and they can develop Airbases as much as they like but no VPs? Thoughts?
And another zero base, this time for both sides is Winton (86,147)! Okay, Winton is deep in the outback, back of beyond and then some. but giving neither side a VP for holding it? Doesn't seem to make sense. Maybe just an oversight?
regards

I commented about new bases' VP values here:
https://www.matrixgames.com/forums/view ... 9#p5115529