Yes, and the results of simulations using the base drag "cheat" suggested for stubby rockets with a Len/Dia less than ten which adds base drag to a simulation:
https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter154.pdf
https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter158.pdf
https://www.apogeerockets.com/education/downloads/Newsletter162.pdf
might allow a reduction in fin area which could even reduce weathercocking. However, as noted in the article:
While this treatment is based on wind tunnel data collected for spool shaped rockets, Bruce feels that the CP will be in the right location on these other types of rocket designs. Please note: The user assumes all risk for the information obtained with this method.
EDIT: after creating a design for a BT-60 (1.637" OD) test rocket and adding a drag plate at the base, I think that both Rocksim and Openrocket compensate enough for base drag by bringing back the Cp to make me believe that
the cheat mentioned above should be used only for short and stubby rockets and not necessarily for all drag plate designs.
The stability margin for Rocksim (Rocksim Cp calculation method) with a motor loaded was 1.85 with no drag plate and 2.14 with a 2" diameter drag plate which projects beyond the OD of the BT-60 by only 0.181", bringing back the Cp 0.29 body tube diameters.
The stability margin for Openrocket (Barrowman Cp calculation method) with a motor loaded was 1.03 with no drag plate and 1.29 with a 2" diameter drag plate, bringing back the Cp 0.26 body tube diameters.
Strangely, even though the stability factor influence of the additional base drag was very close to the same for both simulators, the increased base drag has much less of an effect on RS predicted apogee than it does on the OP prediction as I've pointed out before. Who is right? We shall see.