ORIGINAL: Courtenay
Rule 11.18.4 states:
However, you double the reorganization cost of a unit if any reorganization point came from a co-operating major power or minor country.
Does this rule mean that reorganization costs are doubled if a reorganization point came from a cooperating major power or any minor country, or does it mean that the costs are doubled only if the reorganization point came from a cooperating major power or a cooperating minor country? That is, does the adjective "cooperating" apply to both "major power" and "minor country", or only to "major power"? In particular, if a minor country reorganizes its own units, should the reorganization cost be doubled?
I thought not, but MWIF disagrees, and when I parsed the rule I realized the rule was ambiguous.
These rules were a royal pain to code. The beta testers kept finding subtleties that required me for refine the code. There is no easy way to explain how the calculations are done, because the calculations are very difficult to do.
Action choice, unit type for unit being reorganized, unit type of HQ providing reorganization points, ATR type that provides reorganization points, cooperating major powers, minor countries, offensive chit used. These all affect the points required by the unit and the point(s) provided by the reorganizing unit. The points spent in the naval, air, and HQ reorganization phases are cumulative, so the program has to keep that straight too.
Trying to figure this out precisely in your head will give you a headache. My advice is just use the reorganization points as simply as possible and don't try to do anything 'clever' with them to eek out one more reorganized unit. In the long run, this will save you a lot of time, effort, and grief.
