Unit Descriptions: Air, Naval, Land

[Mziln]

True, but the Global War sceanerio shows 2 territorials start in Ethiopia or Italian Somaliland. That would give you a 40% chance of having 2 territorials start in the same home country. And be able to move out of their home country (not counting the AOI unit).

[Froonp]

ORIGINAL: Mziln

True, but the Global War sceanerio shows 2 territorials start in Ethiopia or Italian Somaliland. That would give you a 40% chance of having 2 territorials start in the same home country. And be able to move out of their home country (not counting the AOI unit).

Mzlin, you seem to consider that you need 2 units in a minor country to be able to have one of them leave the country. This is not true.
If a minor country only as 1 unit, it can go out of the country.

Quote (that you quoted yourself above) :
*******************************************
19.4 Minor country units
Restrictions on use
Minor country units can move and fight outside their home country. However, you can only move a minor country land or aircraft unit outside the home country controlled by the minor, if half or more of its land and aircraft units are currently inside its home country (exception: Rumania becomes a full Axis ally ~ see 19.6.2).
*******************************************

So, if you take the case of the country having only 1 unit.
This unit is in the country. At this right moment, there is "half or more of its land and aircraft units are currently inside its home country", because there is one out of a total of one.
So it satisfy the rule and can leave the country.

If you have a country having 2 units.
One is inside , the other is outside. Just before the moment that the unit that is inside begin to move to go outside the country, the rule is satisfied too, because there is 1 outside out of a total of 2.

So we have :
1 total unit --> 1 can go out.
2 total units --> 2 can go out.
3 total units --> 2 can go out.
4 total units --> 3 can go out (when there are 2 out, a 3rd can leave too as the rule is satisfied).
5 total units --> 3 can go out.
6 total units --> 4 can go out (when there are 3 out, a 4th can leave too as the rule is satisfied).
7 total units --> 4 can go out.
etc..

[Shannon V. OKeets]

ORIGINAL: Froonp

ORIGINAL: Mziln
True, but the Global War sceanerio shows 2 territorials start in Ethiopia or Italian Somaliland. That would give you a 40% chance of having 2 territorials start in the same home country. And be able to move out of their home country (not counting the AOI unit).

Mzlin, you seem to consider that you need 2 units in a minor country to be able to have one of them leave the country. This is not true.
If a minor country only as 1 unit, it can go out of the country.

Quote (that you quoted yourself above) :
*******************************************
19.4 Minor country units
Restrictions on use
Minor country units can move and fight outside their home country. However, you can only move a minor country land or aircraft unit outside the home country controlled by the minor, if half or more of its land and aircraft units are currently inside its home country (exception: Rumania becomes a full Axis ally ~ see 19.6.2).
*******************************************

So, if you take the case of the country having only 1 unit.
This unit is in the country. At this right moment, there is "half or more of its land and aircraft units are currently inside its home country", because there is one out of a total of one.
So it satisfy the rule and can leave the country.

If you have a country having 2 units.
One is inside , the other is outside. Just before the moment that the unit that is inside begin to move to go outside the country, the rule is satisfied too, because there is 1 outside out of a total of 2.

So we have :
1 total unit --> 1 can go out.
2 total units --> 2 can go out.
3 total units --> 2 can go out.
4 total units --> 3 can go out (when there are 2 out, a 3rd can leave too as the rule is satisfied).
5 total units --> 3 can go out.
6 total units --> 4 can go out (when there are 3 out, a 4th can leave too as the rule is satisfied).
7 total units --> 4 can go out.
etc..

Hmm, I need to check how the code handles this.

Your interpretation is certainly correct, but I had read the rule the way Mziln had, which is that you had to leave at least 1/2 the units in-country. This WIF rule is quite unusual.

[Frederyck]

This rule is one of those that is most often misunderstood, along with the very very strange ruling about how to get Partisans:

"13.1
You put a partisan unit in the country if the result [of the die roll] is less than or equal to that country’s (modified) partisan number. If it is at least 11 less (my bold face), place 2 partisan units in the country. If it is at least 21 less, place 3 partisan units in the country. If the roll exceeds the partisan number, there is no effect."

It is the "at least 11 or less" that causes problems. If a country's modified partisan value is:
1 -> 10% chance of 1 partisan.
2 -> 20% chance of 1 partisan.
...
9 -> 90% chance of 1 partisan.
10 -> 1 guaranteed partisan. No chance of a second partisan as "at least 11 less" than 10 is -1.
11 -> 1 guaranteed partisan. No chance of a second partisan as "at least 11 less" than 11 is 0 (zero).
12 -> 1 guaranteed partisan. 10% chance of a second partisan as "at least 11 less" than 12 is 1.

The logical progression would (to me) be that you would count "at least 10 less", giving a modified partisan number of 11 a 10% chance of getting 2 partisans and so on, but that is not how the rule is written. Although I do believe that many people play that way.

[Froonp]

I believe we always played it the wrong way then.

[Frederyck]

We have always house-ruled away the "11" in favour of a "10". It just seems more logical and is probably what is really meant by the rule.

[jesperpehrson]

Adam has now officially taken on the Russians, even if he has done a lot of work on them earlier. Thanks for taking on this oh so important nation mate. We are awaiting your submissions! [:)]

[jesperpehrson]

An update on the write-ups

People are sporadically sending me some write-ups and some new blood has volounteered so things are moving along, albeit quite slowly. Adam is doing his usual swell job and the other day I recieved 8 more write-ups on the Russians (plus some edits on previous submissions).

In total there are 182 write-ups for units out of 999 in total. It is fun to write but very time-consuming as information is scarce at best for many countries. If you feel like pitching in please have a look at page 2 in this thread for an up to date list of countries available.

[jesperpehrson]

I missed to add the 8 new units Toed to the page 2 update. I will post a sceenshot of a swede and a russian later on.

10 more write-ups to hit the magic number 200![:D]

[jesperpehrson]

Thanks MichaelBaldur for finishing the Danish!  

[jesperpehrson]

As promised some screenies (but the russians will have to wait since I am having some trouble with the layout)

[jesperpehrson]

More swedes

[jesperpehrson]

And finally the single dane

[Shannon V. OKeets]

Lovely.

[Neilster]

It should be "scuttled their ships", not "scuttled there ships"

Cheers, Neilster

[Walloc]

A few danish "ships" at sea actually made it to Sweden as a minor note.

Kind regards,

Rasmus

[paulderynck]

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

This rule is one of those that is most often misunderstood, along with the very very strange ruling about how to get Partisans:

"13.1
You put a partisan unit in the country if the result [of the die roll] is less than or equal to that country’s (modified) partisan number. If it is at least 11 less (my bold face), place 2 partisan units in the country. If it is at least 21 less, place 3 partisan units in the country. If the roll exceeds the partisan number, there is no effect."

It is the "at least 11 or less" that causes problems. If a country's modified partisan value is:
1 -> 10% chance of 1 partisan.
2 -> 20% chance of 1 partisan.
...
9 -> 90% chance of 1 partisan.
10 -> 1 guaranteed partisan. No chance of a second partisan as "at least 11 less" than 10 is -1.
11 -> 1 guaranteed partisan. No chance of a second partisan as "at least 11 less" than 11 is 0 (zero).
12 -> 1 guaranteed partisan. 10% chance of a second partisan as "at least 11 less" than 12 is 1.

The logical progression would (to me) be that you would count "at least 10 less", giving a modified partisan number of 11 a 10% chance of getting 2 partisans and so on, but that is not how the rule is written. Although I do believe that many people play that way.

I agree that its written confusingly, but I don't get your interpretation of "at least 11 less". In reading RAW, I conclude the word "modified" in "modified partisan number" is only in reference to halving the partisan number for an unconquered country at war the same year. The addition for the garrison and subtraction for already existing partisans are applied to the partisan die roll - not the partisan number.

A recent example from our game in progress: USSR came up as subject to partisans. It is not the first year of war involving the USSR, so the (modified) Partisan Number is 30. One partisan was already there and the Axis garrison was 19. A '1' was rolled. Add 19, subtract 1 yields a die roll of 19. 19 is at least 11 less than 30 so the Russians got two more partisans. I don't see the problem with the difference of 11 and I think the table in your post is incorrect concerning 11s. (And 21s no doubt.)

[michaelbaldur]

alot of ships made it for swedish or allied port. but it was minor naval ships and merchant shipping. 2 naval ships was in green land and 4 ships escaped to sweden.

[Frederyck]

ORIGINAL: paulderynck

ORIGINAL: Frederyck

This rule is one of those that is most often misunderstood, along with the very very strange ruling about how to get Partisans:

"13.1
You put a partisan unit in the country if the result [of the die roll] is less than or equal to that country’s (modified) partisan number. If it is at least 11 less (my bold face), place 2 partisan units in the country. If it is at least 21 less, place 3 partisan units in the country. If the roll exceeds the partisan number, there is no effect."

It is the "at least 11 or less" that causes problems. If a country's modified partisan value is:
1 -> 10% chance of 1 partisan.
2 -> 20% chance of 1 partisan.
...
9 -> 90% chance of 1 partisan.
10 -> 1 guaranteed partisan. No chance of a second partisan as "at least 11 less" than 10 is -1.
11 -> 1 guaranteed partisan. No chance of a second partisan as "at least 11 less" than 11 is 0 (zero).
12 -> 1 guaranteed partisan. 10% chance of a second partisan as "at least 11 less" than 12 is 1.

The logical progression would (to me) be that you would count "at least 10 less", giving a modified partisan number of 11 a 10% chance of getting 2 partisans and so on, but that is not how the rule is written. Although I do believe that many people play that way.

I agree that its written confusingly, but I don't get your interpretation of "at least 11 less". In reading RAW, I conclude the word "modified" in "modified partisan number" is only in reference to halving the partisan number for an unconquered country at war the same year. The addition for the garrison and subtraction for already existing partisans are applied to the partisan die roll - not the partisan number.

A recent example from our game in progress: USSR came up as subject to partisans. It is not the first year of war involving the USSR, so the (modified) Partisan Number is 30. One partisan was already there and the Axis garrison was 19. A '1' was rolled. Add 19, subtract 1 yields a die roll of 19. 19 is at least 11 less than 30 so the Russians got two more partisans. I don't see the problem with the difference of 11 and I think the table in your post is incorrect concerning 11s. (And 21s no doubt.)

I agree with your interpretation of "modified". But that doesn't invalidate my problem with the ruling. For arguments sake, let's say that there are no (zero) garrison units in a country that is eligible for partisans, and that there are no partisans present either. Also, let the country in question have been declared war on several years ago.

* If the partisan number for this country is 9 according to the map (Yugoslavia), you now have 90% chance of getting a partisan in that country (Ie, a roll equal or lower to the partisan number).

* If the partisan number was 10 according to the map (Italy), there would be 100% chance of getting a single partisan, and no chance of a second.

* If the partisan number was 11 according to the map (doesn't exist, I think, but that is beside the point), you would still have 100% chance of getting 1 partisan and NO chance of getting 2 partisans. To get 2 partisans in this case with no garrison units and no already present partisans you would need to roll "at least 11 less" than 11. And that is zero which cannot be rolled.

I think this is wrong. The wording ought to be "at least 10 less". That would mean that a partisan value of 11 (with no modifiers) would yield 1 partisan 90% of the time (roll=2-10) and 2 partisans 10% of the time (roll=1 which is at least 10 less than 11). If the wording is kept the chances of getting partisans is not linear, which I believe the designers meant it to be.

[paulderynck]

One could just as easily assume the anomaly is with the getting of one partisan because of the wording "equal or less", FREX a partisan number of 1 (which Burma used to be, but now is a 2). But originally there would be no way to get a partisan in Burma even with a garrison of zero, had the wording been just: "less than the partisan number".

So this could in fact be what the designers intended.