Notional unit strength

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Notional unit strength

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> World in Flames >> Tech Support >> Notional unit strength

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Notional unit strength - 7/15/2018 12:10:26 PM

davidc

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

This came up in a current game. Version 2.7.1
An invasion adjacent to Naples gives notional unit strength of 3, which is fine(1, +1 for home country, +1 for adjacent friendly corps)
An invasion adjacent to Taranto gives notional unit strength of 2?
Presumably the territorial is not providing adjacent friendly corps bonus.
Why?
Is it because the unit is only a territorial?
Or is MWIF only checking units for the same country code and territorials have country code of the territory they belong to?

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Notional unit strength - 7/15/2018 12:12:02 PM

davidc

Posts: 61
Joined: 12/5/2007
Status: offline

Save game if anyone wants to check

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to davidc)

Post #: 2

RE: Notional unit strength - 7/21/2018 3:11:55 AM

Shannon V. OKeets

Posts: 22095
Joined: 5/19/2005
From: Honolulu, Hawaii
Status: offline

This is my personal rules interpretation - I might change it someday.

My 'logic' is that territorials lose a shift (or -2 die mod on the 2D10) when defending against non-territorial units. So they should not provide the +1 to the notional unit for a ZOC.

Yeah, I know, kinda flimsy logic - since their ZOC does block supply and restrict movement, etc.

===

Actually, this is something that was already in the code I inherited in 2004 (if I remember correctly).

_____________________________

Steve

Perfection is an elusive goal.

(in reply to davidc)

Post #: 3