el cid again
If you had read carefully, you would have seen what is wrong with 6th and 7th divisions in my post.
The problem is the way two units for each division (the recon unit and the MG unit, slots listed) were defined.
The good news is that the three brigades for each division are properly defined and do not need redefinition.
The problem is that EVERY sub unit of a parent formation must present the devices in precisely the same slots for the
"combination" to work if a player takes the "recombine unit" option.
I was clear about this for the sake of anyone who actually wants to get the combined unit to show the total of the subordinate unit
devices. Left as is, the game will lump together the devices in the slots as if they were all identical to the device in the parent unit,
slot for slot.
Note that this might be done by a modder on purpose. And, in fact, with the parent formation, it "upgrades" to a later formation
which does NOT have the same devices in the same slots. That will cause the division to "convert" from the original device to the
later one - after time and if certain conditions permit the replacement devices to be fed into it. So it isn't always "wrong" to change
devices. It only needs to be done on purpose - because you intended to replace the original device with the new one. Not at random -
so as in the case above, you don't end up with support squads becoming weapons squads instead of adding where they should as
support squads to the combined formation, among several specific instances.
Another one of your inaccurate posts purporting to find something wrong with the code/database. For those of us who do actually play the game and have bothered to learn how it operates it is quite easy to pick up your misleading posts. Unfortunately newbies are not as well equipped to see through the inaccuracies.
1. No, I repeat, no unit which is created by amalgamating its subcomponent units, ever appears in the reinforcement schedule. That is the case with the 8th AIF just as it is with all the other similar units. I suppose at some stage in the future you will regale us all with your discovery that the 9th Ind Div (and the 11th Ind Div, and the 1st Aust Div, and the 2nd Aust Div etc etc etc) also does not appear on the reinforcement schedule.
2. Pray tell, any chance of you enlightening us as to why those battalions should not point to the 8th AIF. Contrary to what you post, the entire 8th AIF was formed before any of it's components became POW. Two brigades were sent to Malaya, the battalions of the third were sent sent to various barrier outposts.
3. Care to enlighten us as to why there is a need for any redefinition regarding sub units of the 6th and 7th AIF. Specifically what is "wrong" and what needs to be done to "correct" it.