I think it is the same on WebDip as I have noticed such a pattern. I didn't know that units were disbanded asutomatically that way and this confirms those patterns...

*automatically

"If a country in civil disorder has to remove units, the units farthest away from the country are used. If units are equally distant, then remove Fleets before Armies and then in alphabetical order by the provinces in which they are located." -4th ed rules

"closest to the country" meaning the closest home centre? an average of all three (or four) home centres? or any supply centre owned by the player?

I trust Realpolitik, but I can't for the life of me figure out why North Sea is disbanded over Norwegian Sea or Norway (army) when England must disband.

It's obviously from the alphabetical clause, but isn't Norway farther away? And isn't North Sea closer to an average of the 3 home centres than Norwegian Sea?

"4.D.8 - D - In civil disorder units will be removed by distance from the nearest supply center, allowing armies to move over any territory, and fleets to only move over places where fleets may move. If two units are at equal distance alphabetical order of the territories is used." -webDip DATC tests.

I'm guessing the "allowing armies to move over any territory" includes bodies of water.

But that all explains why North Sea goes under.

Actually no.
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/L.B.Kruijswijk/#4.D.8

That clearly states that Norway should go under as it is 2 "moves" away from any home supply centre where either fleet is only one away.

Back to square one. I wish webDip had its own test adjucator.

IT uses the DATC, the standard adjudicator tests used by the judges as well.

Right, my whole issue is trying to interpret the DATC ruling on this.

But an Army in Norway is one convoyed move away from London and Edi. If it was a fleet in Norway then I would expect that to be disbanded because that would be two moves away from London and Edi. That's my interpretation of what was said above and fits what you are seeing for what it is worth.

"Fleets may only move regularly, but armies may also move as a fleet (so, a convoy is not counted as one move, but one plus the number of fleets involved). This interpretation is according to the DPTG."

Apparently that's the interpretation used here.

You've got it. An army in Norway is ONE move away from London or Edinburgh because it could be convoyed there. A fleet in the North Sea is also one move away from London or Edinburgh. Fleets are disbanded in preference over armies. Therefore if you have an army in Norway and a fleet in North Sea, the fleet gets disbanded.

(On the same basis, if you are England and have fleets in North Sea, Norwegian Sea and Barents Sea, and an army in St. Petersburg, the fleet in Barents Sea would be the first to get disbanded. Am I right?)

Actually Jamie, based on how the rules are interpreted here, the army in Norway's move to home has a value of two (one for the convoy move + one for each body of water required to convoy it,) and the fleets have a value of one. So the army in Norway gets destroyed.

The same applies to your other example:
Shortest route for the army would be convoy through Barents, and Norwegian. So one for the convoy, and two for the bodies of water for a value of 3.

Barents only has a value of two, so the army would be disbanded.

Note that having the fleet required to convoy the army is not required. Even if you have no fleets in Barents, Norwegian, or North Sea. The unit in St.Pete still only has a value of 3.

cool, that's fairly simple, i wasn't sure how the shortest distancerule was interpreted...