I’m pretty confused about why the mission type table is has the rule “If you roll a mission type that’s not available , choose the next highest number.”. I may be missing something here but this seems very strange to me. I’m generating missions for western front and the commander picked recon mission as his pick, this means because of that rule, the western front only having assault and recon missions, and the commanders pick there is a 66% chance that a mission is going to be recon. I know that commander’s pick is supposed to influence the odds of getting the mission they want but this seems extreme to me. I rolled and got all recon missions because I rolled a 3,4, and a 5 which all ending being commander pick. and assault seems to get lower odds because it’s number 1 on the table and thus the rule would ever work out in its favor. Is this intentional design that assault be less likely to be a mission? Or is there something I am misunderstanding here?

There is no statistical difference in odds between Assault and Recon here. There is a statistical difference in odds between (Assault + Random) missions (2 out of 6, one each) and the commander’s pick (3 out of 6). So of course if the C.'s pick is Recon, you get 4 chances of Recon out of 6.

But if your commander had chosen Assault as his pick, you would have ended with three Assault missions.

This just means that when fewer types of missions are available, **your probability to get the type you want (limited to those available types) increases a lot.**

The fact that a certain type of mission is “lower” on the table compared to another has no impact whatsoever on the probability. It would have if you had to roll 2 or 3 dice on the table and had a “bell curve” distribution. But not with 1 dice.