Page 74: "As the player sets them up, these irregular units may remain part of their forces, or they may become independent units."
What is an independent unit? I thought all units had to be subordinated to a CinC or sub-commander.
I tried searching this forum but came up with naught. Any comments?
An independent unit is under the direct command of the commander not a sub commander. This is mentioned on page 8. An independent unit has to be in command of the commander not a sub commander. It's a rare thing and I believe reflects special assignment units etc. I believe if using the army builder this is the only way of getting independent units, as all units otherwise must be assigned to the sub commanders.
Sorry still not getting this. Any core army has a Commander and a sub-commander. Some of the units are assigned to the sub-commander, the remainder to the commander. Yes? So why are irregular units considered 'independent' just because they serve under the commander? Do they not have to remain within 10BW to be under command? I think you are wrong to believe that all units are assigned to a sub-commander, as some core armies have ten units, it would be very difficult for him, with a 6BW command radius, to keep all his ducklings together.
>Sorry still not getting this. Any core army has a Commander and a sub-commander. Some
>of the units are assigned to the sub-commander, the remainder to the commander. Yes?
No ,and I looked it up now. :) Page 95 of the AB states "prior to setup, a player must create forces by assigning core units to the subcommanders. Each subcommander must command at least two units. A support brigade already is one force with its subcommander assigned". So no independent units in the AB - everything must be assigned to subcommanders.
Scenario's can have independent units but not the normal AB forces.
If you are defending and the core division just gets a single subcommander then he has all the core troops, that's easy. If attacking the core division gets the bonus troops but as importantly an extra sub commander to create 2 forces - providing much more flexibility in movement during the game, and the need to assign them.
>So why are irregular units considered 'independent' just because they serve under the
>commander?
basically yes. If you want the created irregular units to be independent you can, by having them under the commander directly. All units directly under the commander are independent. That means they do not have an assigned subcommander/force.
>Do they not have to remain within 10BW to be under command?
Yes, independent units only count as in command if within 10 of the commander - subcommanders do nothing for these units.
>I think you are wrong to believe that all units are assigned to a sub-commander,
>as some core armies have ten units, it would be very difficult for him, with a 6BW
>command radius, to keep all his ducklings together.
I believe I'm right from the above and yes you are correct this is the one place command and control limits creep into Lasalle. Especially if defending.
If you are attacking you get 2 subcommanders to handle the core units. So the 6 BW for the subcommander's mean they can handle different units and do different things on the table. However, if defending, all the core units are in one force - so the force will be limited in movement and doing flash stuff all over the place.
The overall commander does help here though. He is in the chain of command so you can use his command range to cover any troops in any force to keep units in command. If you use the optional 'I'm with stupid rule' (which I recommend), then that's just 4 BW, but for bigger forces defending that is still an extra and important additional command range/ad hoc force on the table. If not using that rule then it's 10 BW.
Lasalle does not have huge/complex command rules structure but the command ranges mean that you have to be very careful about spreading troops out too much, to keep all the troops within control range.
I hope this helps.
Nope, still pretty vague.....
Page 95 (as you noted) requires each sub-commander to get 'at least two units', but it does not say that he must get them all if there is only one sub-commander.
Your comment on AB armies not having independent units is odd too. The Austrian Avant-Garde Division has two Grenz and one Jager unit, all potentially irregulars. But if you are right, then they can't be independent (and irregular) since they are commanded by a sub-commander.
What is the point of having a commander if all he does is carry the slack if a unit falls 'out of command' from it's sub-commander.
Hmmm. Looking back at page 8 it states that'most' units are 'under the command of their sub-commander' and 'a few units are directly controlled by the commander' and 'are called independent units'.
Is it just me or is this a bit fuzzy? Why not put units under the commander? You lose vigor and tactics, but gain some mobility by way of increased command radius and by gaining one more maneuver mass.
Well the way we read page 95 is that assigning core troops to the subcommands if you have have only one is automatic and all troops get to be in a force. These are your games though and play as you wish.
>What is the point of having a commander if all he does is carry the slack if a unit
>falls 'out of command' from it's sub-commander.
That's exactly the point of having the commander. Commanders can control some units if in his local and direct them as required in anadhoc manner. That's because he is in the chain of command. However, they are not directly under his command in the OoB- like an independent unit would be.
The diferences in the standart rules between independent and can be sutile but not unimportant---
If you choose the iregular to be independent it will never benefit from vigor or tactics (or be punished by his incopetence), even if it is within command distance from the subcommander , as they are not part of his command
The subcommander’s vigor modifier is used for discipline
tests of units in his command, as long as they are within
his range.
And then if you you use “i´m with this stupid” optional rule (from the downloadable) the diference is more apparent...
http://www.sammustafa.com/honour/wp-content/uploads/downloads/2010/05/OPT-Rules5.pdf
“The Commander’s command range for independent units, and for
all artillery from any force, is still 10BW. However, the Commander
only has a command range of 4BW for all other units that belong
to a force and a subcommander somewhere on the board”
You must log in to post.