Breadth v Depth

[acl]

Do you and your opponents usually deploy broad, to benefit from a long front and perhaps the chance to overlap the enemy?

Or do you prefer to deploy in depth, to concentrate your force and benefit from having reserves in place.

By depth I'm not expecting triple-ranked Byzantines, but deploying about a third of your army in a position from which it could give rear support.

[Blathergut]

Rear support is rare. I do try to use it with my Romans (various flavours) and Celtiberian HF always get it when the Spanish come out to play, but it is rare...you almost always end up needing that extra BG or two out on the line. Otherwise, you end up with a flank or two wrapped around.

[philqw78]

The lack of depth is IMO one of the major faults of all wargames rules that I have ever played. It is always better to have more troops fighting than have someone at the rear as a reserve, whether to break through or shore up the line. And if you are wider you will get around the flanks.

Personally I think:
1.Rear support distances should be increased.
2.Routing troops should pose less of a threat to their friends behind them. Say only in the turn they rout will they burst through. After that they are removed if they cannot legally pass through
3.Increase the CT + for rear support
4.It should be more difficult to move down the flanks with any troops. Increase CT minus. -2 Battle troops, -1 skirmishers if completely in 6MU of side edge. -1 Battle troops if completely in 12 MU of side edge.
5.Give a CMT minus the same. Dont allow the CinC out of the central 48MU. Thats where the battle is.

[deadtorius]

I use pike armies and most of my troops go on a narrow front deep formation so I really don't get the stretch the front line out option ever. 8 stands of pikes will only have a 2 stand frontage, where as other armies can stretch an 8 stand battle group into a 4 stand frontage. Trying to keep my flanks from being lapped by those devious Romans is hard enough without worrying about more troops standing about out back

[expendablecinc]

The lack of depth is IMO one of the major faults of all wargames rules that I have ever played. It is always better to have more troops fighting than have someone at the rear as a reserve, whether to break through or shore up the line. And if you are wider you will get around the flanks.

Personally I think:
1.Rear support distances should be increased.
2.Routing troops should pose less of a threat to their friends behind them. Say only in the turn they rout will they burst through. After that they are removed if they cannot legally pass through
3.Increase the CT + for rear support
4.It should be more difficult to move down the flanks with any troops. Increase CT minus. -2 Battle troops, -1 skirmishers if completely in 6MU of side edge. -1 Battle troops if completely in 12 MU of side edge.
5.Give a CMT minus the same. Dont allow the CinC out of the central 48MU. Thats where the battle is.

Of just play 1000 point games. This usually means either no open flanks to speak of or leaves significant opportunity for second lines of battle.

I often rely on rear support but take your point on the risk of broken troops being too greata liability to those supporting them. My rear supporters are either cheap filler of the same grade (eg thracians supporting pike) or very small quality BGs as both rear support and a mobile reverve (eg 2 bases of superior xystophoroi supporting 2 BGS of 4 other mounted (elephants and cataphracts).

[grahambriggs]

Do you and your opponents usually deploy broad, to benefit from a long front and perhaps the chance to overlap the enemy?

Or do you prefer to deploy in depth, to concentrate your force and benefit from having reserves in place.

By depth I'm not expecting triple-ranked Byzantines, but deploying about a third of your army in a position from which it could give rear support.

Well, it very much depends what my army is and what the opponent is doing. With my Merovingians against a solid enemy (say Knights) I'd want my warband to be supported to help them survive. But against a bunnch of skirmishres I'd want to employ breadth and cover the whole table so they can't get round me; thinning the centre a bit if necessary.

With some armies (the more mobile ones) it doesn't matter too much. So the Ilkhanids with drilled shooty cav and LH plus Knights could deploy wide, then concentrate. Or they can spread most of the army out but concentrate with rear support in one place to batter through.

[hazelbark]

The lack of depth is IMO one of the major faults of all wargames rules that I have ever played. It is always better to have more troops fighting than have someone at the rear as a reserve, whether to break through or shore up the line. And if you are wider you will get around the flanks.

Personally I think:
1.Rear support distances should be increased.
2.Routing troops should pose less of a threat to their friends behind them. Say only in the turn they rout will they burst through. After that they are removed if they cannot legally pass through
3.Increase the CT + for rear support
4.It should be more difficult to move down the flanks with any troops. Increase CT minus. -2 Battle troops, -1 skirmishers if completely in 6MU of side edge. -1 Battle troops if completely in 12 MU of side edge.
5.Give a CMT minus the same. Dont allow the CinC out of the central 48MU. Thats where the battle is.

I agree with your global point, but I think the unintended consequences of 4 and maybe 5 make it easier for shooty cav to attack down the board edge. I don't care how many minuses you give skirmishers, it doesn't matter if they never test because they are bow armes and the foot is not.