Slitherine

RobKhan wrote:Pursuers disordered......?

Can't agree more. It's more realistic, and would place more importance on command. Also depth in the attack as well as defence would be more of an issue.

Would also weaken flank attacks from rolling up the line as the flanker has to ask themselves do they keep pushing and risk or do they pause.

I know what you mean but normally there is a broken unit that must be pursued that prevents the flank attack and line roll up.

Having depth in the attack, meaning another BG in support behind the pursuing BG, would enable a manouver onto the flanks or more BG's in the breakthrough with subsequent rear attacks or engaging the second lines or capturing the camp.

This adds a realistic tactical dimension the "support", and not just a factor in a game mechanism.

Similarly in defence, at the moment, support means the second line has problems, and cannot really lend a realistic tactical effect which supports the BG to it's front. It's just a weak game factor.

If the supporting BG has a chance of standing solid and providing a rallying point (or can counterattack), then it is a supporting unit in effect, and not just a factor that comes with the price of being disordered when the supportee runs and breaks through creating disorder.

There are many rules with this concept/abstract of support that is a game factor and has no real tactical function.

RobKhan