j2klbs wrote:Thanks Hammy for the picture to clarify how a 6 element BG can support 2 8 element BG's. My approach would have actually been simpler. Instead of having 2 files x 3 ranks (as you have drawn), I was considering 3 files x 2 ranks. Then I can have them facing directly forward and still support both 8-BG's.
<snip>
So, basically, the middle "C" is straddling the line between the two Pk BG's. Thus he is supporting both while facing directly forward. The problem as we have discussed, though, is that if either A or B break, one element width shift would not be enough to avoid C, and therefore, C would be burst through losing a cohesion level.
batesmotel wrote:I can picture it now. A rear rank phalangite looks over his shoulder and then tells the next man in his rank, "I'd feel much more secure if those hoplites would wheel another 5 degrees. At the moment my rear feels completely exposed!"
It seems like FoG has not managed to eliminate all the geometric fiddliness to which DBx is too prone. For the most part I suspect I'll stick to deploying my rear support as caulking in general. Some how that sounds better for my sanity .
Unfortunately its impossible for rules makers to eliminate all possible abuses of the rules. It seems to me any game I've ever played there are people out there who spend all their energy trying to find ways to break the game and twist the rules as they were not intended. These are the type of people I do not game with.
Fortunately I've always wargamed with a group of guys that simply would never dream of trying things like that. We always step back and say "would this make historical sense." I would never try to use a game mechanism to win a game rather than use sound strategy.
The same effect as the diagram could be obtained with a small angle that still meets the 4-base test. If you don't mind rear supporting just one BG there is a lot of flexibility in positioning.
The two specific best practices I've seen so far are having a column behind the join ("caulking," though that makes me think about home repairs) and positioning an echelonned-back BG covering a flank so it provides both rear support and interception coverage for the unit being covered (I'd call that sustaining the flank, for archaic flavor, but please suggest jazzy jargon).
The advantage of a column is that routers and evaders can pass by, it can easily expand to the left or the right to form a battle line when needed, turn 90 degrees to face to either flank to move or form a front, or even intercept a charge on the exposed flank of the remaining BG it is supporting.
MikeK wrote:The same effect as the diagram could be obtained with a small angle that still meets the 4-base test. If you don't mind rear supporting just one BG there is a lot of flexibility in positioning.
True but a slight angle will leave the supporting BG more than 2 bases wide in the direction of rout so won't be any better than a 3 by 2 formation with the centre file over the join.
.