grahambriggs wrote:It's a weak point in the rules that you can neither fight as overlap nor charge, but it is covered at least.
Realistically, if it's just one cavalry BG you're facing, there's not a great deal of benefit wheeling BGs of archers individually. Even had the left hand ones got themselves in a position to flank charge the cavalry may have simply charged them instead of the right hand archers. And two BGs of archers in a line are usually enough to see off a single cavalry BG. Plus, if they are in a line they can shoot down the cavalry then easily advance towards a fresh target. If you've fiddled about with wheeling individual BG's even if they kill the cavalry they are usually in too much of a mess to do much else.
For me it is not ctritical that one group is cavalry and the other two groups archers or whether it was wise or not in game terms to have gotten into that position . It is the bizarre " gamey" ruling that corner- to-corner contact such as this is so restricting by comparison with other base to base configurations .
It may be logical in terms of gameplay in FoG(AM)

but it is a peculiar kind of logic in my view and is a consequence of treating miniatures bases like counters in a board game ( eg the restricted area concept like a " zone of control" ) . A point made above re bases being treated individually - except where they are not - is well made .
This springs, in part , from the vagueness in defining what a battle group actually represents (pretty much whatever you want it to be in FOG(AM)

) underpinning this game precision . This makes it very difficult to relate the manoeuvre of formations and their capacity to do that on the battle field to any consistent sense of what the grand tactics were in any given period- to the extent of course that we really know what they were

I fully concede.
But if it is vague so too must be the internal formational behaviour of the troops represented by the constituent bases of a battle group , unless they are troops drilled by rank and file. In the latter case their manoeuvres will be predetermined by drill and can be strictly regulated by the rules. In other cases the unit's bases are just the "footprint" within which we do not know ( nor especially care ) exactly what is going on at any one point in time .
It is the difference between how for example an 18th century line infantry unit would behave ( where having a corner to corner adjudication makes good sense given the rigidity of the time ) and of irregular Croats and Hussars who occupy the space they take up but do not align themselves rigidly to or with it . Much of the ancient and medieval period is more in the latter category than the former I suggest.
I guess it depends a bit on what you want out of a game and how far you expect historical simulation to drive design.
But as I have said elsewhere FOG(AM) may be/ probably is a better game than it is a simulation . So for me the bar has had to set quite low for the enormous 3000-1485 period otherwise I would play no games at all in that range and have instead a dozen or more different sets for different sub eras.
"Down with one rule set to rule them all " I say .

"It's a two pint problem Watson " to paraphrase Holmes.
i