Further interpretations of interpenetration

[Erpingham]

Interestingly, the gaps need to be about 1/4 the width of the units that are supposed to fall back through them. A reminder that, again outside 1-1 skrimish games, our units and elements are more rigid than real bodies of men, and we may require a rule for passing through "impossibly" small gaps.

Good point.  The Sylloge and the Praecepta both have gaps in the infantry square for whole cavalry units to move through which are only 15 men wide.  Not to mention potentially hundreds of light infantry (the light ranks of the infantry on unengaged flanks of the square were supposed to detach and sally out to attack the enemy on the engaged side from the flank).  I think the practical issue was balancing a gap which could easily be closed with an ability to shift troops quickly through it.  The implication, incidentally, is the sallying forth was not done with enemy threatening, so there would be time for units flowing fairly organically through the gaps to reform themselves when out in the open.  In terms of rules, though, we can abstract the move to allow the cavalry to move through the infantry in good order provided no enemy capable of charging?

[Imperial Dave]

I dont see why not. Set a distance and/or reform requirement to check for nearby enemy ZOC/charge distances and thus abstract the 'squeezing' through gaps?

[Erpingham]

Just wondering, as this topic seems to be drawing to a natural close whether Chris feels he has learned anything more about the subject or whether he has anything from his ongoing researches to add?

[Imperial Dave]

well its definitely given me food for thought and also a build on Chris's excellent article