Everyone gets rear support!

Yup. -1 to their CF vs foot, but only -1 when they're in bad going.

You're thinking the bottom one, I suspect. But it's just speculation really.

Perhaps the armoured Galatians formed a second line around their chief, and were happy to let the naked fanatics go in first. Makes as much sense as alternative suggestions.

The Marcomanni example is an exceptional oddity with selected tribesmen 'drilled to almost Roman standard' and given Bd status in the game. Perhaps they were used at the front, with other tribesmen in a second line behind. Perhaps not. Either way, did the more basic tribesmen ever provide rear support to the 'almost Romans'? Or were they just nearby? Does anyone know the actual answer? Probably not.

The Dacians II/52 are a good example of barbarian 3Wb and 3Bd. Perhaps the 3Wb may have supported the 3Bd from behind, or maybe they deployed separately and provided no rear support at all. Was this detailed in the battle accounts of the Dacian Wars?

So for me it's less about which diagram looks more right than another, and more about whether it actually happened. Failing sufficient evidence to provide for the latter, there's probably no logical reason why 'barbarian Wb' couldn't provide rear support to 'barbarian Bd'. Where I drew the line was the concept of 'barbarian Wb' providing rear support to 'non-barbarian drilled Bd/Sp/etc'. For me, that was hard to accept because the two forces were incompatible: two very different systems of warfare. I just couldn't imagine them being able to synchronize.

The short answer is this: many armies with numbers of Wb in them will be barbarian type armies, in which other foot types will most likely be barbarian too; so having the Wb able to provide rear support to these non-Wb but 'familiar' fellows seems feasible to me. Where Wb appear in armies that you wouldn't call 'barbarian', perhaps as religious fanatics in a combined arms Middle Eastern army, well that's just one of those things we have to accept if we're going to allow for the majority situations being represented - in this case by permitting all Wb to provide rear support to other foot, except Pk in the game. (Unless of course you put Wb in the same camp as Pk.) Besides, perhaps the rear support offered by religious fanatics is a special kind of 'encouragement' for the unit to their front not to retreat...!

Actually Snowcat, you could have used the II/78 Late Romans and the II/82 Patrician Romans as examples of
regular Bd and barbarian Wb mixed armies...although many modern scholars believe that these ‘barbarians’
were partially Romanized after centuries of fighting the empire and serving as mercenaries in the imperial army.
Likewise, many or most of the soldiers in the late legionary Blades were themselves Germans, using German
commands and German standards.
Nonetheless, one fought in the ‘native’ style, and the other fought in the ‘Roman’ style.

I see no problem with allowing troops to support Wb, or Wb to support other troops, even if one are regulars
and the others are barbarians. There are other reasons for the +1 besides fatigue effects, such as a morale
boost to the front rank for having someone behind them (even if those behind fight in a different style), or
the sheer intimidation from having to face such a mass of men (even if those behind fight in a different style).

But I do like Greedo’s thoughts.
Allow players to decide for themselves how they want to deploy, and who supports who, instead of us dictating
to them what they can or can’t do based on our own personal preferences (Pikes being an exception of course).
My own playtesting has shown that because of those X-Ray Threat Zones locking columns into rigid formations,
how you initially deploy is vitally important. It forces you to plan ahead. And this ‘feels’ more like an ancient battle,
rather than radio controlling each element from an overhead spotter plane to make intricate precise minuet moves.

P.S.
One of the ‘justifications’ of why solid 4Bow get +1 for being side-supported by solid 4Bd is that some of the Blades
are intermixing with the Bows and bolstering them in close combat.
Well, if Blades can intermix and bolster the Bows from the side, they should also be allowed to intermix and bolster
the Bows from behind as well...and so should other rear troops such as Ax, Wb, Hd, etc (and the same applies to
bolstering Psiloi from behind).
So I see no problem with Psiloi and Bows receiving a +1 for rear support in close combat.

So apart from double-checking the Pk/Bd thing, we're all done then?

See above re Pk/Bd...

I too have never really understood the purpose of allowing Pikes to recoil through Blades
(yet Blades cannot recoil through Pikes). I think that Snowcat is right and it's got something
to do with the Swiss...although, intended or not, it could also be used by those later pike
Successors that have ‘imitation legionaries’.
Anyway, even under the current rules it’s a poor column formation, as Pk backed by Pk has a
higher combat factor against both foot and certain heavy mounted, so why would you ever
want to weaken the Pikes by backing them with Blades?

But this has got me thinking...
...perhaps we should allow Pk to support or be supported by any other kind of foot.
So maybe the rule could be something like:-
   “Pk rear supported by Pk +2 when fighting foot and +1 against certain heavy mounted.
    Otherwise all foot +1 when fighting foot and supported by any kind of foot.
    (except when facing Psiloi, or not in good going, or assaulting cities, etc, etc)”.

If being in a column gives a +1 morale boost or intimidates the enemy (even if those behind
fight in a different style), then it should also apply to Pikes as well.
It still won’t be as good as an all Pk column, but at least they’ll get a +1 for being backed up,
unlike the current rules at the moment.

                                       -----------------------------------------

Greedo asked how we should proceed.
I’d like to add this to the “House Rule Index”...but this is a loooong thread, so what I need
is a single post detailing the rule and perhaps the reasons for it (with or without ‘justifications’).

So I suggest that Shrimplyamazing re-edits his first post so that all the relevant information is
contained in one place, and I can create the link to that. Players that are interested in how it was
developed, or wish to make their own comments, can do so by reading the entire thread.

So come on Shrimply, get to it...it was your idea after all.