Everyone gets rear support!

My main concern with the HoTT style ‘supporters are lost when the front troops are lost’
is that it’s entirely based on pure luck...and there’s enough luck already as it is in DBA!

But there is one more important thing we have not yet addressed with Shirmplyamazing’s
‘reduced heavy foot with universal rear support’ idea:-

X-Ray Threat Zones
Now I quite like X-Ray Threat Zones.
Yes, it’s a bit artificial and abstract, but it does a fairly good job of simulating close combat.
It may seem odd that a column cannot use their rear rank to plug a gap in the battleline...
...but it would also be odd if a rear rank of Pikes were allowed to zip left or right at will to
support an already engaged single Pike. And I doubt that Warbands had the training or
discipline to do so.

Then there is the morale implications.
How would you feel if you were fighting in the front rank and found your mates behind
had suddenly nipped-off without warning somewhere else?
(If it was me I’d probably be off with them!)

It all depends on whether if you think that your little metal soldiers are merely radio controlled
robots that always do as they are told, or if they are actually men who have minds of their own.

‘Reduced heavy foot with universal rear support’ will have serious effects, as all rear-supporter’s
will be subject to these X-Ray Threat Zones, and be more rigid and less flexible. And, contrary to
popular belief, even the vaulted Roman multiple-line formation was fairly rigid in reality, and only
used to move fresh reserve maniples forwards, not sideways...at least until Scipio Africanus took
command in 211 BC (and many of the later Roman ‘politician generals’ didn’t have his insight).
It was this rigid formulaic legionary style of fighting that allowed enemies such as Hannibal and
Sparticus to ‘know’ how to beat them, because they knew exactly what they were going to do.

So I don’t see X-Ray Threat Zones being a problem with ‘universal rear support’.
If anything, it actually makes things more realistic.
Players will just have to plan-ahead a bit more.

Well that's the price they pay for 'locking in' to support the unit in front of them; until they do that they are freer to move as they wish. Seems pretty logical and realistic to me too.

yeah I think so, they're kind of separate issues and I don't think this house rule is necessarily impractical within the current rules

if they are overpowered vs heavy opponents, there’s always the ol’ “bd, sp, pk win on ties against Wb” to knock em down a bit more

ooh, I forgot about that one! Good one, although it's sliding dangerously into DBMM territory a bit.

That said, I did think of another *slight* disadvantage.

Right now, Wb only get rear support from other Wb, and Pk only get the +3 when supported by other Pike.
This new "everybody gets rear support", seems to indicate that everybody can rear support everyone else.

Perhaps the limitation for Pk is that ONLY other Pk are allowed to support (in exchange for getting +2), and Wb can only be supported by other Wb (in exchange for the QK against heavies).
So while the Bd facing them can have Ax or Ps supporting them, allowing them to have a full line of Bd facing a double ranked group of Wb.

It's a minor disadvantage, but it might be enough to tip the balance?

Is also brings up the inverse. Can Pk support another element from the rear? Can Wb support another element from the rear?
We also haven't mentioned Hd. Can they support/be supported as well?

One last question about Ps. From what I understand, Ps can receive rear support, but opponents can't rear support AGAINST Ps. Is that right?
That means that a line of Sp going up against a Ps that is in front of it's battleline will be not be able to be overlapped, and will be CV 3 against the Sp 4 (3+1 side support but NOT rear support). A little nervous this might make the Ps too powerful against heavy infantry. Might not, but just a late night thought.

We have to get the balance between depth and width right so that there isn't a dominant strategy all the time. I'm still in favor of this idea, but just wanted to make sure we're crossing our T's

Good points Snowcat and Greedo.
Very well, let’s look at some battlefield formations, using ‘reduced heavy foot with universal rear-support’,
but keeping all ‘quick kills’ exactly as they are now:-

                 XX  XX  XX     ← these could be Wb, Ps, or some other kind of foot
                 Wb Wb Wb
                 Bd  Bd  Bd
                 XX  XX  XX     ← these could be Bd, Ps, Sp, or some other kind of foot

If it’s the Wb bound, they’ll want to eliminate the centre Bd, so that the other two Wb columns can get overlaps,
but there is only 10 chances out of 36 (28%) of doing so, with 21 chances (58%) of being recoiled themselves.
As there is twice as much chance of being recoiled, the more likely outcome is the centre Bd column overlapping
the two outer Wb columns, where both sides have 6 chances out of 36 (17%) of getting a kill.
If it’s the Bd bound, they’ll want to recoil the two outside Wb columns (each having 58% chance of succeeding),
leaving the centre Wb column doubled overlapped, where the centre Bd column has 12 chances (33%) of getting
a kill, and only 3 chances (8%) of being killed themselves.

They seem to be pretty evenly matched, but It all depends on that first die roll, and that is the nature of a wild
barbarian charge. However, the Romans can do much better if they can break-up the Warbands before contact.

Now a typical Gallic force of 2 x Cv/LCh, 9 x Wb, 1 x Ps (the general is with a Wb),
against a typical Polybian Roman formation of 2 x Cv, 4 x Bd, 2 x Ax, 2 x Ps, 2 x Sp,
and both armies have a frontage of 8 elements (which fits in the usual 7 BW deployment area):-

                       Wb   Ps   Wb  Wb
          Cv  Wb  Wb  Wb  Wb  Wb  Wb  Cv
                               Ps    Ps
          Cv  Ax   Bd   Bd    Bd   Bd   Ax   Cv
                       Sp                   Sp

From this we can see why the Polybian Romans had so many Velite Psiloi...being out in front (and
with a +1 for rear support) they are equal with the Wb (who’s rear-support doesn’t count against Ps).
The Wb have 15 chances (42%) of repelling the Ps who, unless they flee (6%), will form the rear rank
of the Blades, giving them a +1 for rear-support (and Wb do not pursue Ps). But the Wb also have
15 chances out of 36 (42%) of being repelled themselves, so breaking-up their formation and allowing
the Bd to get the overlaps.
The Wb on either side of the Ps could advance a bit to get mutual side-edge contact on the Ps, and give
themselves more chances of driving-off the Ps, but that again breaks-up their battleline leading to overlaps.
Now the odds favour the Romans...but luck still plays an important part.

Let’s now look at a Spear (CF 3, with +1 for side-support, and +1 for rear-support) against Pk (CF 3 +2):-

                    Sp  Sp  Sp
                    Sp  Sp  Sp
                    Pk  Pk  Pk
                    Pk  Pk  Pk

If the centre Pk pursue, they’ll be double overlapped next bound, and have 6 chance out of 36 (17%)
of being doubled and destroyed...bad news for the Pk.
But the two outer Pk columns have 15 chances (42%) of repelling the Sp, and a double overlapped Sp
(with no side-support) has 12 chances (33%) of being doubled and destroyed...worse news for the Sp!
Thus Pikes do have the advantage against Spears.

So I don’t think any changes to ‘quick killing’ is necessary.

Re always pursuing - do you think Bd should always pursue enemy foot except Ps? (I prefer the idea of them having the option for some reason.)