What I have added now are some simple pursuit rules, which may cover this area:
Only units entitled to charge may pursue. Roll a D6: 1,2 - exhausted, cannot pursue. 3,4 - in control, player's choice to pursue or not. 5,6 - out of control, must pursue.
Deduct one from the roll for any infantry or weakened units. Player's could probably think of some other modifiers. A pursuit move would be a normal move with no charge move bonus, but would count as a charge. Any resulting melees to be fought next turn.
Personally I will be sticking with the rule that a unit can function until it has 7 hits, rather than cloud the waters with additional rules within the sphere of melees.
A very informative series of posts. Yes, a paragraph about 'crossing fire' is needed - thanks for flagging that up.
Regarding the cavalry with 3 hits considering a flank attack, it seems to me the rules indicate that such an attack is possible but risky. This seems reasonable to me. In your example, the result depends on how the morale throws go, not just the hits.
Personally I think forced interpenetration sounds much more naughty, but overall I think you're right: a new terminology would be preferable. I'll work on it. The same for formed vs. heavy.
A good question. I would say no - formed, close order units wouldn't mess around near the enemy for fear of becoming disordered. With light units already in a loose formation this wouldn't seem to apply. Good point - thanks for raising it.
Reducing measurements by a third for 15mm is exactly what I recommend in the notes to the rules. That's one of the reasons just about all the game distances are divisible by 3!
I was drawn back into this discussion by the most recent post. Having done a fair bit of research recently into Napoleonic tactics and how these evolved, I found Westmarcher's post very convincing (and very informative). Any attempt in a set of wargames rules to represent assault columns as some kind of battering ram quickly ends up in trouble, which rather satisfyingly matches up with reality - the reality being that they weren't anything of the sort, and could be used as such only against poor troops and/or those that had been weakened by previous combat, especially artillery preparation.
I'm pleased to see someone finds the rules of interest! You'll see I suggest in the notes 'light casualties' and 'heavy casualties' for the occasions you suggest. Maybe a single word title would be even better - thanks for the suggestion.
In many circumstances (particularly at the beginning of a game) it will be obvious there's no need to make a command roll when you declare you don't want to do anything with a particular brigade or independent unit. But once combat starts, it may be that an inconvenient command roll forces you to do something you don't want to, like a forced advance.
You can see on p.19 that even under a 'poor' command result formation or facing changes in place are allowed, the proviso being that no movement towards the enemy is allowed. So in practical terms a command roll might not be needed to re-shuffle your brigade, although a 'feeble' result might be embarassing in certain situations.