Both you and Bedwyr missed my point. If you're banking on your non-blobbing strategy to win by making sure the majority of your forces are on the flank, that will fail if the blobber also deploys most of his force on the flank. Whether or not that flank now becomes the centre, your smaller non-blobbed force will still get crushed by his larger blobbed.
One of us is misunderstanding what Tom proposed. I, of course, think it's you, but I'm willing to admit that it may well be me. My understanding is this:
You put 90% of your troops on the left flank, and 10% in the center. I put 30% 40% and 30% on the left, center, and right. My 40% ends up fighting your 90% (newly designated into the center), and my left flank ends up fighting your 10%, while my right flank automatically starts moving toward the center. I'll take the odds that my 40% will stand up long enough for my right flank to show up with a bonus, and further that they'll keep you occupied long enough for my left flank to trounce your 10% and join the fray as well.
When we usually talk about "blobbing" of forces, we normally mean putting your entire army in one region. While having multiple flanks in a battle will add to strategy inside a battle, and thus make individual battles more interesting, it won't solve what we usually refer to as "blobbing". It will actually reinforce that strategy, because you will need to make sure you have enough forces in the region to man all three mini-fronts against your enemy.
I disagree. I even outlined a scenario where I thought a smaller army would work better than a larger army, where you bank on fighting hard on the flanks rather than the center and thus want to minimize the troops you lose in the center. You could "lose" every battle and still do disproportionate damage.
Why? Because one of the main historical purposes of flanking units was to hit the enemy archers/artillery.
Alright, slightly modified version of my plan, flanking forces show up in formation after X rounds, but start on the enemy's side of the field.
