In particular here I'm talking about WW2 tactical (squad level) games although it applies to other periods as well. Note that I do not include card type games here and I would add that I have never played such games, so we are really looking at hex and counter stuff.
Its an aspect of tactical games that has always somewhat frustrated me, although I also understand that, in order to make a game playable, some abstraction are inevitable; however, the fact remains that I feel is not always very well represented.
From my own reasonably extensive playing over the years, I think we can categorise some well-used similar systems as follows;
Individual leaders that, depending on the game, enable various command functions to be carried out. These games include titles such as Advanced Squad Leader (ASL), Advanced Tobruk System(ATS), Band of Brothers (BoB), Lock and Load (LnL), Combat Commander (CC). No doubt folks will think of others that I have omitted.
games that use Command Points or Action Points such as Conflict of Heroes (CoH) and Assault '41, but do not have individual leader counters.
Games that use a mixture of the above such as Old School Tactical (OSL).
Several common issues I have with the above are that those game that give us leaders do not follow any authentic command structure.
'Select 7 squads and 3 leaders which can be assigned to any squad' or something similar. What happened to command structure? Platoon leader? Squad leaders?
But then, where is the formation integrity?
How about instead of that we had a platoon HQ section and three squads, maybe each squad has a different 'sergeant' level, and the platoon HQ has a Lt level.
If the squads are identifiable to the platoon HQ (does The Last Hundred Yards do this?) then we can formulate rules that make it beneficial for the squads to operate within the command radius of the HQ and not wonder off all over the map. Push this up a level to Company level, or Battalion level.
Its possible, I think, to have a method that assigns support to a platoon from company/battalion assets - HMG's or mortars being obvious additions.
I suppose the big question here is the old one of balancing 'realism' against playability whilst still retaining some degree of authenticity. Nevertheless, I maintain that its an aspect of tactical games that designers tend to gloss and go with older and more established methods.
Discussion?