Continuous Line as an Attacker?

[Bacillus98]

As an attacker, is it best to spread out your forces or break down a few battalions to cover your flanks while attacking? Here's is a pictorial example using Sea Lion '40 game:


It's not letting me inserting image correctly so here's a direct link: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/213...acbmp.png/

The German divisions are in snake like columns in T-mode heading towards the defensive British line. If I keep the attackers grouped up for assaulting key sections of the lines I leave my flanks exposed for the British opponent to sneak units in the rear line. If I spread out my attacking forces to cover flanks I risk diluting combat power. As a player, how do you guys decide on this matter?

[Liebchen]

In that particular campaign, the British are pretty much going to hold their line. They don't really have the means to make credible counterattacks, in my experience.

But I'd still make sure I had no exposed flanks, to the extent possible. Use visibility to extend your line coverage, since it's practically an all-infantry battle.

[Mike Bowen]

Depends on circumstances and sometimes who you are playing. In general I would keep a line. Sometime if there is a chance to create a breakthrough I may not do so. Keeping a line also means that you know if anyone has the chance to lurk in your rear.

As with many things in these games there is no right or wrong answer the fun is finding out.

Some of the best games I have played I have lost.

Mike

[Bacillus98]

Thanks guys for the responses. There are other examples of attacking divisions strung out along the road, such as the Mogilev scenario in Smolensk. I believe there is an AAR of that particular scenario, and I was trying to see if the attacker actually formed a line along the whole front or just the portions where he crossed the river.