Does that mean, if 6mm then figures easier to fit onto the bases or are there game mechanisms involved at that scale?All of that would be true, if we were playing with 6mm figures.
I guess as the scales get bigger, figures become more difficult to fit. I see 28mm is revolutionizing wargaming. (I, at 70yrs, and with home downsizing, aching back etc, have reached the stage of life where I want less and smaller figures, (not 6mm anymore though. My eyes!), that take up less space, and less to carry. Will stick to my almost 40yr old 15mm metals. In fact I've designed my carrying case that I am able to carry to Klub, two 144pt armies and terrain with two hands. (One guy who plays 28mm Meq must make about 5 trips to his car. Boxes and boxes!)The underlying truth of the matter is this -- base depths are created by the figures. A line of combat Elephants should be (historically speaking) less deep than a line of close-order infantry, much less mounted. The space occupied by a Chariot formation would probably have been very similar to that occupied by Horsebow. But it is EXTREMELY tight trying to fit Elephants or Chariots on a square base, much less an open-order mounted or open-order foot base.
No I meant the other way around! The Horde get shattered by say Warband and Knight, who would normally Pursue.I didn't understand the first part -- Horde don't shatter anyone. For the second part, I think you might be thinking of it wrong. Horde falling back 40mm (their own movement distance) is a crippling blow to their maneuverability -- one recoil takes them almost out of the battle. With their extremely slow movement, their fall-back distance is a major problem.
If they fall back 2mu, they return to battle with 2mu. I not sure how that's problematic. (Is it its with large depth and slow move, making it cumbersome to do other manoeuvres?- Really just trying to see how base depth causes this.)
Our basing is good and makes sense; we long-ago considered the pathways we could take with basing. One path was to go completely new. One path was to hew slavishly to the eccentricities of the DBA/DBM/DBMM/WRG7th/WRG6th basing system, with all its idiosyncrasies and decisions that were made based upon gaming systems built back in the 1980s and earlier. We took a middle road, keeping to the general system of 40x15, 40x20, 40x30, but modifying it slightly so all open-order foot are on one basing, all open-order mounted on another basing, all close-order foot on a third, and then using 40x40 for exceptions (close-order mounted -- Cataphracts) and a couple of deep formations of close order foot (Pavise, Horde), and for several things that the figures prevent from being on other bases (Chariots, Elephants, War Wagons).
So no, not a chance that we're going to make any significant change to our basing in future updates. And I will point out that "future updates" is probably more than 5 years away, maybe even 10. Anything is possible in the future, but we might have a manned mission to Mars before the next version of Triumph starts getting worked on, so don't be holding your breath.
PB brought out updates possibly to cater for the competition crowd and money, (?) which just increased the complexity! (DBM-DBMM for example. I tried one DBMM and gave up!) No rule set is perfect (even Triumph!) but I can see you've put much thought into all this. (more than I!) I'm sure you would bring out update if there was a valid rules reason. Please do consider from time to time based on players concerns. I would not like to see Triumph! die. (as I've seen other rules sets which became inflexible.) The odds and sods Hordes, et al I can understand having square bases, but for now I'll continue using 30mm for Cataphracts. (my 'club rules' and to get more playing Triumph! Uphill battle with the DBA crowd!;)