>>50845
So on the battlefield the army can be divided to center and flanks/wings. In Medieval times they did divide the armies into three, vanguard, middle, and rear, marching in this three detachments, then on the battlefield the van got the left, the middle was the center, and the rear positioned on the right. The three columns were about the same size. But in ancient times, wasn't like this, especially not in Greece/Macedonia and Rome, they played more with the balance of the line.
In theory three - or four I guess - deployment is viable: heavy left, balanced, and heavy right. The fourth would be heavy center, but it sounds like a balanced (because the two wings has the same weight), so perhaps it's a subcategory. I think two tactics works well: overload either of the wing s and create an outflanking situation.
In theory again, overloading the center could work, punch a hole there and roll up the line towards the wings. But it's hard to imagine how to squeeze the units in if there is a continuous line there. Only the units engaged can be hoped they finish the opposing units quick so they can move against the enemy their neighbour fighting with.
What I noticed is that the AI often "destroys" its own formation if something unexpected is happening, I mean it moves the center units towards the sides (for example notices a weakness on one of the wings and diverts units there, or want to counter a larger force on the win, or something) and creates a gap in the middle. Perhaps it's a temporary gap since its formation has couple of ranks (2-3) and the next units marching behind can fill, but it is an opportunity.
I also noticed that the AI tends to place weekest units in the center. Or perhaps not just me reading things the wrong way.