Squad level tactical movement idea.

Let's see about wording it for the rules, first. These are just ideas off the top of my head, so no worries if you hate these ideas.

Regarding your worry about being able to move a soldier across the map...what if you defined the term "squad mate" to mean "any soldiers occupying a space immediately adjacent to each other"? <--GAH! Nope...I already see a problem with that. Let's say you've got guys lined up like this: 123 By my definition soldiers 1 and 3 are not squad mates because they're not next to each other. Maybe you just say a squad mate is any soldier lined up next to any other soldier. As long as at least one soldier in the group is next to another soldier, he's considered a squad mate. Would that work? You could (and should) included a picture of some kind to illustrate this. So...now your soldiers across the board won't be considered squad mates because there's too much space in between. In fact, even one space separating soldiers is enough to remove them from the squad. <--although I don't know if I like that or not.

Wait! Okay...I just read your original post again. Each player is only controlling a 4 - 6 man squad anyway. So the idea of a movement bonus only comes when the guys are working closely together? Couldn't you just work that into the rules by saying, "Soldiers can only move one space at a time, unless they're working closely together (no unoccupied spaces separate the members of the squad). When soldiers are working closely together, a soldier can "...move to any square adjacent to his own, or his squadmate's current position. This effect could even be 'daisy chained' across multiple squad mates, so...
Say you have a squad of 4 and they are all lines up, the guy on the far right could effectively move 4 spaces to the left by moving to the free space after the last soldier."

Would that work?

You need a way to keep track of the soliders that have already moved. Hmmm...well...maybe that's not necessary with only 4 to 6 pieces. I could see arguments in my mind's eye, "You already moved that guy!"
"No I didn't. I moved THIS guy!" Seems to me that might be a problem when soldiers are close together, but maybe I'm wrong.

Your leapfrogging issue is something you'll just need to playtest. How big is the board? Perhaps there are limitations to the number of soldiers you can move in a turn? OR...maybe the board has barriers and other features that make leapfrogging difficult to accomplish? What about certain areas that would be perfect for leapfrogging, but it opens your soldiers up for attack because they're out in the open?

Have you given any thought to the pieces themselves? I wonder if there's a good way to distinguish a player's pieces from each other? So...you've got the standard colors for the players. Green, Red, White, Black, Yellow, Blue
Now within each color there are different colored helmets, or numbers on each piece to help everyone keep track of which piece has moved.

-CB-

Here is my question though....(maybe I missed it)

Can this regrouping keep going infinitely?

(See the crude diagram below....X representing a vacated space)

A-B-C-D

then becomes

X-B-C-D-A

then becomes

X-X-C-D-A-B

then becomes

X-X-X-D-C-A-B

etc etc

Man, actually, I'm really liking this idea the more I think about it. In some ways it doesn't make sense that the soliders are playing leap-frog, but I think most people can suspend their disbelief for the sake of a good game.

I was actually thinking, what if there was an advantage/disadvantage to having your units spread out, and then an ad/dis for having them all on one square/hex? Like, when they are spread out, you can do your leap-frog movement. But they are more powerful for attacks and such when they are all grouped up on one square? That would add a great deal of strategy to the game: moving on separate squares for more mobility, moving together as a group for more power. I dunno, just I thought.

I like it a lot though!!