OK I ran the save forward five hours till 2300. During this period the HQ halted on several occasions as B.23 retreated back past it a short distance. On one occasion where B.23 began it's retreat and the HQ was immediately behind it, the HQ finished its current move event (one minute's worth) and then halted. This IMO does not constitute leading the charge. That is just a case of reaction time to come to a halt. B23 recovered, advanced, was engaged and retreated several times during this period. On each occasion the HQ halted or when it too was engaged retreated. At no time did it continue to advance beyond what would be one minute's worth of move.
I think players need to understand that in real life there were numerous occasions in which HQs ended up at the front. You may think that this should not happen but please remember that there are delays in reacting to developments. It is not instantaneous even though you might want that. So I am not going to modify this behaviour as such.
However, knowing that the attack was from the original start position, which was some five clicks away, I do think we could add some extra smarts to test for the range to the reserve loc and how far this is through enemy controlled territory. In this case we can see that a good three clicks is in enemy controlled territory.
In this case it would be better if the whole Bn moved as one to the reserve loc and then left the HQ and B.23 there while the assault group moved off to the FUP. This would mean the whole force would stand a better chance of moving forward to the reserve loc. Now this would only work where the reserve loc lies along the route the FUP. This is not always the case.
This will require a fair amount of work to modify the plan doctrine for the attack and then test it and refine it.
Is this more important than mounted ops? One option springs to mind. We do this attack planning enhancement along with sequential tasking and leave mounted ops for the subsequent update. We have to do sequential tasking before mounted ops.