I noticed that a few of the 'generic' missions can be either played as attacker or defender. Unfortunately this don't seemed to be balanced, as their are only minor - if any - adjustment to the missions.
Examples:
Beachhead (p.30):
If the Player is the Attacker, then his forces will split in two waves, versus a 150% opposition.
As Defender, the player will face also a 150% opponent force, but with all forces ready as at the beginning of the scenario.
Mission: (Forced) Withdrawal; Why should it be the objective of the Defender to exit through their home edge? Their objective should be to hinder, that 'at least half of the attacker's force exit through their home edge'!?
Mission: Pursuit; Why is the opposing force always 75% of the players force? If the player choose to be Defender, he will be pursuited by a smaller force? Which is also easier to destroy and achieve the 'No quarter' objective? Why should the Defender prevent his pursuer to exit through th home edge?
As written, the mission is far easier for the Defender (the force which is pursuited!) than the attacker?
Mission: Retreat; the opponent will be always 75% of the players force? Same as Mission: Pursuit above.
My question(s):
1) Wouldn't it be more reasonable to have Mission: Pursuit and Mission: Retreat only as missions for which the player could be Attacker (Pursuit) and Defender (Retreat)?
2) Shouldn't be the objectives of missions , where the player can choose the sides be adjusted for either be attacker or defender? E.g. 'Stalwart' Obliterate for Attacker and something like 'resist' or 'Survice' for the Defender? Mission 'Strike' is a good example for such splitted objectives for attacker/defender.
Mission 'Recon' and 'Recon in Force' are examples tht the objectives favor only the attacking side.
3) Shouldn't the opposing force strength of missions, where the player can choose the sides be adjusted for the player either be attacker or defender? E.g. Beachhead always with an larger force for the attacker, so if the player is attacker than the opposing forces have 75% force strength of the deployed player units. If the Player is Defender the Attacker have 125/150% force strenght of deployed player units (or something similar).
4) For missions with a time limit. this is mostly fixed (e.g. 8 turns). Shouldn't it be adjusted for the force strength and the corresponding map size? E.g. Recon/Recon in Force requires for 'Escape!', that the player must survivce and exit at home edge after 8 and 10 turns respectively. If larger forces and therefore more maps are used, the player would need time alone to reach the target to be scanned and have a longer way for retreat. Shoudlnt be the turns be held variable, e.g. after [number of mapsheets multipied by 4] turns?
