pro and cons of attacking and defending

[mic]

what are the pros and cons of being the attacker and defender?
you can obviously help set your stance by the Corp commo you take
regards Mick

[deadtorius]

being Austrians I am almost always defending. If I win initiative (has happened a few times) I am almost not sure what to do.
Main thing about being attacker is you will get across the table past the half way point so can force the issue as to where you want to hit. We have been using Bretts suggestion that unless the initiative is 4+ the two turn no move restriction for the defender does not apply which makes it a bit easier to defend. Otherwise your moves are restricted as defender to moving sideways in your rear, not often that helps much.
As an attacker you get to decide where to punch and how much force to put there. My Austrians constantly find the end of the line being ganged up on by an artillery unit with a light infantry and line unit attacking and a cav unit about to drive me into square so the attackers can shoot with a + POA. The rest of your army can pin down the defender and in my case out shoot me for the most part from range.

Can't say there are many advantages to defending, although with Bretts suggestion it is not as bad most of the time. I have managed on a few occasions to switch troops from one flank to the other which can throw off an attack, but otherwise it can be difficult. Especially if most or all of the terrain falls on the enemy side of the table, then there is not much to break up/stall their attack or give you places to hide.
I am sure others have their own ideas

[BrettPT]

Pros of being attacker:
1. Get to out-deploy the defender (deploy 2nd)
2. Get to deny defender some terrain (ie, a river by selecting a tiny one stream)
3. Get to move first
4. Option to outflank
5. May get an extra unit (on a 3+ in initiative roll)
6. Can dictate the 'shape' of the battle.
7. Unreformed troops get to move faster in first 2 turns.

Pros of being the defender:
1. Get a free hill
2. Get a victory point in a draw
3. Get +2 on acv if a 3+ initiative game.
4. Get to deploy a bit further forward than attackers.

But the biggest factor in winning initiative is that the defender cannot move out of their deployment zone for the first 2 turns, which means that the defender is obliged to deploy back to at least allow some movement. In my view the benefits accruing to the attacker are massively preferable to those the defender gets. I often field a Exceptional CC, principally to get the +3 initiative.

[mic]

OK thanks for the replies gents

[hazelbark]

What happens however in the rules is you often have battle with clear aggressors and the historical shape of the battle feels good.

The Defender I think has a serious challenge.
1) Don't over commit at deployment
2) Have a plan to seize the initiative back from the enemy
3) Have a reserve that can get to any point you want to defend by turn 3 so the enemy doesn't overwhelm that point.


To illustrate this I recently attacked with Peninsula English against an 1808 Peninsula French that had a Guard infantry division. He put his Guard out to hold his flank but I descended on it with half my army. Tremendous amount of firepower wore down and broke the Old Guard. I just like telling the story.

But seriously my opponent deployed the Guard overly exposed and then did not plan to come to its aid or counterstrike me sufficiently to divert the thunder.

[pugsville]

A lot of my recent games I;m winning when defending and losing when attacking,