The Commander Series Forum

Hi Pete - second question of the evening.

In attack/defence scenarios I've always believed that it's up to the defender to defend a certain objective (hill, village, whatever) and that the attacker's brief is to capture the relevant defended objective.

However, a couple of recent opponents have put forward the suggestion that it's up to the attacker to decide what objective they're going to try and capture. For instance, in the defender's deployment zone there could be a village and 2 hills. The attacker decides which one to try and capture.

I can see both sides of the argument here. One is that you've spent points digging in around a village while the opponent goes waltzing off towards the hill. The other is that in "real life" you wouldn't necessarily agree with your enemy before the battle what your real objective is.

Which course of action is the one you intended when you wrote the scenarios?

thanks

John

Up to you really, John - it was always pretty obvious what was the objective when I played the scenario: should I take the village or take the clump of trees to the right of it? I guess that's the downside of playing on a smallish table - not room for more than one major feature.

Guess John with that senario the defender will have to defend more than one objective. With the analogy you gave "One is that you've spent points digging in around a village while the opponent goes waltzing off towards the hill", guess you might want to take the hill to fire down onto the village if you see my meaning.

Personaly I don't belive in agreeing the objective, it is up to the defender stop the attacker grabing any objective.

Ian