Battle Plans | Forum

Topic location: Forum home » General » General Chat
I'm preparing for an event that will be using battle plans to determine missions.  Do you look at missions and determine that you'd prefer to attack or defend beforehand, or do you wait to see the table and the kind of list you're facing?
Brian Sep 11
The way it works is as follows:

1: Find opponent at table
2: Exchange army lists
3: Look at table
4: Determine to yourself how you would like to play
5: Both you and your opponent write whether you would prefer to do, be it a Hasty Attack, Prepared Attack, or Defend
6: Both you and your opponent reveal to each other your choice
7: Compare your choices to the chart in the PDF to determine what mission will be played and who will be the attacker.
I know how it works,  my question was more towards how you plan for an event,  as a player.
Ian Birdwell Sep 11
The only event I've played in that included battleplans was Team Yankee nationals, and even then it was under the old mission pack. 

As far as planning for that event went, I simply went with a single battleplan (prepared attack) and prayed when the mission was rolled that I could attack fully in darkness. So all of my tactics and list building revolved around planning to attack in darkness where my odd-numbered platoons would be more effective. 

For the new system, I think it could work quite well. One of the things I was reading up on the battlefront forums was to have the TO roll the die to determine which mission is played and eliminate the missions that have been played for future rounds. Of course there is always the chance to eliminate missions that aren't fair like hasty attack or ones that possess minefield if you're looking to reduce set-up time. Overall though I think it would be interesting to play in such an event. 

I'm can't decide if the new missions favor the attacker or the defender.  Generally the attacker doesn't have reserves,  and now can win on the first turn.  While the defender usually has reserves,  but can win now by just keeping the attacker away.   Defending sounds easier.
Ian Birdwell Sep 11
I think the overall changes to the mission victory conditions end up forcing players to be much more aggressive in their maneuvers on the tabletop. Whatever they do, they must be aggressive to achieve victory. An aggressive attacker could win a game in ten minutes and an aggressive defender could hold off an attack until they're almost out of troops to throw onto objectives. 

During our escalation league we had attackers winning 55% of the time with the most common victories being 8-1s. Granted this wasn't with the new mission pack, only a small sample size of 27 games, and with a wide range of play styles, army lists, game length, and missions played. 

The more missions pack and the battleplans I think are an interesting way to provide an extra dimension of tactical thinking without rolling dice to determine attackers, providing for a variety of missions being played, and removing certain missions players or armies may have significant trouble with. After all just imagine if a tank company was forced to defend with deep reserves on no retreat against a mech co. or another tank co.

World War II Photos