Asymetrical Scenarios and the Defender's Advantage

The Problem

Infantry scenarios present a serious difficulty for the game designer.  In such warfare as we are trying to simulate, the defender possesses a natural advantage in weaponry and tactics.  From Verdun's trenches to Monte Cassino's slopes, to Normandy's hedgerows, the machinegun and the mortar make a mess of attacking infantry. The problem is particularly exacerbated in asymmetrical scenarios, where there is an attacker and a defender, each with a different victory condition. A successful attack requires superiority of numbers, of tactics, or special equipment (most notably the tank). One truism of warfare admonishes the attacker to gather at least a 3:1 advantage at the point of attack.

Yet, it is also a powerful convention of the beer and pretzel wargame that players will meet with equally-pointed lists.  Anything else doesn't seem fair or fun. 

How can the game designer reconcile a natural "defender's advantage" with war-gaming conventions?


Previous Approaches

Flames of War takes place on a 15mm scale: it can have lots of armor without being out of scale. In asymmetrical scenarios, Flames of War reduces the defender's advantage by temporarily halving the defenders force.  Its defensive scenarios usually require the defender put half of their force into reserve.  For the critical first few turns, therefore, the attacker has a numerical advantage. Over time, as the defender's force enters the board, the attacker's advantage degrades.  Thus, the defender plays with a standard list, but with (effectively) a reduced force.

Warhammer 40k negates the defender's advantage largely by increasing the game's level of carnage.  Cover is not particularly effective in 40k, and there's no mechanism for suppression. So there is less of a defender's advantage than in a more "realistic" game. Moreover, all 40k's scenarios are symmetrical.  When both players must move, there is no defender to benefit.

I'm not happy with either of these solutions. 

Asymmetrical Lists?

I propose breaking with wargaming convention and requiring each player to prepare two lists for each game: an attacking list and a defending list.  Both lists must have the same core. The natural scale for my game (dang, it needs a name, doesn't it?) revolves around the platoon, so the core will be a platoon, usually of three squads.  The attacking list will have a large addition of points, which it should spend on aggressive equipment, such as vehicles, additional troops, and so forth.  The defending list will have a smaller allotment of additional points, which it should spend on defensive equipment - machine guns, fortifications, etc. The final ratio will give the attacking list about 150% to 200% more points than the defending list.

In an asymmetrical scenario, one player will use their defending list, while the other attacks.  (In tournaments or other such games, the players can randomly determine who attacks and who defends.) 

In a symmetrical scenario, both players will use their attacking list.  (In symmetrical scenarios, both players must maneuver and leave their fortifications, so they will need attacking equipment more than defending equipment.)