I have to disagree with you on those 2 points.
most of the FSO designs featured both sides attacking and defending - more often than not it works well. It forces the CiC to choose to either stack the offense or defense. These are the critical decisions that bring variety to FSO. Furthermore, in single-side attack events the defending side suffers landslide defeats - just like last month.
single attack objectives for each side removes another element of variety as well because the decisions regarding division of available forces is made even less important. It becomes stale when you know where everything is going.
another factor to consider in why multiple objectives is better is the result on the squads stuck in the lesser aircraft. With more objectives, you had a reduced chance of having to contend with the enemy's best aircraft and being slaughtered.
The issue is in the requiring.
Requiring both sides to split their forces into quarters (two on defense, two on offense) is the issue.
Publish two targets for each side but make no requirements as to either being REQUIRED to be defended or attacked and turn the radar on with 100 mile range for each side.
Let the CIC's determine what they will attack and/or defend and give both sides the means to identify the threats and react to them during the frame.
As it is now, after launch there is no real need to coordinate anything because everyone is wandering around blind and everyone know the defense will be right over the target so I fly to target with the AP on and read a book.
On defense I calculate the earliest the enemy can get to the target and relax in my orbit directly over the target until that time hack.
It isn't very interesting.
