[2023] Value of initiative

icedlemon said: "According to the counter relationship of tactics cards, it can be found that the offensive tactics that can be countered are much more than the defensive tactics that can be countered , so taking the initiative is more beneficial to the defender."
Saw this sentence on wiki. I have also heard this point repeated elsewhere. It sounds like a such a weird logic to me. Shouldn't It be equally important between 'countering enemy tactic' and 'your own tactic not being countered'? Thus, initiative being equally important for attcker and defender?
Isn't It then reasonable to say that initiative, thus recon, is more important for doctrines that have more counterable tactics facing certain other doctrines? For example, higher initiative for armored division so your opponent is less likely to choose elastic defence when you do blitz?

You are correct to sus out something odd. The wording is misleading and makes it sound like defense has a real advantage here. It doesn't. But wiki is technically correct. And as we all know, that's the best kind of correct.

There are more attack tactics than defense tactics. And more defense tactics can counter offense tactics. This means that if all you care about is counting the number of times you counter a tactic, then initiative is more valuable to the defender. But notice that nowhere in that sentence did I write "winning battles" or "inflicting casualties" or "taking tiles." And for those paying attention, you'll also notice that nowhere in that sentence did I mention phases like Close Combat and Hold/Take Bridge.

The reality is that the attacker wants to stack all possible advantages in their favor; if you don't have all your ducks in a row, initiative is worthless. The attacker needs good tactics to actually be available in the first place or you can't select them no matter who wins initiative. The attacker also needs to meet the minimum requirements for a tactic or, again, initiative won't matter. Furthermore, while you can counter a tactic officially, nothing stops the defender (or attacker) from just drawing a tactic with good buffs that outweigh the buffs their enemy has. Backhand Blow doesn't "counter" Blitz officially, as Backhand Blow only counters Breakthrough, but the debuff on the attacker from Backhand Blow mitigates the damage buff the attacker gets from Blitz completely anyway. The defender didn't get to add another notch on their "Counter enemy tactics" belt, but no one would complain in this situation.

Furthermore, the attacker doesn't want to get dragged into bad combat phases. Sure, Assault is countered by Counterattack, but when Assault fires, you'll never see me care about it getting countered. What will cause me to swear is the fact that my general just got us stuck in Close Combat where he can't draw Blitz, Breakthrough, or Encirclement. Oh, you wanted your tanks to break on through? Too bad, your general got told to go home and grab his shine box instead. And while initiative can help you counter a tactic, as far as I know, it doesn't let you reroll a phase transition.

Thus, if you care about actually winning battles, killing enemies, or advancing as an attacker, the fact that initiative gives the defender more options to counter tactics should only be one of several things you care about. In fact, for the attacker, I don't weight initiative highly in my planning. I prefer to make sure generals leading offensive formations have the right traits and skill levels (since skill helps with both intiative and meeting requirements). And while SIG companies can increase initiative, I prefer RECON on my armored formations for the speed bonus in open terrain.

Let the defender try to claim more tactics counters using higher initiative gained from SIG. I won't lose any sleep over it.