Thank you so much for the feedback!
Looking at this, I do agree that the battlefield should either be smaller or the objectives closer. That would probably help with making a turn 1 or 2 seize a bit more viable. The primary reason for why I placed the objectives where I did is that most of the VP for the attackers would come from unit destruction which is an attacker only VP objective and that seizing objectives would be primarily to deny further VPs to the defender team. That way, if the attackers seize two objectives by turn 3 and knocked out a few units you would end up with a pretty even score.
I do agree that maybe there would have been a better attacker VP strategy. Is there something you would recommend? This was all I could think of to keep the game balanced.