From: Chicago, Illinois
The problem for me was thinking about the German 1942 campaign.
What are my strategic objectives?
The only sure objectives is to kill Reds. If I can't kill Reds at a 3-1 or 4-1 rate, what's the point?
Let's say I list the re-capture of Kharkov among those objectives. IRL, that was a legitimate objective. Sure, trashing the Manpower again there would be "Nice", but after I captured it the first time, most of the Manpower fled. The remaining 4 Manpower is damaged already. Is it really worth expending any extra effort to take it? No. Taking it is very incidental to the "real" objective of just killing Reds. I could say the same about almost any city. Even taking the Caucausus OIL, (if I can get to it!), I can't use the OIL, because by the time I repair it and also the RR, I'm probably pulling out anyway. The real objective is to deny it to the REDS; but are they really that hurting for Fuel that occupying it is going to justify the huge expense and risk of getting there?
Why not just sit in 1942, and accumulate the Infantry and forts I know I'm going to need in 1943? Granted that's a boring game.
So, I'm struggling with that question. Adding VPs per turn would answer the question for me, because I need those to "WIN". If I sit there, I'll probably "LOSE".
All this applies the other way. If the REDS know I am trying to kill them in 1942, why defend forward?
Losing Manpower effectively you lose troops, but is it worth risking 200,000 guys pocketed to protect Kharkov? The math says definitely not. You may as well fall back again.
I'm pretty sure Hitler and Stalin would NOT be real cool with standing pat, or giving up territory to "conserve strength". They were not real easy-going about that. Why not force us to fight harder for territorial objectives, at sometimes extreme costs in blood?
< Message edited by Q-Ball -- 2/28/2011 8:43:48 PM >