Turn 1: Used AP to start activating the Crimea region. Slightly shortened the Orel salient to more defensible positions.
Turn 2: Used AP to finish activating the Crimea region. Started an orderly retreat to a more defensible position - Strait of Kerch
Turn 3: 13 divisions isolated.
This is what i hate about the way non 41 campaigns are done.
In our 42 GC, i lost over 140 divions as the soviet because fiva attacked not the Stalingrad region (where i had my activated divisions) but in the Leningrad area, where everything was static.
Over here, spend 2 turns activating units in the right area (thankfully), and i even consider myself lucky by getting that one divisions outside the encirclement. He could have went for the Stalino region - all static, or the Leningrad region - all static, both very very juicy targets too.
By having everything static but the Orel salient region doesn't mean the action will happen there, I'm not going to thrust my armor into the Kursk deathtrap, just as my opponent won't hit my forts there. Static fronts, in my opinion, are right now exactly the opposite of their design focus, it works against the AI, sure, but not against an opponent that knows the weakness of Static defensive positions.
So, and wrapping my rant here, instead of discouraging action, the static fronts encourage it, as its just a too juicy target to avoid to whomever has the attacking initiative.