From: The Duchy of Cornwall, nr England
There is no advantage to take Sevastapol in the game right now from just about any way you want to look at it, be it industrial, manpower, or political.
In addition, it is far easier and more economical to guard the Crimea at the entrance than it is to try to capture the entire Crimea and then have to defend against Russian invasions.
I'm really not sure about this; again there is no right or wrong, but in one test game I did not get the Crimea, which allowed Ploesti to get bombed to the ground, and although I never saw the impact of the loss of Oil and Fuel, because a bug stopped the Game, I have always followed a "Crimea first" policy, and not regretted it. I have since modified my strategy so I get it after the blizzard rather than before, as bombing missions during the blizzard and snow are less effective.
Quite a few AARs show that attacks from the Crimea can be a nuisance, and tie down significant numbers of troops/units.
You could probably keep Sevastopol itself besieged with a few Rumanians, but I would not leave the big aircraft carrier in the Black Sea available for the Soviet Long Range Airforce.
edit: The AI does not use it's long range bombers or attack aggressively from the Crimea, so Klydon's advice is fine for playing against the AI rather than a good soviet PBEM player.
< Message edited by BigAnorak -- 3/14/2012 5:51:39 PM >