I wonder, that you attack the Fins from overstacked hexfields and with ignore losses setting. Doesn't it result in a lot of "continues", which burn your turn, and extremly high casualities?
From a purely TOAW standpoint, those two things are sort of mutually exclusive. Attackers break off typically due to losses sustained (or a failed morale check), so the higher the density penalties the higher the losses the attackers will sustain which means they will break off earlier. Red Army units will fail many morale checks, especially when they are no longer fresh. You can use this fact to your advantage (hint: assault ratio is king).
To answer your question in this particular game, no and no. What you are seeing is a screenshot from the End of Turn. I rotate fresh units in mid-way through the turn and since its off-road movement. Anything that can't attack us set is IL for defensive purposes. At the start of the next turn, exhausted attackers withdraw before I initiate fresh attacks with reserves moved the last turn lowering density penalties. I do sometimes attack with IL, sometimes with LL, sometimes with ML and sometimes with limited attacks - it depends on the situation. I recall three combats in Finland so far that burned 3 tactical rounds and two of those times were when Mark's Tactical Reserve units joined a battle in progress.
Busting the Mannerheim line is totally dependent on taking advantage of the initial deployment. If the Finns recover and get back to full readiness/supply/entrenchment, give up trying to break it.
I disagree. In my EA-games - which were mainly under 3.2 - I had far better results when attacking the Fins with minimize losses, but using flanking bonus. Casualitie-ratio was much better and my Russian counters didn't evaporate so often. On the other hand - here I agree with you - it's not a fast way to knock the Fins down. You need quite some time, so to enforce a Finnish surrender you need many turns and it will only be worth the price, if the French can hold out long enough. Still, I prefer the ml-approach.
@Ruppich: He said "from a retreat cancellation perspective" - and as far as I got it, retreats are a main issue regarding the IL-Bug