From: Utlima Thule
You guys have managed to have completely missed my point. 1) standard military strategy is to destroy enemy combat formation, yes or no? 2) if yes then the destruction of the soviet formations, yes there are not enough AP's to use the arms and manpower, (if you don't save them up, plenty if you do)and, such destruction of enemy formations is being called a "ap crunch strategy" 3) the axis strategy, killing of the Reds, is just that. Giving this strategy the title "ap crunch", ok accurate enough, but, that name is what is artificial. The strategy is to kill 'em off.
Herd effect coming.
thing is this change will lead to more realistic Soviet tactics mid-war. Historically they were almost always prepared to push an offensive further than sensible. Sometimes (eg Kharkov in early 1943) this was due to under-estimating German resiliance, others (eg the Zhitomir battles in early 1944) it was quite deliberate. You can make a strong case that a couple of Tank Armies were (in WiTE terms) destroyed at Kharkov.
With this change, its easier to accept the losses and push an offensive, thus disrupting the German lines. Hopefully it leads to more mobile warfare, less 'hexes to Berlin' and so on.
You are still paying the arms pts, ground elememnts and raw manpower cost.
Now is it properly balanced in this form? Not got a clue but steadily the .08 patching system has added to the demand falling on Soviet admin pts to the extent that its not till 1944 am I really thinking about *perhaps* swapping an army between fronts or replacing some commanders - something that historically was done on a regular basis