[WarInEur] Barbarossa under options

[sgminfo]

Chuck Sutherland wrote:
> I would think with the attrition option that one would want to move every other turn with two teams of units to help slow the bleeding from attrition.
>
> Chuck Sutherland


Logically One might think so.

Sounds the correct solution...

The only problem with that strategy is...
..it gives the Soviet player time to mobilise and get his newly raised 
recruits knocked into somesort of order...

The rate of advance after the initial rush is then still limited by 
supply range fromthe slowly advancing railheads...

And instead of theGermans conducting an advance on Moscow et al,
you suddenly find yourself in the situation of the Soviets conducting a 
retreat,

and somewhere along the line it may mean that the initiative has somehow 
passed to the Soviets...

Because of the way that the power of the OB now flexes over time and 
space...things look a lot more imponderable.

Rushing Moscow before a crustal defence has a chance to gain substance 
and firm up,
might actually be the lower cost option.


On the other hand...taking Moscow at the first rush, might leave a tired 
and exhausted  force at the mercy of the Siberians, or any reserves that 
the Soviets have formed and somehow kept back intact for a late 
counterstroke...



At this point in time...I definately have an open mind about how this 
might play out.


But clearly this is less formulaic at the key stages of the campaign.

During the initial test runs, no clear conclusions could be reached upon 
this point, which augurs well for the longevity of the possible 
permutations inherent in the model...

i.e. We may not get stereotyped so easily...


-|steve|-