ORIGINAL: timmyab
This is precisely correct which is why I've said from the start that the early war incompetence of the Soviet leadership has to be programed into the game.If it isn't then what you get is what we've got now between equal players.The Axis invade, have a great time for six months and then go 'Oh no this was such a bad idea' and go home, i.e. give up.
It might be a good simulation of what would have happened had the Soviet leadership been up to scratch in 41/42 but most Axis players aren't going to hang around long enough for you to find out.
Catch 22 is that then justly the Soviet players will also ask to be allowed their "improvement" for 43-45, if in 41-42 they have to follow their mistakes. Their improvement would also be strongly based on Axis mistakes, so Feste Plätze and Stalingrad like "no withdrawls" would have to be a part of that? Would you want that, or prefer to pick an opponent who would be happy to agree to play along historical doctrine and guidelines, as far as this doesn't break the game (like Axis not slowly withdrawing at least a bit in the open areas during blizzard, while the Russian site exploits this; or the Axis sides exploiting the lack of Soviet historical reinforcements in 41 while the Soviet player tries to repeat historical mistakes, and fights for pretty much every yard and counterattacks foolishly). It rather think that would be for house-rules, since there is only so much you can do to try go negate hindsight. And you might easily turn a game into a "recreation movie" of history, which is probably better left for Hollywood?
