All games must compromise/summarize details to simulate history, and WiF does a remarkably good job of that, except in this particular area.
Besides this BotA, there are more game elements in WiF where historical simulation has been compromised for increased game balance.
Production for example.
Axis production in WiF is a quite a bit stronger than historically justified.
If we take allied production in WiF as benchmark, WiF Axis production should be about 18% lower up until '44, roughly 16BP every month.
(One of the reasons why I really like to play with the food in flames optional, because then the simulation of Allied production versus Axis production becomes 2% more accurate [;)].)
If war production in WiF needs a 100% simulation After '44, the Allies probably need a total of >300BP...
Or the war in China.
China being a complete walkover (if Japan wants to have it and has a bit of luck with the dice), is ofc nowhere near an accurate simulation of historical possibilities. It's a rather big compromise in favor of game balance.
Or the abscence of the supply problems the Germans faced in Russia, keeping all their troops in fighting order...
Long story short: I'd rate WiF a 50% simulation, 50% game (I'd rate Axis and Allies, for example, 10% simulation 90% game).
I really love to play (M)WiF, but I do realise every "what if" scenario we WiF players come up with is probably only 50% accurate [;)]. Even less in the future if the rules keep trending more towards game balance.
