if i understand the dismissal rule correct the loss of Voronezh will likely result in me having to resign and going to a very cold place.
I think I would not start a game with dismissal rule turned on myself. It might be hard to balance this rule so I wouldn't trust it. Also how disappointing is it for the game to end because of this kind of rule when there is so much game investment already and so much game left to be played? It's a bit silly I think. Soviet commanders were sacked all the time but the war didn't stop and the war didn't end. Both sides suffered catastrophic disasters over and over and over yet the war went on. In the game if you want to treat it as an RPG (which it's not) playing Zhukov or STAVKA and those 2 institutions never stopped ticking during the war. For me I'm playing out the campaign not rolling a character to play like an RPG - I want to see the campaign play out. I'm not one guy. And even if that is the aim of the game it doesn't do a good job of making you feel like you are one guy - which guy are you even?
So I see no sense in the dismissal rule and wouldn't ever start a game with it turned on.
I'd be very very disappointed to see this excellent AAR and all the time you've invested end because of a stupid option like this. This campaign is far from over and the Soviets historically suffered catastrophic losses during this period. I really want to see how the winter and spring play out. Both sides should always have a chance to regroup and recover.
If this optional rule is not used then the players still have motivation to follow Stalin's directives because there are PP's to be gained and lost and those PP's can be very useful with the various cards that are available. This option to summarily end the game without player choice is frustrating to see.