The scale

[Anauso72]

The scale had to be mid-week in turn and the map in km and not miles.

Not be so we can now see as a good German player will always have a much better outcome than historical in Barbarossa, although the Soviet player did hypothetically perfect.

The German player knows where, how and when to attack without the Soviet player can avoid it, keep focusing on Moscow and minimize the disaster.

Sorry my poor English.

[janh]

Only the first turn is a half week one, Anauso, It is supposed to be part of the "surprise" effect that caught the Soviets on their mats.

The hindsight benefits you mention also apply to some degree to the Soviets, depending on how each side plays of course. Naturally as this game is almost purely governed by military considerations (military and economic value of targets, manpower size, but more defensibility of terrain, counterattack potential etc), a Soviet player can also choose not to fight in bad, fairly ideally open Panzer terrain. He can also benefit from not doing any or many futile counterattacks and assaults, as the historical counterparts did.

Does this sum up to a greater effect then the Germans have by already knowing what to expect when and where? Hard to say. I begun to think that one needs to look at specific smaller time frames, since the value of hindsight changes dramatically during the various stages of the war. Take for example fixed weather tables, which are a major advantage to the attacking player. Or take 1943, a German player unlikely will make a wasteful Kursk assault in a similar situation, while a Soviet player can try to maximize his army building program. A German player will already focus on the long run and safe his men for an attritional war. Difficult to say how has more benefits overall, but certain that both sides benefit in many ways and make it really hard to design a game of a war, which was often characterized by mistakes and uncertainties coming from that lack of knowledge.