ORIGINAL: pwieland
Is the historical result the only probable occurrence that could possibly result? That is, there is absolutely no opportunity to improve the historical performance, even given the benefit of hindsight?
Surely there is, for example on the way an Axis player conducts his operations, and more importantly, how he designs his overall strategy. Basically by negating the "Hitler effect", and prevent the myriad of mistakes that were mostly due to his involvement, is one thing to test. In that is one power of this game, though ultimately it will probably lead to the same result. You'd still not be Hitler and have his freedom, but other than his effect on withdrawals, and replacements, you'd have gotten rid of him.
Axis players can for example avoid overextending like at Stalingrad and loose a large fraction of an army. They can start the battle of Kursk ahead of schedule, following Mannstein's and Models suggestions not to wait for reinforcements, Panthers, the end of Operation Zigeunerbaron, and Hitler's delaying order due to the unsure situation with Italy.
They can also try to prevent something like the disintegration of Armeegruppe Mitte (AGC) by Bagration in 44 by following what GFM Busch and other leading generals of Heer and OKH suggested: shorten the front line and retreat to a more defensible, even fortified line -- which was historically overridden by Hitler's "Feste Plätze" decision. I recall that some German generals suggested such a contraction and digging in already in 43, so instead of wasting the creme de la creme of the Wehrmacht Kursk-style, you could starting fortifying in autumn 42 and from there see whether the Red Army will be forced to a slower progress. Of course, if the Axis digs in in 42, and perhaps this could be the best way to trade losses at a reasonable ratio, the game could end up being trench warfare throughout 43.
So I think there are still plenty of things to try for the Axis side, and even more flexibility for the Russian player. A game like this or WiTP/AE draws its power from allowing you to test different decisions, with some more or less strict constraints such as historical production, unit formation, being tied to certain orders, etc (or the flexibility to improve these as well in plausible/realistic fashion). Pretty much like a simulation in which you try to assess the effect of each of these factors on the overall outcome -- who wouldn't want to show that --perhaps-- the Axis could have achieved a stalemate if Hitler hadn't messed up OKH and OKW, or see whether Stalin could have reached Berlin in 44 had he not wasted so many troops in poorly conducted offensives in 42?
