From: Crush Depth
Comrade P has hit another nail on the head. Trying to force the game to suddenly impose a historical set of conditions mid-war, regardless of what the players have done, is hugely problematic. This cuts both ways:
1. An Axis player has been more cautious than his historical counterparts, stopped attacking at the end of the summer and spent months digging in for winter. Nevertheless, the blizzard still drops his CVs massively. (The designers need to look back to the German WW1 experience in Russia to see that they were quite capable of enduring the winter if they planned for it).
2. A Soviet player attacks less recklessly during the Blizzard and ends up with a very large, relatively unscathed army in the spring. The game engine drops his CV to almost nil anyway, to ensure that the Axis can drive on Stalingrad.
This design philosophy is destined to fail. All a developer can do in reality is to set the starting conditions historically and apply a historical context (the rains will come, the snow will fall, movement/combat/supplies will be a problem, etc.). The relative strengths of the two armies mid-game should never need to be manipulated in this way - they should be a simple function of base numbers, logistics, production and losses.
If the players make the historical choices (say, by agreement beforehand) then, and only then, the game should produce results that are reasonably close to historical.
Yes, this design philosophy will fail. All this gets hardcoded in the source code. God only knows the spaghetti code that results, in dealing with all these "special" cases.
BS, MS, PhD, WitP:AE, WitE, WitW