Since this has taken a tack in the realism direction, I will add my 2 cents! (My 2 Red proletariat cents, for the good of the workers!)
The game would be nice if it were realistic, and then add options to allow other variables to come into play, and the players can agree which options; such as, if the Germans could produce more airborne, and would that have been a factor, or adjust equipment settings within units, or use amphib assault in the Baltic etc..
To determine if the realism is there, one only needs to play the game out in the same way the Germans did, and make that the limit of what can be done, then hindsight can come into play and people can change the German's strategy and objectives from there. For example, could the Germans ever have been able to create the massive Lviv Pocket, which every German player, except the most chivalrous (just for you Comrade Bozo), carries out to get an edge. It is a great tactic, but how realistic is it? Could the Germans have done that? should think for this, the game should limit the distance the Germans can get in the first turn, with what they did complete in the 4 days of fighting it represents. As for airdropping supplies, the Soviet and German player should be limited to what was historically normal, and then have an option allowing them to use all their Ju52's at one base supporting one spear head only.
For leaders, one sets up an attack that did happen in the war, with the same strengths of force and equipment, and then carry out that attack several times, 50-100, and the mean and mode result should be what happened historically (same death rates on both sides and overall result). This is how one determines game balance, and then apply hindsight to such balanced games.
Born and raised in Toronto, where our Hockey Team is now just smoldering,
but our Mayor is still on crack!