The problem that I see with the removal of the 1:1 rule is that 1942 will be, if possible, even more stalemated than previously. Sovs simply won't be able to attack fortified German lines, and the Germans don't have any real reason to attack the Sovs unless they are suicidal. Result: no one will do anything until 1943, when the Sovs have built enough rifle corps and arty to do some damage to the Germans. But by then the Germans will be so well dug in that any advance will be a very tedious slog.
I can't really critize the lack of Sov offensive punch in 1942, but coupled with the lack of incentives for the Germans to leave their forts, I think the games will be very tedious.
I think it would be worth keeping a close eye at some of the AARs of more conservative players now entering blizzard and then spring, they might show how the balance between 2:1 and then dropping it with the new fort rules could be affected. If the new fort rules lead to a new dynamics of some forth-and-back swinging in winter, and consequently fewer static, strongly dug-in fortifications for either side in spring, then also the spring and summer fighting might see some good opportunities for the Germans to break the Soviet lines a second time. Also opportunities for the Soviets to pursue some local counteroffensives a la Izum might arise if the Germans leave winter with lower fort levels.
In fact, if a German player pushes the 41 offensive similarly to history right until blizzard hits and stops his "engines" cold, he'll be much more exhausted than most players drive their Axis forces presently (and the Soviets consequently also more attrited), but most importantly he will be weakly dug-in for the Soviet blizzard counteroffensive. I would say that for example the Q-Ball vs. Bletchley AAR shows something more towards that end, and recent turns I find have shown that the Soviet player here is able to push forward quite well in the blizzard since the German fort levels are low compared to 1.04 or earlier. That made me wonder whether Bletchley at all needs the 2:1 rule for a successful offensive here? Time will tell!
However, if the Germans start turtling earlier, and don't push to exhaustion to reach Moscow or Rostov, the fort levels might be comparably high again. In which case a Russian blizzard offensive should probably be much bloodier and perhaps even fail, given the German decision to invest in defense rather than paying for the last yards towards the goal line.
What do you think about this trade-off?
The Red army was generally usless when it came to offensive operations until the late summer of 43 and that was only because the Germans through away their reserves on the stupid battle at Kursk.
Suppose then the history books must be rewritten if the Soviets could have pulled of the Stalingrad offensive before summer of 43, right?????
The Soviets pulled off small scale counterattacks against infantry or exposed Panzer formations right from the start, and the subsequently learned to coordinate those to bigger scales. See the 41/42 winter offensives, the 42 spring offensives such as Izum, or the 42 winter offensives including SG. The catch is, the planning apparently lacked, sufficient reinforces to exploit were often not available, or had to be used to achieve the breakthru still, and once the Soviets did indeed break free, no such panic spread thru German ranks as previously thru the Soviet conscripts. The Germans often reacted fast and well, improvised blocking and delaying actions, attempted to hold both of the flanks of breakthrus until the latter could be sealed of themselves... Soviets did have a very bloody and steep learning curve, one that likely will not be repeated in such dimensions by a skillful player with good knowledge of history though. But for sure they were not totally useless.