Nice post, TulliusDetritus. Quite on the point. Both sides should either be allowed to deviate from history as game engine (and house rules) allow, or both players must agree mutually on a fair trade.
Otherwise, I stand with Cannonfodder and others. Why would you want to quit the game before the fun for the opponent side even started? Not only not fair, but: Chances that the Soviet would have fallen apart even if Moscow and Leningrad would have fallen, as well possible in game, are probably very small. Axis can perhaps have a tiny chance of a true campaign-ending victory, but it should come as a combination of terrain gains, and destruction of the Red Army. If the Russians stood near the Urals, barely able to counterattack in mid-43, maybe there would have been a chance for a cease-fire? For sure there would have been an additional boost in Lend-and-Lease, a dynamic effect which also ought to be taken into account once too many key cities fall.
However, perhaps an Axis player should get a VP bonus if he holds Moscow, Leningrad, and Rostov by end of 41, by end of 42, and by end of 43? That would honor at least his skills on the initial offensive?
The fun is much like with playing Japanse in WiTP/AE in the long-run: try to do better. Only that without the production system and inability to use AP to create
formations (or change withdrawals) as the Soviet has, something important has gotten lost compared to WiR. The administrative freedom in terms of production and research gives a Japanese player actually the feeling of having "sufficient" levers to effect anything. It would be awesome if even a primitive production system could be put in place for the Axis, just tuned to be a bit less forgiving than in WiR. A lot of code basics and ideas from WitP could probably be transferred. Then one could choose between fixed production, and dynamic game setup like in WiTP.