Yea its not 1:1. Not in that crappy wikipedia graph. I reverse image searched it, found the wikipedia article its from. The source on it is "various wikipedia articles". That chart is about as reliable as an SS division's after-action report. So not at all.
So, in case you're curious and willing to learn, here's a legitimate source from David Glantz, an expert on the German-Soviet War, hosted on the website of a reputable university: http://sti.clemson.edu/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_details&Itemid=310&gid=189
For those who don't want to download/read, I will throw some key facts in here. These numbers are from Page 13 and 14 of the survey:
Red Army permanent casualties in 1944 (killed, missing, or captured): 1,412,335
German permanent casualties from November 1943-November 1944 (This is one month offset from the Soviet records, but I don't think thats very significant.): 1,500,000*80% in the eastern front (first half) + 903,000 (second half) = 2,103,000
Now this isn't perfect. I wasn't able to find German casualty rates that included temporary casualties (wounded), so this is only a comparison of permanent casualties (dead, captured, missing). This also doesn't count the casualties of Germany's allies on the Eastern Front, so the Axis casualties would actually be higher.
But look at those numbers. The Germans lost more men as permanent casualties in 1944 than the Soviets. By a large margin. The same was true in 1945 by an even wider margin. Even in 1943, the losses were approximately 1:1.
The idea that the German generals were the "best minds in military strategy" is also vastly overstated. The German high command was polluted by Hitler's stupidity. I mean really, I can't think of many German strategic successes that weren't surprise attacks, except France. And France was basically a gift because of how dumb the British and French were when planning their defense. The one massive advantage the Germans had was their junior officers, who truly were exceptional.
Now, the idea that the Soviets lost far more men than the Germans isn't based completely in lies. As I said before, the early years of the war were full of terrible defeats for the Red Army, with enormous losses. They lost 6 or 7, or even more men for each German. But the game is not set in 1941 or 1942, it is set in 1944.
I would love to continue this discussion, but I insist you search for more reliable sources. Unsourced wikipedia charts, Enemy at the Gates quotes, and History Channel documentaries don't count. :P