Panzeh

If you can't make the ranges realistic compared to real life, it would be good if the ranges were realistic compared to each other. It may not look so nice, but it's reasonably realistic.

Had the French defended themselves more logically, I do not think the US would be needed. However, wargames do not like the French and thus they have to die every game.

CM doesn't do corps/army scale battles..

I don't see why the Germans can deviate from their historical strategy, and the Allies get no chance. The US is not allowed to land in Normandy with M26s, the Soviets always have to put up an inept defense, and the French always get simply bulldozed(this isn't really how they fell, but you have to make the french pathetic and weak). Had the Russians defended their country logically, then the Germans would not have gotten near enough to Moscow to threaten anything.

You've got to be pretty badass to jump out of a perfectly good airplane.

Are there any grand strategy games that let you correct France's mistakes in its defense? Are there any grand strategy games that let you not make the mistakes Roosevelt and Marshall made?

I think the big 'german-lobby' has so much of a grip on ww2 wargaming that they don't even make France a challenge for the Germans. They let the Germans change their history, but not the Western Allies. Who's to say the French can't change their deployment or respond rationally to a German advance? You'll be like 'but it won't be ww2 without france falling'. I say it won't be ww2 with the Axis winning, either.

Why do the Axis powers get the benefit of the 'what if' scenarios but the Allies don't? What if the French and British had not aggressively pushed into Belgium? What if they had not walked into the German trap and actually blunted the armored spearhead?

The eyeball mk.1 is the most effective mine detector, particularly when a soldier is prone.

Hell, you could probably have some Shanghai and other Chinese scenarios for more interesting battles.

Well, I don't think a game about dropping rods on each other and using wacky 'remote killing machines' would be all that fun. Would you want to play a game like that?

It takes a lot of space to load a PIAT.

Destroy will basically keep you from being complacent and it'll give true fighters their advantage over 'heavy fighters' and bombers. True fighters will be drawing a lot of cards and will most likely have something to do about the enemy(of course, most people are afraid somehow to discard attacks). Planes like the BF-110 will be at a disadvantage against the destroy card, but they do get the gunner attacks as a small compensation.

People really love playing with highly exaggerated stereotypical armies. Mass human wave charges were not the only or even the most common attack the Russian army had. Comissars shooting their own men is highly exaggerated. Just because the Russians used a 'command push' doctrine instead of a 'recon pull' doctrine doesn't mean that their army was bad. German troops weren't "inherently" better than anyone else's. They had their good units, but everyone had their good units. Tank quality is way overdone in importance in battle. Did the quality of tanks ever decide a major battle? US, German, and Russian troops were practically equivalent in real quality. The differences came in organization, lower-level doctrine, and in the officers.

The Polish did not have a cavalry corps.