Correction, Blashy. Rommel was a dumbass strategist whose grandiose plans for the Middle East would have required more trucks than the Germans had in all of Russia. A good tactician, a good corps commander in the estimation of his superiors, but definitely out of his league at the strategic level.
And why did you get the idea that the Axis only lost because of Hitler's mistakes? What do you call the French Dyle Plan in 1940, or Stalin arranging his armies in nice bite-sized pieces along the Polish border? I'd say that German success depended more on Allies mistakes than the other way around.
That's why I don't mind the Axis being a little stronger for play balance. But it's a strange definition of "balance" when Germany routinely wipes up the map. They must be using flying machines like the Martians in "War of the Worlds".
DT
Rommel had a dumbass leader who did not grasp the need to take all of the MED, we have hindsight and rectify this by sending the proper troops.
The Axis had the means to wipe out the allies out of Africa and Middle East, but Hitler did not listen.
As for the game being 50/50. I somewhat disagree.
If two players of the same skill played the game flawless on both sides, IMHO, Axis should almost win. Simply because all of the goofball decisions Hitler made will not have occured.
Although I see the Victory more of a stalemate, with USSR not fully conquered. Basically a peace treaty (or a tie in game sense) by 1947. </font>