Well, since it IS a historically based scenario, I personally do not expect each country to be able to dominate in all areas just because a human is playing them (unlike say regular CIV BTS where each civ starts on relatively equal footing and so has equal potential to excell if managed properly). Clearly, USSR/Germany/UK/USA have significant advantages that the other countries do not, but it is still challenging. If I play China in RTW Open Mode, I expect a much more serious challenge -- if more than one neighbor among Japan/USSR/UK DoWs me at the same time, I'm probably toast before very long. If I play Austria or Czechoslovakia, I expect to have to fight tooth-and-nail with half-a-dozen neighbors just to carve out some space, only to be slaughtered by either Germany or Italy or maybe USSR if I last long enough. Research? Czech scientists likely better concentrate only on bomb shelters.
I don't know enough history to know if France is unrealistically underpowered in UE 1.1. We *do* know France got steamrolled in short order in WWII, and at least some of the reason for that was not being at the same level of preparedness as Germany or UK. Isn't the challenge of a game like RTW to see if you can do better than your historical counterparts did, given similar circumstances? I've not played the Europe scenario in many months, but back then I played as each of the major powers except for USA, as well as Finland and Sweden, and all were playable but not identical in their prospects. I'll give France a try in Global and see what I think. But I already know that I don't expect their military units to stack up well against Germany. Given that we do not know what France would have been capable of say if it had not been conquered by 1944, anything beyond where each country was in 1936 is speculation. The question for me becomes one of playability. Is it hopeless to play as France? Presumably not as hopeless as Austria or Czechoslovakia. Is there a game balance issue for France between Global and Europe? Dunno.