Thanks for your playtesting. It sort of validates one of the themes of ZWK. There is a dilema for the Axis in the sense that they are powerful enough to kill one of their two opponents before the AI build up enough muscle but the surviving AI will be a power to contend with. On the other hand splitting the forces into two fronts is not viable in the long term. In terms of keeping true to history, I want to stress that it was entirely possible for the Germans to have reached Moscow or London if they used the right tactics (i.e. without Hitler) as you have done. On the research side, another theme is that the Allies research the fastest while the Soviets the slowest. The counter-balancing factor for the Allies is that they have the disadvantage of corruption and very little offensive ground capability at the start. The counter-balancing factor for the Soviets is that they have free support for units and double population growth. One other effect of this scheme is that the Germans will become weaker and weaker on a relative basis if they do not win early. A third theme of the ZWK is that every game will play out differently. I refer to your bold gambit to rush Moscow. How this theme is implemented is that several research items have the same desirability for the AI so they will play differently each time. So in your first game, the Soviets probably did not research the advance to produce the trigger unit which when destoyed gives them T-34. This does not mean that the next time you try the same trick(assuming you start from scratch and not reload a saved game at turn 20), you might not be as sucessful. (Yes, I actually work out a master plan on pen and paper and weave them into the fabric of the scenario.) Although this is not a democracy, I respect the views of the play-testers and will change the recommended difficulty level for Axis (and Soviets) to Field Marshall.