According to Relic, Three Equals One, and Five Equals Two.

• Floating 400+ munitions and still winning fights against a player who uses all available munitions for weapon upgrades & grenades & mines
  
• Gaining more fuel than an opponent despite holding fuel points less and having NO fuel caches
  
• Having enough manpower to reinforce despite losing plenty of models by keeping units always out of cover
  
• Not reinforcing infantry but being under NO THREAT of unit wipes due to the garbage design of Axis infantry weapons (50% chance or whatever it is of simply not doing any damage)
  
• Losing NO models at all via Zerg tactics: running directly into enemy fire through open ground while enemy units are in cover
  
• Winning engagements despite having retreated and never repaired a vehicle, allowing it to sit in base for ages doing nothing
  
• Building a tank HQ and still having enough fuel for THREE tanks before the enemy has enough for ONE panzer
  
• Walking THREE infantry squads blobbed together with tons of models each over a mine in a narrow bottleneck and only losing TWO MODELS FROM ONE SQUAD
  

• I had to take out FIVE enemy tanks while only having ONE.
  
• The supposed "anti-infantry" units used by the opponent are more effective against armor than any other anti-tank unit in the game due to high model count, anti-tank grenades that take 1/3 of a tank's health, and overall unit resilience.
  
• Were the opposing player not a total brain dead imbecile, I wouldn't have been able to take even a single point on the map due to how blatantly broken Allied resource income and units are.
  

Jump back to quoted post21 Aug 2017, 01:35 AMStorm Elite

Summary:

• I had to take out FIVE enemy tanks while only having ONE.
  
• The supposed "anti-infantry" units used by the opponent are more effective against armor than any other anti-tank unit in the game due to high model count, anti-tank grenades that take 1/3 of a tank's health, and overall unit resilience.
  
• Were the opposing player not a total brain dead imbecile, I wouldn't have been able to take even a single point on the map due to how blatantly broken Allied resource income and units are.
  

Conclusion: Allied players can dominate a match entirely while having no tactical or strategic skill whatsoever, while Axis players have to play flawlessly, like some kind of tactical masterminds (which I'm not, but that just underscores the discrepancy between skill requirements for Allied and Axis players), and still get punished for it.