but if the Axis get to retain their troops in Algiers so should the Brits. The game makes the assumption that when France surrenders so does GB in Algiers, not so.
Someones inexperience shouldn't be an excuse for a game rule that shouldn't exist.
Just to throw in some additional thoughts here, I wouldn't say it is so much an assumption on our part that Great Britain surrenders in Algiers or other parts of Vichy France, but rather the game has simply made a choice on how to deal with the fact that France has surrendered and that a new French government sympathetic to that fact has been formed in Vichy.
Perhaps it could be argued that the Vichy option would never have historically arisen had sizeable GB forces been present in southern France, or Algeria etc., but since that never happened we'll never really know. Perhaps remaining Allied forces could have been forcibly interned by the Vichy regime? Perhaps Vichy and GB forces would have fought each other (Mers el-Kebir)?
What we do know is that Vichy did happen and to answer some what ifs we do allow the Axis side the option to keep on fighting and occupy all of France, but arguably any choice, and any outcome of these possibilities, should be provided within the context of an Axis advantage in this case as they are the historical victors and the ones that forced the surrender of France.
With that in mind, in game terms, and in handling Vichy and the possibility that sometimes Allied units may be trapped within potential Vichy territory, we simply needed to make a choice that A) seemed reasonable enough, and that B) would not throw off potential game balance.
For example, having all other Allied units returned to safety after a French surrender and armistice that agrees to divide French territory into an occupied and an unoccupied zone could arguably be too favorable to an Allied side considering France had just lost and been knocked out of the war, and it could also potentially turn into a destabilizing overall game strategy, e.g. all an Allied player has to do is put some units in Vichy territory and then the Vichy option is never granted etc.
Additionally, what would the historical significance of Dunkirk be if Allied units can just get a free pass home after France surrenders?
I would also argue it potentially does not highlight the tension and fear for survival that existed for the Brits post French surrender/armistice in examples like the attack on the remnants of the French navy at Mers el-Kebir (also mentioned above) and so on.
In the end, and without over-complicating things it felt justified to acknowledge the advantages the Axis side should have in a French surrender, e.g. their units returning to their own friendly territories, and that a French surrender and armistice would have been catastrophic for the Allied side as it was historically.
This just meant that any trapped Allied units after the fact would in game terms surrender as any other option would just feel too much like an unnecessary and undeserved friendly advantage to the Allied side at that point in time.