My opinion, these strategies are not cheese or exploit, I think that the game is designed like that, creative freedom so that the possibilities are infinite (within a certain realism), and I think this is part of its success, although it is true that lately many strategies are popping up near the edge.
The problem, possible but not realistic?
History has shown us that what seems impossible can happen.
That said, I am against any strategy that ruins the game.
My problem with them is that they make the game ugly, if All-in works, Axis player leaves in 1940, if All-in does not work, Allied player leaves in 1941.
When using these extreme strategies the game is dead, it will be ugly no matter what.
To make a lot of changes in favor of Axis or that weaken France a lot, will force the Allies to always use All-In defense, and I think this is not the idea.
This is why I do not like the current solutions in Beta, I think that these strategies should be banned directly even if it is contrary to the philosophy of the game.
All-in defense solution: limit number of Uk troops in france
Solution to disband a lot: prohibition to dismantle initial troops (only allowed to disband the purchased ones)
Warplan was close to balance until this defense appeared, modifying things at this point will affect balance for Barbarrosa.