What are you guys talking about " balanced for 1vs1 2vs2 3vs3"???
If the game is balanced for 1 vs1 then its balanced for 2vs2 , 3vs 3 and 4vs4 . If a unit is op in 1vs1 it will be op in 2vs2, 3vs3 and 4vs4 . You are adding players at a 1-1 ratio not 3vs2 or 4vs1 . This increased player myth needs to be put to curb because its all nonsense.
NOT REALLY.
Some history.
-USF release completely OP and specially broken against OH, but really UP on 3v3+ with it's paper tanks (on 2v2 it was more of a, let's finish the game as fast as possible with LT into Sherman rushes).
-OKW release kinda underwhelming on 1v1 but completely OP for teamgames.
-UKF release kinda underwhelming on 1v1 but completely OP for teamgames.
-Sniper did shine/op on 1v1 but not so much on 2v2 and kinda a joke on 3v3+
-Wunderwaffe units which are hard to support on 1v1 are no brainers on 2v2+.
snip
While those are more important issues, resource inflation and specially volume of units on field per size of map and strategic points is still a problem.
1-You cap 3x/4x times faster the map which means the transition to early lights or even mediums is done faster.
2-Caches, while been a detrimental for the one building it, benefit the whole team. Been able to field 1 less unit on 1v1 can be a risk. When you have 4x the amount of units on map, that single 200mp investment isn't as risky.
3-If you have the same amount of pop as the lower modes, but equal amount of pop, then it's obvious that you are gonna end up with
Note: what i mentioned can't be changed most probably (been what you mentioned the only things which can be changed in favour of the mode).
Basically, i'm saying those are real issues, not myths, but those are part of what makes 3v3+ appealing for some people (Not having to bother with capping, huge amount of units on map).
If it was mine decision, i would had test early on, having 3v3 and 4v4 have less pop (also less mp gain) to accommodate the players/volume of units into the map.