How important is normalization/consistency of unit cost?

So, there have recently been some changes to the game and hopefully there are more to come in the future. Now, several of the changes seek to "normalize" units for costs.

The term I guess is somewhat more fuzzy than what it sounds like initially, but what I mean by that is the concept that if unit A cost x and unit B performs like unit A, it also should cost x. If it performs twice as good as unit B while costing the same, it should either get its price doubled, or its performance slashed in half. "Cost" in this context can mean a variety of things, either the direct cost (manpower, fuel, muni) or stuff like pop-cap, build time etc.

Now, I'm wondering how people feel about this. "Normalization" for the sake of normalization I think isn't worthwhile, but there are definitely advantages to normalizing stuff for example:

• It makes the game more intuitive so the learning curve is flatter.
  
• You'd might hope that forum discussions on the balance of units could be a bit easier.
  
• It might be easier to balance the game.
  
• Several people probably feel that it would reduce "cheese".
  

Personally, I would pick the 4th point in the list above. Yes, units should be normalized by default and there are clearly outliers that should be rectified (e.g. the resources you get from salvaging) mostly in order to keep things more intuitive.

However, unless factions are totally symmetrical (which I would find boring) the normalization often is tricky: The units have a different context and fulfill somewhat different roles so evaluating their overall performance relative to each other is hard.

Also, their might be fundamental faction design reasons not to normalize units between factions which I think would be totally ok. For example, one faction might have less cost efficient tanks but more cost efficient infantry compared to another faction.

Finally, I think it is totally fine if certain units or abilities are more cost efficient, if the context in which they appear is otherwise considered unattractive. For example, if a certain doctrine is considered underwhelming, I feel it is totally ok if it has - say - an offmap ability that does more for its price compared with other offmaps from other doctrines.

So, what are your thoughts?

Edit: Just noticed that the text of the fourth options is chopped off. well, simply disregard everything after the "and", I explained what I meant in the post anyways...

In all honesty I believe it's the tech costs and side upgrades that need to be 'normalized' (fixed). The British having only 3 tiers is a misunderstanding, as is OKW ability to field a Panther/Panthers so earlier before Wehrmacht and with a choice to build a P4/JP4 in the same tier.

Consistency of, e.g. Panthers (OKW costs 25 fuel more) is a good idea but may be implemented only after adding well thought side upgrades.