Profile of Vipper

First we turn Soviets into USF by modeling Penal after Riflemen.
Then we tun OKW into USF by modeling VG after Riflemen.
Now we turn USF into OKW by restructuring their tech.

Can we change we make all faction the same and change the name of the game to Age of empires?

...
That's looking at the past with rose tinted glass or at least expecting what the patchnote says to hold true when the game is later played.
There's intention and there's execution.
...

Not really the majority of mainline infantry remained the same for years.
Grenadiers, Riflemen and Conscripts have only saw minor changes even up to now.

That is a strong indication that thing where about right as far as early infantry play was concern.

The balance of the game as hole is rather irrelevant to early game infantry play.

I am not suggesting to return to the past, I suggesting to make use what was learned in the past as guideline for improving the game.

As mentioned above, the issue isn't being the best because as you already mentioned it, USF riflemen are already superior to volks and, on the other hand, need to have a certain balance with Pzgren and Obers.
The problem is more about timing and manpower available to outspam the USF on the early game disponible for OKW.

Actually being the more versatile infantry is part of the issue. If other faction have equally or better units the faction design issues kick in.

It is the same issue with Wer mortar, it was superior due to faction design, and similar weapon in the hands of the USF was proven to be simply broken.

VG's ended up losing their trade mark vet 5 veterancy bonuses because of the versatility the ST44 upgrade provided.

Either all faction will become similar with similar tech and similar unit or factions will retain their uniqueness both in units and design.

Being the most versatile mainline infantry is a USF trade mark and that is why it comes hand to hand with limited access to support weapon via tech tree.

You just switched up your argument. First you implied high dps is mutually exclusive with a paper rock scissors dynamic, which it isn't. Then you pivot to an entirely different point which is that high DPS doesn't give you enough time to switch between rock, paper, or scissors (get to the proper range).

Beyond that, lowering DPS favors whichever squad has to close in since they then take less damage on approach (the long range squad will probably retreat before they have to take losses of their own at this unfavorable range), so it's nothing near a simple change.

We seem to be opening more issues than we are closing so I will try to clarify them one by one.
Since we have established the benefits of established weapon categories I will move on to the problem of high DPS.

High DPS does not directly mess with "relative positioning".

If I increase the far DPS of the grenadier LMG about 7 times ranges will still beat them at close range so relative positioning will still be there. On the other hand if range are repositioning and come in contact with grenadiers at range 35 they will lose model in the first sec leave very little reaction time to the user.

In the edge of the spectrum when commandos had around 70 DPS close they would make enemy squad disappear again before the opposing player could react.

"Relative positioning" is based on the principal that the user can have input that will improve his position, greatly reducing reaction time also reduces the chance of the playing being able to give that input or of that input having any meaningful result.

So yes it is not a simple change that is true and in my opinion things where close into finding that balance for mainline infantry at least in the September 9th patch so "changing" that balance by introducing high lethality units like ST and Penal before minute 1 in the game was a step in the wrong direction.

Tommy do not get a bonus when in cover they get a penalty when out of cover (*1.4 reload and *1.2 cool-down). So cruzz's numbers are when tommies are in cover.