1. They are less durable.
2. Remains to be seen but I don't think so (watch tightrope tests)
3. The scale much worse than tommies or US inf or even cons.
4. What about an abulance for US? These vehicles are very voulnerable and the tech required is similar to allied LV which are usually much more powerful.
5. They have Mgs only, can't equip at weapons and they are effective only in very limited circumstances (huge contrast here with other infantry).
6. Allies also have team weapons which are generally more effective against grens as they have to be static to shoot their weapons (they can't charge them). Those more powerful infantry squads can also rely on suppor weapons and if they do, they nightmare begins (a powerful infantry unit supported just like grens with support weapons by the allies creates imbalance as soon as allied players learn how to support their units).
But I agree that other infantry should be modelled on grens and nerfed.
1. True. So are allied tanks mostly. Your point?
3. Grens also require less investment then cons tommies and rifles.
4. Usf ambu cant fight only heal. Axis lights come earlier then allied lights. And stock axis armour is more powerfull and cost more then allied stock armour is mostly.
5. Grens have the support of more specialized team weapons wich is a big boost and shrecked pgrens are not to be ignored unlike most allied hand held at.
6. Grens have a rifle nade, an excelent tool to deal with or outright wipe team weapons. Cons rifles etc need to flank and get closer to wipe with nades. Just like pgrens.
Learn to support your grens with your t0 mg bunos vision of pio,s and halftrack, with pgrens wich come a lot earlier, use the buffed halftrack wich can become a flametrack. just for starters.
And not everything has to be nerfed to the suposed up units of axis. Axis should not be without weaknesses. Having something they dont excel at is not an imbalance.
Go play planetary anihalation if you want a 1 faction game.