In small arms combat, the armor vs numerical advantage, works.
Which is all that ever gets 'balanced'. It seems like many changes are based off the spreadsheet and from theoretical combat vacuums as far as balance is concerned. Greater factors that heavily impact game mechanics aren't really taken into account I feel: (for instance, the dynamic of flanking and frontal/rear armor. Many units (german at least) are impenetrable walls from the front, but pieces of paper from the rear. (There is no side armor, those shots just tend to scatter 50/50 on either side of the vehicles' front or rear.) There's no numerical stat that translates directly towards a unit being used in an effective fashion. There's no stat that causes a unit to use better tactics.
But there is something to be said about the general maneuverability, pathing, and mobility of units on the gameworld, which is often a map design issue, and is almost as big of a factor as any units' stats.
A wide open map will make these 7 muni AP mines relatively ineffective, but on cramped maps, or any map that features a chokepoint, it can be devastating. And you know, that's something that's really hard to balance: when used correctly it is absolutely devastating. When used incorrectly it is useless... Like so many things in CoH2.
Now I personally enjoy having my MP matches feature a fair bit of combat where my units, from the first to the last, are able to hold territory and gather veterancy, and then ultimately field counters to my opponents counters until VPs end or a clear victor emerges.
But the more of a gamble every decision is, and the more volatile and 'all or nothing' aspects of CoH2 just seems to support a style of gameplay where each player avoids as much combat as possible until the first largely uncounterable shock unit hits the field. In an overwhelmingly simplified sense: the first armor units generally evaporate any gains or losses from the early game, and the heavy armor units typically do the same for the middle game.