I hardly call DevM a scrub... Post 1. I think in a 4v4 the team mates could help you get back in the game. 1v1 and 2v2? Nope, it's GG.
DevM was already in a losing position long before it came down. If you're winning fights, you won't be mass retreating all your units to your hq. Just look at the minimap, vp's and resource bar in the video. It's clear he was already losing, this was the killing blow. In this case, Ostheer had +58 munitions because he had captured every fucking point on the map save one. This wasn't a remotely even game just judging by how it finished.
You can easily defeat someone with an army that is under value vs. theirs. That's what a "counter" is. It's when a unit with less resources beats another unit with higher resources, putting you at an advantage. The commander lets you spam LMG grens. That holds off infantry. You can get 2-3 AT guns since you're not spending fuel so you don't have to tech up. That holds off tanks. No matter the unit comp, this will always either beat or hold them off while using less resources. Stall until 12 CP. Then do it.
Sure, micro in fights and production/tech decision making still matter. But when we're discussing balance we have to assume both players are equally competent. Therefore army value (or more specifically, resources invested into units) is a better indication of army strength/effectiveness. It's abstract, but theorycrafting is abstract. We can't assume one player outplays the other. (And so much of this game is about outplaying your opponent) The more resources being saved up and not being spent versus your opponent spending his resources, the more field presence and combat ability he has and the more he can bully you around the map if he uses it right. (Which in turn reduces your resource income and puts you behind.)
In other words: saving up all his resources for a big bang attack is a risky strategy because if his opponent invests those same resources in units they will win. Again, assuming equal levels of play and effective decision making.