This. Army design in this game is so flat and uninspired, and the commander system exacerbates the problem.
And what do you expect exactly when people are crying for Armies not being similar to each other and being balanced at the same time? Asymmetrical gameplay balance DOES NOT WORK, I have said it before and I will keep repeating it until Relic get it through their thick skulls.
CoH was balanced symetrically, meaning all Armies had the same tools available to them in different forms.
In terms of support weapons for example, the US had the M1917, the Wehr had the MG42, the Brits had a mobile variant in the form of the MMG upgrade for the Bren carrier and the MG nest plus the mobile Vickers team from the Glider HQ from the Commando doctrine, the PE had a sort of mobile MG platform in the form of the 250 HF that could also carry troops and served as the PE's mobile respawn point and early game support vehicle.
In terms of Mortars the US had the M2 60mm one, the Wehr had the GrW 43 which had better range and damage because it was in a higher tier, the Brits had the mortar pit as well as mobile counterpart from the Commandos, and the PE had their mortar half-track to keep up with their mobile and mechanized playstyle.
In terms of Snipers the US and Wehr both had one, the PE had that light AT half-track with the 37 mm that could snipe infantry with the help of an ability and the Brits had a sniper ability with the Recon section.
And besides the Brits, everyone else had a mobile respawn point vehicle (those being the respective Army's half-tracks), AT weapons on not so busy squads like Rangers, Sappers, Grenadiers and Panzergrenadiers, everybody had AT snares in one form or another, everybody had access to some sort of smoke and some sort of building clearing ability or weapon.
All in all, CoH just had superior balance because it was sort of similarly balanced, all Armies played differently but all Armies had access to a some form of a specific ability or weapon.