Commanders really should be sorted into three categories, with players being able to choose one from each category.
That may be the most feasible way to handle the discrepancies between EFA and later factions commander set.
It may provide a stronger framework for attempting to balance commanders without just redesigning the least used commanders as mimics of the most used commanders.
While you're correct, it doesn't help that the community has already voted on the commanders that they voted for. Thus, in this thread we're trying to coax for ideas to make the best out of the current situation.
In particular, I'm extremely perplexed as to why people would vote for Jaeger Infantry Doctrine, when there are so many other competitive and/or semi-viable OST commanders that already fulfill the same niche (with Tigers, elite infantry, stun nades, encirclement barrage, riegel mines etc added on top).
Personally, I'd have voted for one of the Mechanized commanders, to add a Panzer-Elite option on top of OST, which it currently lacks.
Also, Austrelitz is spot-on about expectations vs reality for OST infantry doctrines:
Only thing wehrmacht players desire from an infantry doctrine is either - a solid counter to mortar pit that can kill it quickly even if the counter is costly .Or lategame durability increase for mainline infantry with an upgrade.
You already have Doctrines that fulfill that option: Storm doctrine, or some mortarHT doctrine, or a Command P4 doctrine. I don't see myself ever picking an infantry-only doctrine for my limited 3-commander loadout, when I know that attacking mortar pits with infantry will be like trying to smash a wall using my fists.