3. One Criticism I have of the balance team that pretty much falls in line with what you say is the increasing linearity and similarity of tech. It takes away decision making and leads to a very one sided meta when tech is just a linear progression without possibility or reason of skipping a building. This has happened to both Wehr and Soviets.
I'm not sure what you mean here. As far as I know Soviets have always needed to build T1/2 + T3 + T4 tech structures since the beginning of the game. Nothing changed there, at least nothing that the current team changed. Ostheer can skip whatever tier they want, now more than ever with recent changes to PGrens (Pschrecks allow skipping T2), T0 call-in infantry (allows skipping T1), the viability of T3 (allows "skipping" T4) which actually makes them the most versatile in terms of tech decisions.
It seems like the goal is to make the game more "convenient" to the player by giving him all the options without any trade off.
I do think symmetrical balance is a valid criticism. The big problem however is having to deal with Relic's core design decisions that have left gaping holes in faction line-ups, such as WFA not having stock flamethrowers or indirect fire options. We/Relic can't add any new units or mechanics at this point, so we have to work with what we got. And usually that means that the only option that remains is toning down some radical asymmetrical design (like USF's previous split tech routes) to a more conventional standard in order to make factions versatile enough to compete.
Personally I think Relic should have designed all factions with stock (easy) access to all the basic tools (ATG, HMG, flamethrowers, indirect, etc.) and only then put some asymmetrical designs around that. That would have made balancing factions a lot easier while leaving more room for asymmetrical and unique faction aspects.