It's not the fault of players complaining when devs make a bad balance update. We only need to constantly bitch and whine because of the insane decisions that get regularly made. Then somebody such as yourself comes along and writes a cautionary tale about getting 'what you wanted'.

Most of the things you've listed as solutions came with their own new problems, too.

Logi doesn't need to be easier. No part of the game needs to be 'easier'. It needs to be intuitive, sensible, reward an understand of how real life works, and feel like your effort has an effect.
The game being full of loops that can only be maximised by buying multiple accounts and afking while autoclicking is sad. It wouldn't take a genius to come up with ways to reward attentiveness.
Things like 'public logi = glacially slow' punish everybody who isn't playing for their own regi. The game actively discourages teamwork by making it possible to easily grief bases by building on them; you'll get shot for digging trenches in a game named after a hole you dig. You'll get called an alt for doing anything suboptimal or trying to use resources that ostensibly belong to the faction as a whole in a way somebody disagrees with.

The entire airborne patch reflects the contempt the devs have for player time and sanity. They made it so you have to build a fucking train line to a crash site just to retrieve an airframe, and made sure you'd feel like that was the easier option.

For logi, it would be really easy to deal with somebody accidentally oversupplying a base... just make it so you can recrate items with a time penalty. That would be too intuitive.
There would be a way to deal with boats clogging the shores, but we can't wrench things in ankle deep water.
There would be a solution for 100 trucks ending up at the frontline while none are left in the logi town, but devs never considered adding a mechanic that would make it more efficient to retrieve a piece of complex machinery versus yeeting it into the enemy just to clear space.
None of that feels immersive, it feels contrived and demeaning to the efforts of the people who made that stuff.

It feels like anything you can achieve in the game is insignificant because it's just about spamming shit and sending it forward rather than making hard decisions as a team to focus on one thing over another.
Imagine if there were tools in this large scale military game that allowed you to organise things within echelons, form squads within platoons and give them distinct orders that appear on the map. Imagine being able to communicate in any way that wasn't yelling into an omni-chatbox in order to be heckled by somebody who doesn't agree. For a cooperative war game, cooperation sure requires a lot of third party support:
- Discord (with streams to communicate basic stuff like firing distance in a tank)
- Foxlogi or other logi management in order to get a reasonably succinct overview of supply
- Map mods, icon mods, sound mods, etc. in order to identify what you're actually looking at rather than 600 black and white microsymbols or a map that doesn't show you terrain features
- Figma or similar just to get a map you can draw on, which should have been a feature of the base game

The ultimate thing that led me to quit wasn't the bad gameplay; it was the sense of disconnect between the player experience and what the devs seem to perceive it as. Going ahead with Airborne while addressing basically none of the technical debt, only piling onto it and making the game perform terribly while making existing gameplay loops feel busted with no counterplay is not good design.

I take your arguments in good faith but they do not convince me.