Point Values

[K K Rossokolski]

I thought so, but must confess I don't see what point you are trying to make. When talking about combat value, HQs and leaders are no examples, as they are neither combat nor transport. They fulfill a different function and have only a limited self defence capability. Neither have they transport capability (leaders IMO are overly limited because they are blind, but that is a separate issue). The 251/6 example eludes me. It was not, as I recall in any original TS orbat and I cannot find it in a JTCS current OOB. But again, a special purpose HQ unit rather than a combat unit, and hardly relevant for transport.
And the Bren carrier, "As for transport, check out carriers vs trucks. Similar carrying capacity, similar attack values (1 vs HD has as much chance of inflicting losses as 0 vs HD"
You are telling me a Bren gun carrier has a similar carrying capacity to a 2 1/2 ton truck????? Perhaps if the Brits were very tiny soldiers, like mini hobbits. And both mathematically and empirically, there is a fundamental difference between 1 and 0...between something and nothing.
And we could discuss whether in use the Bren Carrier was primarily a transport or a fighting vehicle.

My point, perhaps not well made initially, is that in general, combat values in CS have held up pretty well over the years. There may well be some room for adjustment around the edges, but tripling the cost for losing a truck, or the reward for getting it off the exit objective is not adjustment, it is a fundamental realignment of values, based I believe on a perception of "rarity" rather than capability, and is wrong.