Absolutely - I played tabletop games for many years - Airfix plastic kitsets, down to 1/300th scale microminiatures, and then strategic computer wargames - all of WW1 or WW2, etc.
None of those had “exact balance” - 1 guy in my early years would bring an army of 7 tiger 1’s and 1 platoon of infantry for “1500 point” games - it proved very vulnerable to smoke, bazookas and 17 pdrs!
Sure we had to get used to it, but even at 1 game per weekend the rest of us didn’t take long to sort him out!
There are lots of ways of running asymmetry - the most common 2 that I have used are
1/ cost - you “pay” some form of cost for better equipment - often a game would consist of both sides having a maximum value in points they could field and hte rules providing values for various equipment.
2/ asymmetric objectives - I have had games where 1 side was never going to defeat the other, but hte victory objective was to make victory too expensive or take too long - we do have that here in Enlisted of course, but it is a bit artificial along with things like availability f squads, weapons and soldier classes/types
And example of different advantages in Normandy might be something like - the Germans have MG34 & 42, plenty of AT guns, and are always fighting defensive games from set positions!
The US OTOH does get 100% garand, has great artillery and air support and plenty of tanks, but has not-very-good machineguns and the 60mm mortar that doesn’t do much good on Enlisted maps