G'day Xilophon
That's a good question, and my answer is that I'm not sure.
Certainly things are more favourable for infantry than they were in Version 1 of the rules, when Cv (S) ruled the scene.
It's obvious that mounted have a mobility advantage over infantry, but as you point out the question is about value for AP rather than comparing element to element. Barker has said several times that points costs aren't going to change, so the only thing which can change is the rules.
In the case of the rules, the only one you specifically mention as favouring mounted elements is the "no overlaps" rule. Can I assume then that other rules you don't like are the lack of rear support for some infantry fighting some mounted, and the combat results of spent rather than dead which some mounted can obtain?
Looking at these rules, I'm not sure which could justifiably be removed. Barker's intent is to model ancient and medieval warfare as accurately as possible, and these rules all seem to be justified by the evidence (having said that, I'm not qualified to enter into a debate about any of them).
The problem is, of course, that if you keep the AP values and the rules the same, then you entrench the current value-for-AP situation, regardless of who it favours.
The response then is to see what options the infantry have. I'd suggest there are some rules which favour the infantry. For example, compared to DBM, infantry move further as a proportion of mounted moves. And sliding into flank contact is a lot easier too with the Extra Movement To Line Up. But one other factor I'd like to mention is Morale Equivalents. The deadliest mounted troops - Cv (S) and Kn - are all 2ME each; lose them and your commands are soon in trouble. By contrast, a lot of infantry are 0.5ME which means, with careful command structuring, you can afford a lot of casualties before the command breaks.
What this means is that for infantry armies to beat mounted armies, you have to play to your advantages, which is in greater numbers, the ability to hit flanks easily and the ability to absorb casualties. To counter the greater mobility of mounted armies, you need to march forward as quickly as possible to pin them in their deployment zone, use pairs of Ax elements in the flank zones to stop them marching out that way, and perhaps consider one or two flank marches to box them in.
In terms of armies in competition, my experience is that all-mounted armies don't dominate. Rather, well balanced armies do best. Having said that, at Cancon this year, the first three places were filled with Ottoman (balanced), Khitan Liao (mounted-heavy balanced) and Ayyubid (mounted). One of the other highly placed armies was New Kingdom Egyptian (balanced). I took Early Byzantines with more mounted than foot elements, but I also had an Inert C-in-C.
But when it comes to competitions, I don't really care what armies the winners want to take. I'm an average sort of player with no expectation of winning comps, so I take armies which interest me. The armies I've taken to DBMM version 2 comps are Alexandrian Macedonian, Galatian and Early Byzantine. Armies on the painting roster at the moment include Classical Indian, Burgundian Ordonnance and Early Etruscan. The last of these is a classic Pillow-Of-Death army, with massed Irr Sp (I) in four commands supported by generals, Cv (O) and baggage intended to allow huge casualties among the infantry. I'm fairly sure such an army would be quite capable of taking on a mounted army and coming out on top. And if you read my Battle Reports with the Burgundians on this forum, you'll see I've dismounted my Kn in all three games...
