mainline infantry

Oorah is for more than just closing in on Grenadiers, it allows Conscripts to avoid MG arcs, escape danger more easily, and (most pressingly) allows them to close in on vehicles for a snare. I'd argue that oorah more than makes up for the reduced range of Conscript snares.

agreed... oorah has huge utility purposes on top of simple mobility uses... but grenadiers as youve mentioned before also have the added benefit of a longer ranged snare and less risk due to long range specialization... overall i think the matchups for both the conscript and the grenadier are fairly equal... the only major advantage that conscripts get against grenadiers in a matchup is the matchup against machineguns where conscripts excel alot thanks to their mobility... but overall id still say grens and cons are fairly even out of the bag

Merging into Flamethrowers is an incredibly powerful tool, though. Their teamweapons (though often subpar, apart from the ZIS) being able to stay on the field more easily is rather strong, too. Merging into Guards is also very nice indeed, though of course they are a little squishier.

yes the flamethrower is really good ill give you that
yes keeping a teamweapon in the field is really important... but its also insignificant when you get an utter piece of crap teamweapon like the maxim... if had at least comparable suppression to a contemporary MG then this point at least begins to get relevant... other than that dont expect to see maxims in any half decent game unless the opponent is fooling around...

True to some degree, but It's difficult to look at raw teching costs and come to a genuinely perfect conclusion, due to differences between various armies' differences. I do think Soviet could do with a decrease in teching costs, but its not as easy to say "They should be the same as OST/USF/UKF", I don't think. A lot of balance decisions are difficult to make based merely on raw numbers, given that the way these numbers then interact with the game as a whole is very difficult to compute.

Also: I think Lelic probably don't want Soviet to not have to buy AT nades and Molotovs, due to the whole "Faction identity" thing.

not sure of the faction identity thing...cuz imo "flavor" isnt an excuse for a shitty fac... but do note that even miragefla has noted that soviet tech costs are insanely manpower intensive... if you do wish to give the soviets side techs then you most definitely need to reduce their insane manpower costs...

Hamburg/ultra urban maps might give the Assault Officer the opportunity to really shine, I wonder if he'd be enough to keep balance in UKF's favour in these sorts of maps? Or would they need Assault Tommies as well, to keep up with Sturmpioneers?

There's a reason I go auf J rush esp vs UKF, because your volks just can't stand up to IS at any point in the game. StG 44 volks are equalised (or beaten) by 5 man IS or Bren IS. Not long ago I was ranting on the forum about how volks behind sandbag were losing models at the same rate as double bren tommies out of cover in a shootout. Feuersturms' 0.9(Can someone confirm this stat pls?) RA MP40 volks can meme your opponent but only if they don't see it coming. And Feuer works extremely well on heavy urban, with lots of tighter confines where automatics work better and cover can become your death vs nades and flame weapons/munitions. Emplacements are fiery tombs vs Feuer. Assault Officer helps a lot, but the faction does fine on heavy urban imho, it's just not a meme any more. Feuersturm can be beaten by decent opponents rather well, esp if they stick to long range shootouts, forcing you to come to them.

Hamburg is better vs UKF because you already are assuming a grind battle and ISGs shine there and the map boils down to three narrow lanes, making flanking highly predictable and counterable or just plain dangerous/long winded. UC faces the choice of staring down predictable corridors where a rak is prob waiting. But Vickers will still kick you off any fuel point easily and flanks stopped by IS squads effortlessly.

Also: I think Lelic probably don't want Soviet to not have to buy AT nades and Molotovs, due to the whole "Faction identity" thing.

not sure of the faction identity thing...cuz imo "flavor" isnt an excuse for a shitty fac... but do note that even miragefla has noted that soviet tech costs are insanely manpower intensive... if you do wish to give the soviets side techs then you most definitely need to reduce their insane manpower costs...

Very simple fix. Just bundle AT grenade and molotov into one package. Then make the package cheaper.

Back to the original question, I can't talk about Grens because frankly, I don't have much gripe with Grens, but that could also be because I don't play Ost very seriously. As for Volks, I feel like Volks are fine early game. It's not so much that Volks are weak but more that Sections are just very annoying. The only problem with Volks if there is one is that their 2x StG upgrade just doesn't scale into the late game.

i like the idea of bundling both molotov and at nade into one package and reducing the price somewhat to make it less prohibitive (albeit not too cheap to turn it into a complete no-brainer).
however, in case of getting just one conscript squad for the occasional sandbag and at nade in support for a t1 build this might still prove to be too expensive. maybe a squad-based unlock instead of a global upgrade could help alleviate this? ofc the price would have to be adjusted accordingly, maybe to 1/3 or 1/4 the cost of a global molo/nade unlock, but this would allow some more flexibility in terms of mixed build orders.

i like the idea of bundling both molotov and at nade into one package and reducing the price somewhat to make it less prohibitive (albeit not too cheap to turn it into a complete no-brainer).
however, in case of getting just one conscript squad for the occasional sandbag and at nade in support for a t1 build this might still prove to be too expensive. maybe a squad-based unlock instead of a global upgrade could help alleviate this? ofc the price would have to be adjusted accordingly, maybe to 1/3 or 1/4 the cost of a global molo/nade unlock, but this would allow some more flexibility in terms of mixed build orders.

I mean I can agree that it would allow more build orders, but on the other hand it would be confusing af if the Conscripts do not get a different symbol since you never know which Conscript got which upgrade and always have to click though them to check visually on the info bar.

i like the idea of bundling both molotov and at nade into one package and reducing the price somewhat to make it less prohibitive (albeit not too cheap to turn it into a complete no-brainer).
however, in case of getting just one conscript squad for the occasional sandbag and at nade in support for a t1 build this might still prove to be too expensive. maybe a squad-based unlock instead of a global upgrade could help alleviate this? ofc the price would have to be adjusted accordingly, maybe to 1/3 or 1/4 the cost of a global molo/nade unlock, but this would allow some more flexibility in terms of mixed build orders.

Or we can stop increasing the pace of the game by lowering the cost of tech and bundling things up while decreasing the window of opportunity of unit in the process.

If Soviet have trouble vs light vehicles than it those light vehicles that should be delay or their power level decreased than adding yet another buff to mainline infantries.

I mean I can agree that it would allow more build orders, but on the other hand it would be confusing af if the Conscripts do not get a different symbol since you never know which Conscript got which upgrade and always have to click though them to check visually on the info bar.

true, that might indeed be a nuisance at least or problem at worst. but maybe upgraded cons could receive a ui symbol to ease differentiation.

Or we can stop increasing the pace of the game by lowering the cost of tech and bundling things up while decreasing the window of opportunity of unit in the process.

Or we can simply get rid of anachronical design that stopped being relevant 5 years ago and make it fit current balance and pace.

If Soviet have trouble vs light vehicles than it those light vehicles that should be delay or their power level decreased than adding yet another buff to mainline infantries.

Its basic mainline infantry tools.
Other 4 factions can get them earlier/cheaper/are more effective.

Delaying lights will not change the fact that molotov is a piece of shit upgrade prior to vet2.
AT nades are being researched before T3 anyway every single time when you go with at least 3 cons and not a single axis LV needs to get into their range to be effective, so you're losing nothing.

The Grenadier Squad has long been the gold standard of CoH2 Infantry and if there are issues with them being ineffective, the issue lies somewhere else. USF and UKF have introduced the ability to double-upgrade your Infantry and I believe this is where the problem lies.

Though it's true they have to invest more to get more power, you literally cannot invest more to counter it because you are limited by unit design, you could have 200 munitions and you wouldn't be able to get a second MG 42 on your Grenadiers or more StG's on your Volksgrenadiers; they are simply outclassed by design.

I believe UKF is a worse offender than USF, the BAR isn't overly special imo. For 60 (50?) munitions it is worse than a single Panzergrenadier StG, and Riflemen were designed to be inherently more powerful than other mainlines. Infantry Sections are more of an issue though, double Bren means they can stack long-range firepower which means A+move or Cover play is much stronger. They can reach 3/4 the DPS of Obersoldaten or Vet 3 Grenadiers for a mainline infantry squad. This is also often combined with free unlimited field healing.

The UKF are such a strange faction, a pendulum swinging between overpowered and underpowered. I believe the cheesebility of certain units is why they're so hard to balance. Being allowed to stack so much firepower on a 5 man mainline infantry squad is certainly a problem. Most Armies require you to use an elite unit or doctrine unit for this, like Obersoldaten or Guards.

Some good points

Though it's true they have to invest more to get more power, you literally cannot invest more to counter it because you are limited by unit design, you could have 200 munitions and you wouldn't be able to get a second MG 42 on your Grenadiers or more StG's on your Volksgrenadiers; they are simply outclassed by design.

Technically, this difference should be reflected in pop cost.
But in general I agree: UKF sections cause a lot of issues. Infantry scales by weapon upgrades and veterancy. Weapon upgrades allow to replace a squad in the late game while still keeping it somewhat relevant until it vets up again (for this reason Conscripts were considered to be bad because once you lost a squad you could not replace it due to lack of upgrades). UKF however does this scaling through an additional bolster, which could have been one way to "replace" a weapon upgrade. But they get weapons on top, which creates basically infantry sections of up to 6 difference power levels throughout the game. Still every upgrade had to remain meaningful, but not strong enough to break the game. And since UKF is supposed to tech both side techs anyway, Tommies are usually either too strong or too weak at some point in the game.

In hindsight it might have been better to make these two upgrades exclusive and then balance them to this role.
Do you want to have either more firepower OR beefy infantry?

Would have been a nice addition for the teching duality that UKF has in each building as well.

Technically, this difference should be reflected in pop cost.
But in general I agree: UKF sections cause a lot of issues. Infantry scales by weapon upgrades and veterancy. Weapon upgrades allow to replace a squad in the late game while still keeping it somewhat relevant until it vets up again (for this reason Conscripts were considered to be bad because once you lost a squad you could not replace it due to lack of upgrades). UKF however does this scaling through an additional bolster, which could have been one way to "replace" a weapon upgrade. But they get weapons on top, which creates basically infantry sections of up to 6 difference power levels throughout the game. Still every upgrade had to remain meaningful, but not strong enough to break the game. And since UKF is supposed to tech both side techs anyway, Tommies are usually either too strong or too weak at some point in the game.

In hindsight it might have been better to make these two upgrades exclusive and then balance them to this role.
Do you want to have either more firepower OR beefy infantry?

Would have been a nice addition for the teching duality that UKF has in each building as well.

Yes it real shame that the hammer/anvil is not expanded to it full potential. For instance if Hammer/anvil where also available in other buildings hammer could allow weapons and anvil bigger squad and/or hammer could allow Bren similar to BAR and Anvil Vicker-K.