Profile of ElSlayer

Some "meta" commanders keep some factions afloat.
IMO it is quite fragile thing. Change that and you will change win rates of factions in next big tournament.

Soviets have special relationship with commanders. IIRC Relic confirmed that Soviet reliance on commanders was intended.
It would be great to get conscensus among community on next things first:
1) Should Soviets still be dependent on doctinal units? It was intended before, should it be changed now?
2) Would changes to penals remove Soviet dependence on doctrinal infantry?
3) Would changes to T-34 and SU-85 remove Soviet dependence on doctrinal tanks?

Only because they are paired with OKW. Going double ostheer in 2v2 for example is suicide.

They have highest win rate in 2v2 random too. So ON AVERAGE they are the best.

I think I rather like these changes because of this:
in current game state if you have built engineers you can't give them orders to repair something until they cross map border.

In upcoming patch I can issue an order just as soon as I hear notificaion that engineers have arrived.

1) Use Pz.IV conservatively. It is your attrition tool. It doesn't drain MP when being damaged.
2) Can be used more aggresively once vet 1 because of blitz.
3) On vet 2 it can consistently 1v1 any medium tank of same class, as far as I know.

Always minesweep the area where you plan to use your Pz.IV.

@ElSlayer: for me T4 is useless. Of course, Panzerwerfer are good if you play with an Artillerieoffizier. Brummbär is good since may-balance-patch. But Panther don't worth it.

For me (as a 4v4 player) it is not useless at all.

Scope is OP.

I agree.
But you want to remove it AND to buff base sight range on 222. Some consistency, eh?

Osttruppen would be better if they could build sandbags.

Again, is there a balance problem with Osttruppen?
You might as well say that "Osttruppen would be better if their damage would be buffed for 9000%".
Yes, they would be better. But that's just a statement, even if it is true. It doesn't explains anything.
Why they should be better? Would it make CoH2 a better game?

Why Pioneers have MG40?

Is there a problem? In early game you have long-range unit (Grens) and close-range unit (Pio). Why not?

M24 for Grens would give them more potential against buildings in early game.

You have flamer upgrade on Pios for that. Different units for different roles is a good approach. Anti-everything units (generalists that perform close to specialist level) is bad design.
It feels like you want to achive better results with less effort. Yes, combined arms is hard, but it feels rewarding when you manage to pull it off.

LeIG18 and MG34 for Ost would be more realistic and to give them the worse counterparts would compensate the other changes like the M24. etc.

That's not rebalance. That is changing the game to please single person that plays mostly that faction.

Grens are meant to be squishy (low total hp) unit that excels in long range combat and should be used from cover. MG42 is your "force multiplier" for Grens. It keeps enemy at long range and reduces incoming damage to your squishy Grens. MG34 (with its current stats) IMO would not be enough and grenade won't save your Grens.

Ost's gamedesign is obsolete. Back to year 2013.

IMO Ost is best designed faction.
Soviets are second.
Brits and WFA factions' design is lazy Power Creep mixed with QoL sugar (not always unnecessary).