Profile of The_Courier

I'd also increase the minimum range on all mortars. I've seen one gib an entire squad of grenadiers in cover less than half a screen away. On maps with lots of LOS blockers (especially Semois), they can be brutally effective even at ranges that should be too short for mortars of all things to be useful. I guess the 120mm's deadliness only accentuates this, as well as its near invincibility.

It would be a decent idea if PTRS were actually good AT, which they, well, aren't. Anything bigger than an AC can safely ignore them, even if they're firing at its butt.

As for Penals, I've long been a proponent of removing their SVTs and sticking the flamer on them stock, along with perhaps an armor upgrade or suppression resistance. There, you got your flavor close-combat suicide infantry, now can I please get some decent ranged AI on my conscripts via upgrade?

I'd nerf the 120mm's range and scatter, while adding slightly more accuracy. As of now it's a gamble; sometimes it will miss a stationary MG in plain view of your units 5 times in a row. Other times, it will gib squads as soon as they're in range. I had a match where, I shit you not, my 120mm wiped out 4 squads in as many minute. Including a full health vet 2 PG squad; one shot brought it to 1 man, the next landed right on the retreat path. Needless to say I won, but it was mostly thanks to my luck rather than any skill. I get that it's supposed to be a bigger, badder, less accurate mortar, and I'm all for unit flavor, but it's pretty silly. Also make it so it decrews at 1 man like every other mortar, it's too durable right now.

As for conscripts vs grens, that's a tough one. I'd give them an option to get 2-3 SVT40's when T1 or T2 is built (yes, there's overlap with Penals, but the unit role is not the same), for say 40 ammo. The SVTs would still lose to LMG grens, assuming equal cover, but would win against vanilla ones and provide a stopgap between useless vanilla conscripts and powerful PPShs ones. The PPShs would also merge with the SVTs (much like LMGS + G43s), creating a powerful but fragile unit at pretty high ammo cost. Thoughts?

Yes, I did. And I responded. Which apparently you didnt read either, nor the stats.

Here it is for you again:
http://www.coh2.org/topic/9545/reducing-soviet-building-cost-and-time/post/88484

You didn't respond. You said ''calculate them yourself''. I'm quite capable of doing so if I wish. The point is not this; the point is that, very early game, building anything for the Soviets is nothing short of a gamble. If they build too soon, it means less map control. If they build the wrong building, they're basically screwed since back-teching in the early game is complete madness that leaves you wide open for an Ostwind-flavored ass-kicking. This leads to fairly stale build orders, where Soviets always have to get 2-3 conscripts and grab map control in order to then get out the T1-T2 units. By which time some of them (M3 in particular) are almost obsolete already. I'm not he only one saying this, link0 agrees and he's a better player than most on these here forums.

I can agree with the idea of back-teching costing more MP but less fuel (albeit exactly evening out the costs following Relic's 1 fuel = 5 MP formula seems redundant). But I also think that all Soviet buildings need less build time, especially T1 and T2. 25-ish seconds for T1 and 30 seconds for T2 seems fair.

Sure. But that doesnt change the buildtime or cost.

But it does limit available builds for the Soviets. And they need all the help they can get on that front. Make the battle phase research also take a bit less time if that's the concern, but as it is Soviet build time and costs are just too much.