Profile of MilkaCow

Till this day I see people using PGrens wrong, this is probably the biggest problem, not their actual strength. There are quite some good players who gave them a shot and use them in a good way, Twister is one example.

PGrens should not be able to frontally charge another squad and kill it, as this causes PGren blobs and does not fit to the tactical elements of unit positioning. That's why they were changed in the first place - They were too strong and in a way that broke the game. To compensate, they got a higher damage, but less durability, meaning they need to be handle more carefully now, but can be just as devastating.
If you take a look at the graphs (http://www.coh2.org/topic/6598/coh-2-dps-spreadsheet/post/175221) or the values (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0ApmrrrPr20ncdGF4VURuYjVGZXlIN3ptbV8tbzRzN0E&usp=drive_web#gid=0) you can see that they start to have more damage than Grens already at 31 range. At this range they already perform better than baseline Grens, but they do not perform better considering their cost. If you want to add that in (340/240 => ~1.5 times better) you get roughly such a performance already at 22 range. Since they also take less damage (and it's not 1.5, but a bit less) at such a range they already vastly outperform normal Grens.
Now you have to take a look at other factors as well, like the LMG42 upgrade for Grenadiers and let's compare the DPS. Once again, we artificially increase the DPS of Grens by a factor of 1.5 to take the higher cost of PGrens into account. We'll see that at the range of 15 the PGrens once again start to be better. That means even compared to an upgraded LMG42 Grenadier, PGrens outperform it per cost at <15 range in regards to damage dealt.

Why is that so important? Because a lot of people tend to get really close with their PGrens, lose one or two entities to do so and then of course deal minimal damage, have to retreat and complain about the unit. That's false use. Go to ~15 range (That's roughly half the vision range as a rule of thumb) or to a similar distance if there is better cover. Don't close in further, as at that range you are already in a good spot and closing in further greatly increases the damage you take in the process and the chance to lose an entity. Staying at such a range usually yields the best results.
Yet this is just one of the roles of the PGrens and actually one where they perform worst. Besides that they are a great flanking squad. If you manage to actually get close to the enemy without them firing on you, do it. The closer you can get, the better usually(exception vs SMG troops), yet only if you can do so without being fired on. Closing in under fire => losing entities => higher MP drain for you and actually often less DPS than at a longer range.

@Katitof and @MilkaCow

I think you both kinda missed the mark. Napalm isn't saying buff penals DPS because they are underperforming but rather, change them from being mid-short range units to make them a long range one.

I was referencing the DPS sheets in general, as this presentation leaves the impression Soviet units are worse, while in reality only if their guns are far worse they are actually of equal strength.

I do not really agree with the assessment that Soviet non doctrinal infantry cannot stand up to the other factions, as I find especially vs Oberkommando they can. In the early game Cons can easily win against Volks and can win per cost against Sturms (fire, when they get too close either soft retreat with Oorah or hard retreat). Mid/lategame flame weapons are a great equalizer. No matter if super cheap or super expensive - flame weapons kill all equally unlike small arms. Molotovs and Flamethrowers can seriously trouble the Oberkommando.

I think the biggest problem right now is that too many people rely on Maxims because they cannot micro the other infantry squads. Fielding 4-5 Maxims (and then other support weapons) will mean you have a really easy earlygame as Maxims win against basically any other squad 1v1, but against a good Oberkommando or Ostheer player this is somewhat of a debit. You gain earlygame strength, but you leave yourself open to hardcounters like leIG, Walking Stuka, Mortar HT, Mortars, PG-HTs and other things. Once such long range weapons are on the field or the terrain is littered with craters the Maxims will be useless. They lose their gunner to troops charging from the front which is a death sentence. The artillery decrews or destroys them. Try playing without using Maxims or using a maximum of 1 or 2. That gives you several normal infantry units to be offensive, but also strong supporting firepower with the maxims.

I can agree on the assessments of Penals and SU-76 though. I think both of them are in a bad spot. The SU-76 is too expensive to be used as a barrage tool and it's performance vs tanks is too bad per cost. Unlike the T70 which shares a similar price point he has close to no shock value since only few people field the 222 and Flame HT nowadays.
Penals are problematic. A lot of their cost is probably going into those utility abilities (Satchel, Flamethrower), as those are incredibly strong. I personally would prefer if they lost the flamethrower upgrade, but got some standard infantry weapon upgrade. To stay similar to their current role and minimize costs probably give them a 3 AVT-40 upgrade.

SU-85 on the other hand I disagree with. It's a unit that's extremely dedicated AT and can be an useful addition to an infantry based army. If you already got T2 though the role can be filled to a degree with a ZiS-3 and a spotter, making it redundant. I personally think the biggest problem of this unit is the others in T4. It's a purely defensive tier with whom you cannot chase down enemies to finish them off. The lack of a turreted tank is really felt a lot :/

Disagree heavily with the observation that Soviet non doc inf is useless. I feel it's mostly due to the fact that the doctrinal infantry is easier to micro and handle.

One small explanation to the unit profiles, since they always make it seem as if Soviets were so far worse or whatever:

As a rule of thumb comparing an Ostheer and Soviet squad, the Ostheer squad should have more than twice the damage for the squads to be even. This is due to the fact Soviets have +50% weapons and +50% HP, that means given the same weapons the Soviet squad would be roughly 2.25 times stronger. Cutting weapon damage by roughly this value (roughly, since 6 entities have other disadvantages) means the squads are even.

Heya,

I think you are assuming too many things.

"1. The Pack Howitzer is supposed to function similar to a Mortar"
=> Yes and no. One of the roles of the Pack Howitzer is to function similar to a mortar and give indirect fire, but it is also able to give a better close range support to infantry (lower shell flight time) and it is able to fight light (and at Vet2) medium vehicles.

"2. The ordnance used is lighter than the soviet PM-41 82mm Mortar Squad: 82mm > 75mm"
The calibre is smaller, but the ordnance for the M1 Pack Howitzer is far higher (almost 3 times the weight for the shell and packed with more explosive).

And regarding "5." usually the tier should not matter that much. The units should still be similarly cost-effective, it's only that higher tiers usually give access to more expensive units.

Since a lot of your points are problematic you might want to reassess your reasoning and results :/

Instead of complaining about duplicates people would complain about the lower drop rate (as that gets more obvious).