My immediate thoughts are that the game works very well as it was designed. Any issues I personally have about the Russians or any other aspect of the game are very minor. The combat system in C&C:N works extremely well as it is written.
People are certainly welcome to modify the rules in any way they see fit, but this change would radically change the combat system Each attack would give a 1 in 6 chance of the Attacker being pushed back from the attacking hex (a flag result). That's true now as well, but only if the defender survives the initial attack. This would make the defense far too strong, IMHO.
My immediate thoughts are that the game works very well as it was designed.
Fully agree, if we speaking about all rules. And the problem with the outbalanced scenarios isn´t something about the rules, it´s the scenario setup itself.
If scenarios will be designed more balanced, there is no reason, to change any game rule.
I personally don´t need also any additional houserule, because i (and most other players) have choosen the CC system because of it´s very easy and fast playing system, and we have already to much rules, which is opposite the original CC intention.
Look at Battlecry,the "mother of the CC system", which has the simplest of all CC rules and this was the reason, why it was a big success years ago and enabled then all other CC variants.
I tend to agree that the game is well set up as it is. I do play C&C Ancients as well, and I think the combat system there deals rather well with mutual attacks, since the defender will get his full dice quota (mostly) unless he's eliminated completely. This gives an illusion of simultaneous combat, even if it isn't quite there. In CCN, it does irk me sometimes when the attacker gets a lucky roll, eliminates a 3/4 block unit, and suffers nothing as a result. But I've long since disregarded C&C as being accurate and come to realise that it's a superb game, with a decent flavour of the Napoleonic period.
Same goes for C&C Ancients. So I would leave well alone.