Remove forward retreat points

i dont get where the problem is

OST and SOV may not have FRP, but mobile spawn points (haftracks / reinforce bunkers). That's something similar, but not the same.

Variety adds flavor imo

In my opinion, the answer to a problem is never to give the problem to the other factions. Having all factions have the exact same options and being exactly the same strength at all stages of the game is really boring. FRP for all factions isn't the answer.

Also, may I remind everyone that in COH1 the British were the only faction to have a forward retreat point and that although it felt broken when they were released that eventually people learned how to play effectively against it. Just because you personally have a problem with FRP doens't mean it's inherently broken. Wait for the patch to come out, try new builds, new commanders, sit down and think hard about how you're playing and how you can adapt.

i dont get where the problem is

OST and SOV may not have FRP, but mobile spawn points (haftracks / reinforce bunkers). That's something similar, but not the same.

Variety adds flavor imo

It's not about reinforcing. HT won't break suppression, HT won't make blobbing effective tactic, HT is very easy to destroy, HT won't provide 20sec for next wave and on and on...

Mobile reinfore for all instead of FRP.

At first I thought the FRP would cause major balance concerns because having a FRP is a huge advantage on big maps and provide a still quite good bonus on small maps. But once I actually started playing with and against them, I have found that the downsides are significant enough to make them balanced. The FRP are excellent targets for artillery and quick armored rushes against the FRP can often lead to squadwipes (an ambulance kill against USF).

FRP on large maps are very, very effective, and OKW's ability to purchase them very soon after the game is underway is difficult to balance. On the other hand, in smaller games retreat points act to keep OKW on the field.

My gut feeling is that they should be removed and OKW starting infantry brought in line to allow them to have field presence before they get vet, but that starts to really require a serious look at things like vet 5.

OKW and USF are two factions that can't really well hold the line
1- Because of lack of cheap support weapons. No early MGs for 240mp, no Snipers, no mortars.
2- the ambulance isn't really mobile compared to the Sdfk and M5, and can be wreck in not time with small arms fire + can only reinforce on allied territory + if the ambulance is stopped. Sov and Ost are the only faction that can reinforce on the move and in neutral/enemy territories. + Ostheer has 2 type of bunker to heal and reinforce.

IMO, its a design flaw. In regard of designing 2 factions (WFA) lacking of support weapons, Relic gave them FRP. But also because of lacking of support weapons those 2 factions are design to spam a generic unit. If OKW has a bit more choice, USF is clearly completely based on playing a unique unit model: RE (non-combatant units), Rifles and HMG.50 are the only squads model available on stock. Lieutenant and Captain are just 2 different pre-equiped version of riflesquad.

I think the next patch is going in the right direction. With a buff for the HMG, blobs tactic is going to be downgraded. Light and Medium vehicle play is also going to be more interesting with the nerf of ATnade.

If the ambulance is enough weak and the major comes late, the OKW FRP is probably the most problematic aspect of all FRP.
As an idea, why not dissociating the FRP from the truck, when you research the FRP, a small tent or building, independent from the truck is deployed and can be targeted. It can't be destroyed with small arms but have less life than the building itself.
If destroyed, it must be rebuild in order to reactive the FRP.

There is nothing wrong with FRPs. They have their downsides and risks. For instance, have you ever played OKW with FRP against a hard 120 mm and katiusha soviet? It's a pleasure, believe me. You will beat any curses number/minute record.
Besides that, I don't understand the people who want that all units and faction features resemble one to another instead diversity.
Let me tell you this: I'd rather have a slightly unbalanced game with verry different armies than a perfectly balanced game with armies that look the same.

2 factions are design to spam a generic unit. If OKW has a bit more choice, USF is clearly completely based on playing a unique unit model

Yeah I agree on that the infantry design of the WFA factions is terrible... especially the OKW infantry design but thats another topic

There is nothing wrong with FRPs. They have their downsides and risks. For instance, have you ever played OKW with FRP against a hard 120 mm and katiusha soviet? It's a pleasure, believe me. You will beat any curses number/minute record.

Of course you can counter them. But I dislike the whole concept of FRPs... ohh look Stuka strafe run my inf got pinnend... lets retreat back to the HQ
The OKW FRP is static and allies have plenty of counters against it (Priest, Katyuscha, 120mm, B4,...).
The Major comes as a "free" FRP (because if you want tanks you have to build him). If you lose him you can call him in for few MP again... If your enemy knows the location of your FRP you can easily move him.

[...] In regard of designing 2 factions (WFA) lacking of support weapons, Relic gave them FRP. But also because of lacking of support weapons those 2 factions are design to spam a generic unit. [...]

Yes, exactly! That's what I was thinking, too. It's a bit off-topic, but think about it: A player often wants to combine several units against enemies he encoutners. When the faction has access to many (viable) support weapons, you can combine support weapons and normal infantry units. That will inherently look more strategical and well executed. When a faction has mostly access to infantry units, but only has few (viable) support weapons, there is few choice but to combine mainly infantry squads. And that will more often look clumsy and not well-executed. It can leave a bad taste for both the player and the opponent.
What you mentioned here is really a basic problem of OKW and USF. No matter what they do, the absence of support weapons will always leave a bad impression, as infantry heavy tactics just never will seem as sophisticated as a combined approach of infantry+support weapons.
(The use of the support weapons of the WFA factions should just be encouraged more. As in, make the .50cal more attractive; Also, OKW could use a non doctrinal HMG or the Kubel could act much more HMG-ish than it does now.)

Sorry, I couldn't resist going a bit off-topic.

Anyways, I still like FRPs. If necessary, they surely can be toned down or adjusted without removing the feature which would be plain boring.

Yeah I agree on that the infantry design of the WFA factions is terrible... especially the OKW infantry design but thats another topic



Of course you can counter them. But I dislike the whole concept of FRPs... ohh look Stuka strafe run my inf got pinnend... lets retreat back to the HQ
The OKW FRP is static and allies have plenty of counters against it (Priest, Katyuscha, 120mm, B4,...).
The Major comes as a "free" FRP (because if you want tanks you have to build him). If you lose him you can call him in for few MP again... If your enemy knows the location of your FRP you can easily move him.

Major FRP is kind of useless in 1vs1, moreover when you look at its mp cost, better use the unit as capping unit until its death.
Now if you want to remove FRP, you'll have to redesign both factions, giving them stock support units and combatant reinforcement trucks.

Now the whole purpose of this thread is probably going to be irrelevant in 2 days with the patch. HMG buff + ATsnare nerf is going to change the meta. Seeing more vehicle opening.

Now the whole purpose of this thread is probably going to be irrelevant in 2 days with the patch. HMG buff + ATsnare nerf is going to change the meta. Seeing more vehicle opening.

Yeah I hope the patch will fix it.