Login

russian armor

Remove forward retreat points

20 Jun 2015, 12:13 PM
#21
avatar of Jadame!

Posts: 1122

Both frp have drawbacks


Not enough to balance all advantages FRP gives.

usf needs to go back to base for inf weapons


Once a game. Such disadvantage!

and okw frp is a realy big investment, a nice target + if you loose it you can´t produce jp4 anymore.


Only if you build super aggressive medHQ, and then fail to capitalize on it plasement. And since when 300mp is big investment for OKW? Its not like OKW lacking mp in middle game or don't want to trade mp for faster vet, more pressure on opponent and map control.

There is close to 0 reason not to go FRP as OKW after 3rd volk in team games.
20 Jun 2015, 15:29 PM
#22
avatar of niutudis

Posts: 276

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Jun 2015, 12:13 PMJadame!


Not enough to balance all advantages FRP gives.



Once a game. Such disadvantage!



Only if you build super aggressive medHQ, and then fail to capitalize on it plasement. And since when 300mp is big investment for OKW? Its not like OKW lacking mp in middle game or don't want to trade mp for faster vet, more pressure on opponent and map control.

There is close to 0 reason not to go FRP as OKW after 3rd volk in team games.

It´s nice to have a bit of variety in army-mechanics. To me it looks pretty ballanced considering the risks.
Especialy for okw the frp is very vulnerable while setting up + it takes some time to upgrade it into frp. When it´s build and has the frp-upgrade it´s a 500mp + 40 fuel sitting in the range of enemy indirect fire or even direct fire if okw can´t stand ground.

The wfa were designed with frps, if you take it away both would need something to compensate or a redesign from scratch.
The vanilla armies were designed without frps if you give them a frp both would need something to compensate or a redesign from scratch.

You realy think relic is going to do that? o_O
20 Jun 2015, 15:57 PM
#23
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

Ostheer faction was designed without "behind line" infantry yet they received them with new doctrine, so "they were design with/without" argument is pointless.
20 Jun 2015, 16:17 PM
#24
avatar of niutudis

Posts: 276

Ostheer faction was designed without "behind line" infantry yet they received them with new doctrine, so "they were design with/without" argument is pointless.

"behind line" infantry isn´t realy a core designfactor, while the frp is.
20 Jun 2015, 16:25 PM
#25
avatar of iTzDusty

Posts: 836 | Subs: 5

I think this only becomes a serious issue in some larger 3s and 4s maps, since the time you save on retreats makes a huge difference.

Giving OST and SU FRP would just make it worse imo, soft retreats are things id rather see rewarded.

Outright removing FRP isnt all that great either, especially for OKW.
20 Jun 2015, 21:18 PM
#26
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Jun 2015, 10:07 AMJadame!
Yep, FRP eliminates strategic play, rewards blobing and gives free map control. Lost engagement? Np, with FRP your squads would be back in action in seconds. Suppressed? Same. Successful push or flank forced all your AT off the field? Those tanks better hurry up if they want inflict any damage to that flak truck near med HQ.

Other solution is to increase counters to forward retreats. Sadly, Relic decide to go other way and remove precision stike from kat this patch.


You know creeping barrage is a way more powerful ability than precision strike right? It fires it's full rocket load accurately over a larger area instead one tiny area.

Outright removing FRP isnt all that great either, especially for OKW.


Pretty much, in 2's OKW relies heavily on FRP to maintain map presence early in the game when their infantry is very handily outclassed. Not to mention the fact that OKW and USF lack armored mobile reinforcement options like Ostheer and Soviets have.
20 Jun 2015, 21:28 PM
#27
avatar of QueenRatchet123

Posts: 2280 | Subs: 2

Permanently Banned

USF lack armored mobile reinforcement options like Ostheer and Soviets have.


Play USF once before making incorrect statements..
20 Jun 2015, 22:09 PM
#29
avatar of Goldeneale

Posts: 176



Play USF once before making incorrect statements..


Well the ambulance isn't armored and the m5 is a pricey doctrinal call in so...
20 Jun 2015, 22:24 PM
#30
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1



Well the ambulance isn't armored and the m5 is a pricey doctrinal call in so...

Yeah, the M3 HT makes cardboard look tough.
20 Jun 2015, 22:26 PM
#31
avatar of l4hti

Posts: 476

USA ambulance mayor combo is not a problem. Ambulance is so fragile anyway. A single mortar and panzerschreck forces USA Forward retreat point away.

Bigger problem is OKW Battlegroupm Schwere Panzer HQ, (and maybe even pak43) combo, which can be hard to force away. Flak gun from Schwere should be removed.

But i think OKW and USA need their forward retreat points. For example in Semoisky OKW needs it´s early retreat point to stay in game vs allied close range infantry.

USA is an army of expensive glass cannons, specially in late game USA is hammered down by massive MP bleed, so i think it is ok that they can reinforce in frontlines.

Countering forward retreat points is only hard for USA, which lacks early indirect fire (inb4 infantry company and pack howizer), which are rare sights anyway. USA can counter OKW trucks when they get shermans. For soviets its much easier, just get a 82mm or 120mm...
20 Jun 2015, 22:42 PM
#32
avatar of Vuther
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 3103 | Subs: 1

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Jun 2015, 22:26 PMl4hti
USA ambulance mayor combo is not a problem. Ambulance is so fragile anyway. A single mortar and panzerschreck forces USA Forward retreat point away.

Bigger problem is OKW Battlegroupm Schwere Panzer HQ, (and maybe even pak43) combo, which can be hard to force away. Flak gun from Schwere should be removed.

Well, the Ambulance can still be pretty hard to get to/find in larger games (where the forward retreat point problem is at its worst due to the larger maps) with more players around it. Makes forcing in to it tougher.

Of course, that makes the OKW's version of it even worse by comparison, but still - a bigger problem doesn't make a smaller problem not a problem.
21 Jun 2015, 03:38 AM
#33
avatar of Nuclear Arbitor
Patrion 28

Posts: 2470

jump backJump back to quoted post20 Jun 2015, 22:42 PMVuther

Well, the Ambulance can still be pretty hard to get to/find in larger games (where the forward retreat point problem is at its worst due to the larger maps) with more players around it. Makes forcing in to it tougher.

Of course, that makes the OKW's version of it even worse by comparison, but still - a bigger problem doesn't make a smaller problem not a problem.


you just have to triangulate the major's radar (look for the antenna, it shows up through fog of war).
21 Jun 2015, 05:08 AM
#34
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1



Play USF once before making incorrect statements..


The M3 nor the Ambulance are armored, they take significant damage from small arms which the Ostheer HT can resist and the Soviet M5 can outright ignore.
21 Jun 2015, 05:21 AM
#35
avatar of korgoth

Posts: 170

Remove all forward retreat points (I prefer this).

OR

Add non-doctrinal way to get a forward retreat point to all factions.

For the Ostheer it could be with the command upgrade of the bunker and for the soviets a new building on the Engies that cost munis/fuel.
21 Jun 2015, 17:16 PM
#36
avatar of NorthWeapon
Donator 11

Posts: 615

Remove Forward Retreat Points please! Reasoning already explained although the asymmetrical argument is terrible.

I will admit I blob as USF or OKW because of FRPs and never as SU or OST because oh that.
21 Jun 2015, 17:26 PM
#37
avatar of daspoulos

Posts: 1116 | Subs: 1

Permanently Banned
Add commissar, still stupid how he is unavailable these past 2 years. Give him and artillery field officer forward retreat points. Of course FRP only becomes available when teching to t3 or t4
21 Jun 2015, 17:42 PM
#38
avatar of ferwiner
Donator 11

Posts: 2885

Its easy to solve: Just give another upgrade type to ostheer bunker (that does only FRP, if you want reinforcement or healing you should build more bunkers). For soviets its even easier: In game files there is unused unit, a truck zis-5. Just give it set up ability like opel blitz but with no resource gain, instead it can act as FRP and reinforce point if on friendly territory. Healing only in base as it is main feature of soviet army - it would also make it ballance since it should be available from HQ, but with no healing.
21 Jun 2015, 18:30 PM
#39
avatar of comm_ash
Patrion 14

Posts: 1194 | Subs: 1

FRPs are terrible design IMO. They are the sole reason blobbing is so prevelant for WFA factions, and the fact that they are only available to 2 of 4 factions makes the lategame on large maps such as Vaux Farmlands largely skewed towards some factions. If a sov/ost player retreats, he is off the field for 1 minute minimum. USF/OKW will be back within 15 seconds.

That is a HUGE advantage for the FRP factions, and there are not nearly enough downsides to getting this ability. The USF FRP comes late and is fragile, yes, but it comes as a logical end to the tech tree, and is not something you pay extra for. The OKW one comes very early in the game, gives on the field reinforcement and healing. It is also hard to kill, and can be on the field for some time before viable counters appear (when vs. USF). It is also a logical progression of teching, meaning that it will be seen just about any game.

Either:

1)Get rid of FRP. This will make soft retreating to reinforcement units much more viable and important to the metagame. Forward reinforce units/buildings exist for all factions. Just learn to back away to the position as needed. (My favorite idea)

2) Give FRP to all factions. I dislike this idea because it will just lead to more efficient blobbing from all the factions. Who wants a game where ostheer CAS doctrine lmg blobs can return seconds after retreat, or guard blobs that retreat to a friendly con squad to reinforce them.

3) Make all FRPs a fuel expensive side upgrade. An FRP should have some sort of real cost. Paying tech and unlocking an FRP is not a cost. It is a bonus for doing something you would be doing anyways. Make FRPs a weak, fuel costing buildable object from a factions' combat engineers after the "medium" tier is built (T3/T4). This will make them require an actual cost to use, and will make them slow down the arrival of armor. FRPs should be a choice a player makes with real tradeoffs, not the "free" bonus you get with teching that they are now.
21 Jun 2015, 18:36 PM
#40
avatar of Alexzandvar

Posts: 4951 | Subs: 1

FRP's would be a lot more balanced if losing control of the sector disabled your ability to retreat to that sector. So back capping an opponent would allow you to do the one to punch of making him retreat all the way back to his base.
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

Livestreams

unknown 7
United States 47
Australia 28
Peru 11

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

682 users are online: 682 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49153
Welcome our newest member, Wilmor89
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM