Remove FRP? yay or nay.

They also made volks able to upgrade in enemy territory for some bizarre reason....

The reason was lower resources....

USF FRP is not even that useful on 1v1 maps, most time you will send your major to cap or just die since he is useless otherwise.

The only problem is that OKW has no preqrequisite for the FRP. USF needs to tech to T4 which costs a lot of fuel, while all okw has to do is to place the med truck. Make it a t4 unlock or something

Maps like Rails and Metal, Trois-Ponts, Ettlebruck or that new one which came with Brits, which can be 2v2 or 3v3 map (forgot the name) give huge advantage for a faction with FRP.

Dunno, I don't own it. What about? But the M3 from mechanized is nice but too squishy and damn too expensive, I tried several time to hard push with it but requires too much babysitting.

Uhh, doesn't this just defeat the point you stated that giving blobby factions a mobile halftrack will make them more OP?
Denied...
if you push with a blob and a halftrack and get suppressed... you have to retreat to base.
if you push with a blob and a FRP get suppressed... you retreat for 10 seconds and come back from multiple angles, or flank.

Again FRPs affects team games a lot more.

Whoever said spam MGs and screen troops... you have even MP. How are you supposed to get screen troops and SPAM MGs without them having the same amount of squads outflanking your mgs and overpowering from a different direction, just to retreat, reinforce and heal in front of your face, and then come at it again.

Generally, OKW only has to work against infantry at early stages of the game but against an HQ, one has to get AT zooks, satchels, AT guns, mortars, and it requires a lot of time to take down.

Can someone explain to me how much risk and reward is involved here? I have to risk handing over MGs, mortars, and AT guns to OKW and I'm more likely to fail especially if a 2nd or 3rd force flanks just for a moment, enough to make me retreat or lose a squad. The only risk on the OKW side is during building construction which is an extremely narrow time frame.

Again, i've stated my opinion on this before. FRPs are not a problem in 1v1 but are a huge factor in big maps because OKW is the only faction to have access to early FRP with extremely high durability.
Ambu can be killed by small arms, Major can be killed by small arms. UKF tent goes down in 5 shreks? bunker in 1 satchel. OKW buildings... like 15-20 AT shots.

remove frp, some good maps in 4vs4 are not even balanced becouse of it, like steppes. huge adventage for okw

They wont run'n'nade if you have screen troops at the front of your mgs

The flame made have insane range, and the ok dose not care to much about loses when running up to made.

Like I said, you people only have issues with volks or rifles.

Change those units, and suddenly FRP is fine.

Like I said, you people only have issues with volks or rifles.

Change those units, and suddenly FRP is fine.

no it is the FRP it's self I bet you 10 dollars if soviet and Oster had FRP they would say the same about pg, schocks, con, guards, and grends.

no it is the FRP it's self I bet you 10 dollars if soviet and Oster had FRP they would say the same about pg, schocks, con, guards, and grends.

I still hate volks with panzershrecks. And oberriflesoldaten vet 3 bonus.

I want both of those changed before FRP gets touched.

I still hate volks with panzershrecks. And oberriflesoldaten vet 3 bonus.

I want both of those changed before FRP gets touched.

I agree but really at the end of the day this is easyer to balance and to push thought with out all the 1v1 worrier griping. Got to take what you can get.

I agree but really at the end of the day this is easyer to balance and to push thought with out all the 1v1 worrier griping. Got to take what you can get.

All Im saying is, If we remove FRP, not only do we homogenize the factions significantly more. But the hopes of ever seeing a change to volk panzershreck or vet 3 riflemen lowers even more.

All Im saying is, If we remove FRP, not only do we homogenize the factions significantly more. But the hopes of ever seeing a change to volk panzershreck or vet 3 riflemen lowers even more.

there are better ways to assymetritise factions without using Forwarad Retreat Point mechanic. The mechanic that either gives you 10 second advantage or 2 minute advantage depending on the gamemodes and maps. what we have here is a highly uncontrollable variable that cannot be balanced across the board and since relic seem to be opposed to separating the modes the balance them separately, oh well.

I am against removing FRP. It's pretty much the only reason I bother playing on larger maps. In small maps wouldn't you not bother setting them up due to the much lower retreating distance?

FRP also cost resources, even Major cost resources to deploy, and while he is mobile, he is also a 3-man squad. OKW's HQ truck requires deploying first, and cost more resources. UKF can upgrade every Assembly, but it's still costing you.

Technically, you can play as all factions and ignore the FRP capability.

I've won without using FRP and I've got my arse kicked relying heavily on it. It has it's advantages but it also has its drawbacks. If you (or your teammates) don't screw things up you can have the cake and eat it too. FRP can be easily exploited by an enemy with Katyusha or Scott that wipe your depleted squads.

And I doubt Relic will go out of their way to remove FRP yet somehow retain it for 3v3/ 4v4, if that's even possible.

And if FRP is removed, the situation won't be resolved. If the problem is blobbing, then the fact is they can blob back to someplace besides HQ sector. People aren't going to not blob just because they need to go back to HQ now. You already have that when HQ truck or Forward Assembly is destroyed.

Technically, you can play as all factions and ignore the FRP capability.

i mean, if you want to deny yourself an extreme advantage..

And if FRP is removed, the situation won't be resolved. If the problem is blobbing, then the fact is they can blob back to someplace besides HQ sector. People aren't going to not blob just because they need to go back to HQ now. You already have that when HQ truck or Forward Assembly is destroyed.

Yes, actually it sort of will. Players will realize that they're losing map control by losing presence for 1+ minute of the map when they mass retreat.

People can continue to blob, sure. But players who take more strategic positions with mg placement or mines or using cover will be rewarded by gaining extra time to set up defenses or cap more territory.

Basically, it discourages blobbing because those players will lose and unless you want to lose, it would discourage blobs, promote strategy in a "strategy" game that requires different methods instead of a blob. Or, rage quit and move to a new game.

I am against removing FRP. It's pretty much the only reason I bother playing on larger maps. In small maps wouldn't you not bother setting them up due to the much lower retreating distance?

1. FRP also cost resources, even Major cost resources to deploy, and while he is mobile, he is also a 3-man squad. OKW's HQ truck requires deploying first, and cost more resources. UKF can upgrade every Assembly, but it's still costing you.

Technically, you can play as all factions and ignore the FRP capability.

2. I've won without using FRP and I've got my arse kicked relying heavily on it. It has it's advantages but it also has its drawbacks. If you (or your teammates) don't screw things up you can have the cake and eat it too. FRP can be easily exploited by an enemy with Katyusha or Scott that wipe your depleted squads.

3. And I doubt Relic will go out of their way to remove FRP yet somehow retain it for 3v3/ 4v4, if that's even possible.

4. And if FRP is removed, the situation won't be resolved. If the problem is blobbing, then the fact is they can blob back to someplace besides HQ sector. People aren't going to not blob just because they need to go back to HQ now. You already have that when HQ truck or Forward Assembly is destroyed.

1. one time cost or negligible 3 pop cap cost can not justify the amount of time it will save the user. the cost of FRP is not the same cost that goes for other investments.

2. i speak mainly for 3v3+ and if you are letting scott barrage your base, either a. you put it too forward or b. you mass retreated as in EVERYTHING retreated which the blame falls on you c. you are not spreading your unit around the base. lets take General Mud, the best and most competitive map, for example. You can safely put the base at max range from Katty assuming it is staying just behind enemy frontline and shave a minute off of every retreat. this is not risk v. reward. it is like giving one faction HMG, mortar and ATG and another none of them for the sake of "diversity". Yes, the stats are much less drastic in most other 3v3+ maps but the point still stands.

3. FRP is most problematic in those modes.

4. blobbing is not an issue. I dont get why it even came up. a FRP user who does not blob will get much much more out of the FRP than blobber. FRP treats blobbers and non blobbers equally.

Yes, actually it sort of will. Players will realize that they're losing map control by losing presence for 1+ minute of the map when they mass retreat.

People can continue to blob, sure. But players who take more strategic positions with mg placement or mines or using cover will be rewarded by gaining extra time to set up defenses or cap more territory.

Basically, it discourages blobbing because those players will lose and unless you want to lose, it would discourage blobs, promote strategy in a "strategy" game that requires different methods instead of a blob. Or, rage quit and move to a new game.

good point.

lets take General Mud, the best and most competitive map,

offtopic but general mud is among the worst maps in the history of all video games. absoulutely hate that map with a fiery, burning, insane passion. General Diarrhea is a better name for it.


ON topic,
retreat points are punishable, and harshly, by every single faction. The USF, Ostheer, and british retreat points are made of reinforced wooden glass, and can all die from small arms or one bazooka.

and the soviets seem way to spammy to need a FRP, but then again I dont liek soviets at all(id rather them be deleted and replaced with another axis faction) so im biased.

OKW's Battlegroup is a fortress at times until serious artillery comes out, but that could be seen as a feature of oKw, being able to just turtle around a battlegroup and push from it.

however Even then every allied faction can counterplay and punish an early battlegroup whether its mortar pits, 120 mm mortars, or packhowie+mortar halftracks..etc

Furthermore, late game, or even late mid game if we're talking 3v3 4v4, When OpieOP artillery comes, having a frp creates massive safety issues for the wounded soldiers that retreat there, all you need is a recon ability and its a massive hazard and risk to continue "short" retreating.

Unless you disagree with the punishable argument, i dont see a real reason to remove them

snip

late game artillery to punish an FRP at T1 is like having a 10 minute advantage waiting for that artillery which usually require fuel to make and you're losing the battle because they have it defended.

Or ml20 bombardment based off of RNG to luckily hit squads or hit the HQ.

A well placed HQ can effectively deny an area for half a game if not more because it has so much HP. Other factions cannot build an FRP that early and everyone has some sort of counter later in the game.

What do they have to counter it early game? I've mentioned this before but I have to risk AT/mgs/mortars within distance to start damaging and it takes forever to destroy. If i lose any support weapons, now OKW has them. OKW can generally focus on AI in the first 5 minutes of gameplay while I have to get AI and AT in order to counter T0 units and a building. If you go T1 SOV... no counter except if you have 150-200 munitions worth to throw satchels. USF requires zooka upgrade or T1,T2, AT. UKF requires piats upgrade or mortar, AT.

I'm not saying we should remove the battlegroup. Remove the FRP. It has too much utility in team games early on.

1. offtopic but general mud is among the worst maps in the history of all video games. absoulutely hate that map with a fiery, burning, insane passion. General Diarrhea is a better name for it.


...
2. however Even then every allied faction can counterplay and punish an early battlegroup whether its mortar pits, 120 mm mortars, or packhowie+mortar halftracks..etc

...

1. size size size

2. if medbase is securely in range of mortar pits, either OKW dude got greedy and fucked himself or he is a noob getting his face pummeled in where mortar pit or no mortar pit, he is done for.

out of things you listed, only 120mm have some weight to them. but again, the medbase would not be reachable if the okw guy does not go for one minute shave.

i mean, if you want to deny yourself an extreme advantage..

It's an advantage only because certain other factions don't have FRP.

Which to me, might prove the better option.

Yes, actually it sort of will. Players will realize that they're losing map control by losing presence for 1+ minute of the map when they mass retreat.

People can continue to blob, sure. But players who take more strategic positions with mg placement or mines or using cover will be rewarded by gaining extra time to set up defenses or cap more territory.

Basically, it discourages blobbing because those players will lose and unless you want to lose, it would discourage blobs, promote strategy in a "strategy" game that requires different methods instead of a blob. Or, rage quit and move to a new game.

If people will blob they will continue to blob. As long as they aren't forced to mass retreat then they have no reason to resort to other strategies.
Right now, you either blob and win, blob and lose, or win/lose with anything else. Remove FRP and you will get...well blob to win/ lose or not to win/lose. In other words nothing else. But before you say "well what's the big deal then"? It's because FRP are features unique to three of five factions. I don't play Ostheer if I want to play as Germans with FRP, I play OKW.

1. one time cost or negligible 3 pop cap cost can not justify the amount of time it will save the user. the cost of FRP is not the same cost that goes for other investments.

300 manpower and the time and queue taken up for OKW headquarters/ UKF FA is pretty hefty, even when playing in larger custom maps with 3x resource rate. You either build stuff immediately to reap the benefit of Regimental HQ, or it does nothing as you save up for the FRP upgrade. Until then nothing happens.
You remove FRP and you might as well leave T2 truck in HQ sector. All OKW trucks have a tactical reason, and provides clear tactical benefits, when deployed in the field. Since you cannot retreat to T2, the only reasonable place to put it is next to your base truck because you not only have FRP but medics.

2. i speak mainly for 3v3+ and if you are letting scott barrage your base, either
a. you put it too forward or
b. you mass retreated as in EVERYTHING retreated which the blame falls on you
c. you are not spreading your unit around the base. lets take General Mud, the best and most competitive map, for example.

Sounds like it is balanced, then. if I use it right then it's great; if I use it wrong then I deserve to lose. So what's the problem?

You can safely put the base at max range from Katty assuming it is staying just behind enemy frontline and shave a minute off of every retreat. this is not risk v. reward. it is like giving one faction HMG, mortar and ATG and another none of them for the sake of "diversity". Yes, the stats are much less drastic in most other 3v3+ maps but the point still stands.

Just because someone manages to barrage your base doesn't mean you let them.
Mass retreating and getting them all blown up is a disadvantage to having using FRP, and discourages over-reliance on blobbing.
Front lines move up or back. An aggressive player will put down FRP very close to reap the rewards; if s/he can survive, then their side will win because retreat distance is much closer. Any smart opponent will get the gist and counterplay to remove this advantage.
Unless you chose Luftwaffe/ Fortifications, the OKW player on average is the player with no HMG, comparable mortar or ATG. Having FRP however serves to compensate.

I assume you are advocating for removing FRP; in that case, what better proof than to demonstrate by having yourselve livestream/ post replay of a match in General Mud as OKW/ UKF/ USF without ever utilizing FRP, and win?