Remove FRP? yay or nay.

You either give it to everyone or remove it completely.

I would rather it be removed completely.

If removed all Armies will have access to reinforcement on the field WITHOUT FRP.

OKW: medic truck (removed FRP)

USF: Ambulance

UKF: FHQ (remove FRP)

SOVIET: HT or maybe give them a build able emplacement on the field for reinforcement. Maybe a fortified fuel or ammo point on tactical points that cost maybe 300 or 400 MP and have reinforcements from them.

WM:CC bunkers

It would massively improve Urban Defense Tactics' Forward HQ if it could be set as a retreat point. It is still easily counterable with indirect fire but it would mean the commander would be used more often.

It would massively improve Urban Defense Tactics' Forward HQ if it could be set as a retreat point. It is still easily counterable with indirect fire but it would mean the commander would be used more often.

Yes the but issue with that is that urban defense HQ gives BUFFS to units around it. That would be way too strong, no other one does that.

Remove the buffs and then yeah give it FRP

Yes the but issue with that is that urban defense HQ gives BUFFS to units around it. That would be way too strong, no other one does that.

Remove the buffs and then yeah give it FRP

1 stuka will kill almost any Forward HQ though. It is guaranteed to go down if mortars have been hitting it before the stuka arrives. It is also not repairable. Maybe trade off so only one Forward HQ can be on the map at a time.

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

Which to me, might prove the better option.



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. 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. 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?


3. 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.

4. 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?

1. hefty in relative to what benefits? 10 minute of faster retreat? 20 minute? an hour?

2. used right = click drag click... this argument is similar to old CAS apologist argument: dodgeable = balanced.

3. barrage from barrage range of pak howi, i would not blame on the defender. but if you let normal light arty get the better of your FRP, sorry, that is just retarded.

4. ? what would that prove. I have experienced plenty of 2 min long retreat/come back cycles. in maps like steppes and hill.

remove pls, it'll fix a lot of issues in the game indirectly

Incidentally, this thread has made me realize that I kinda miss how FHQs worked in vCoH.

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.

1. poop poop poop. that map is the anti usf.

2, if thats the case its not really that impactful imo. If its out of range of enemy artillery its not that game breaking as a retreat point. Maybe if you showed me some minimap screenshots of battlegroup placement in 3s and 4s thats "forward retreat" but also out of range of arty i'd understand what you mean. But to me that sounds impossible unless the map is super massive, like general poop, But thats my opinion.

In 1v1 2v2 you simply cant have a safe retreat point thats also really close to the lines. Its punishable. In 4v4 on general mud, you might be able to put a battlegroup outside of calliope range somehow. So maybe im just missing something.

3? I DISAGREE. USF mortar halftrack pack howie combo was stronk as fuck vs LEIGs and battlegroup before calliope and still is

anyway
I think the best solution would be to have a different attribute pack with different stats and limiations in 3v3 4v4, like removing retreat points and lowering resources from caches and territory points, while increasing tech costs, but that wont happen. Feelsbadman

Yes the but issue with that is that urban defense HQ gives BUFFS to units around it. That would be way too strong, no other one does that.

Remove the buffs and then yeah give it FRP

it also is the most expensive. by far.

1. hefty in relative to what benefits? 10 minute of faster retreat? 20 minute? an hour?

Yeah I meant days.
Retreating involves reinforcing as well, so there's the additional manpower being spent, that much sooner. Nothing's free with FRP: you spend manpower to get it, you spend manpower to keep and defend it, and you spend manpower maintaining the troops that run back.
If you're being haphazard with your troops because you know you can still retreat somewhere closer, you still give ground to the enemy. I don't take that VP sector sooner if I'm constantly retreating my suppressed/ depleted squads. And once you've spent up your manpower, the benefits disappear. You're closer to the front lines but it can easily turn you into a cornered animal.
Hefty. Yet also balanced.

? what would that prove. I have experienced plenty of 2 min long retreat/come back cycles. in maps like steppes and hill.

Use your damn head. It proves whether removing FRP for OKW, USF and UKF works or not. Experiencing long retreat cycles is the natural result of removing FRP. Get back to me when you start winning matches as those factions without ever using FRP.

As for artillery, once you demonstrate you can pound them from afar you will spook any FRP player from over-relying on it. All FRP can be disabled. If anything, having FRP DOES in fact discourage things like blobbing.

Yes the but issue with that is that urban defense HQ gives BUFFS to units around it. That would be way too strong, no other one does that.

Remove the buffs and then yeah give it FRP

I would much rather keep the buffs than make it a retreat point, to be honest.

I think the biggest problem with it is there is no way to repair it. Same deal with the British one.

I was shooting yesterday on Gelsenkirchen at Med truck with ML-20 for like 20mins. I killed 20 models but when I flanked with cons to check how is the med it was full health

Unreachable for mortars, ML-20 could not kill it in 20mins, to risky to run with a tank or something.

Of course we have lost and I say it was mostly becasue we needed 3x more time to get back to battle (longer time to get VPs) so we have lost by VPs

Yeah I meant days.
1. Retreating involves reinforcing as well, so there's the additional manpower being spent, that much sooner. Nothing's free with FRP: you spend manpower to get it, you spend manpower to keep and defend it, and you spend manpower maintaining the troops that run back.
If you're being haphazard with your troops because you know you can still retreat somewhere closer, you still give ground to the enemy. I don't take that VP sector sooner if I'm constantly retreating my suppressed/ depleted squads. And once you've spent up your manpower, the benefits disappear. You're closer to the front lines but it can easily turn you into a cornered animal.
Hefty. Yet also balanced.

2. Use your damn head. It proves whether removing FRP for OKW, USF and UKF works or not. Experiencing long retreat cycles is the natural result of removing FRP. Get back to me when you start winning matches as those factions without ever using FRP.

3. As for artillery, once you demonstrate you can pound them from afar you will spook any FRP player from over-relying on it. All FRP can be disabled. If anything, having FRP DOES in fact discourage things like blobbing.

1. lol. yes retreating involves reinforcing. yes, defending cause manpower. that is true in every coh game whether you are sov,ost, or others. just because you have FRP, that does not mean you get BESIEGED lol.

2. it works because i have done it. ive seen replays that had people in them doing it. use your mouse and troll through the net yourself.

3. i dont know how to reply to it because the logic is not compatible with mine.

Ok, I did a small test based on my yesterday's game on Gelsenkirchen.

Time needed to retreat from left/middle/right VP to base and going back (without any reinforce) for us and for them:

(XXs - time to get to base / XXs - whole time to return to the point where I was retreating)
Times for me.
Middle VP - 32s/1:21s
Left VP - 43s/1:52s
Right VP - 35s/1:32s.

Times for enemies.
Middle VP - 15s/39s.
Left VP - 27s/1:11s.
Right VP - 29s/1:13s.

Now, let's take middle VP. It's 42s of difference per retreat which during 1 hour game can turn into 5-8mins of better map presence.
No wonder we have lost by VPs.

Remove from all modes.

As far as FRP not being free, 300 mp is really dirt cheap considering the benefit of map presence. You may be down 1 squad for the cost, but the opponent is down 3 because they have to be retreating/healing/returning at any given time.

Not to mention all the units you save due to having a permanent "get out of trouble free" button.

Also, medics.

Ok, I did a small test based on my yesterday's game on Gelsenkirchen.

Time needed to retreat from left/middle/right VP to base and going back (without any reinforce) for us and for them:

(XXs - time to get to base / XXs - whole time to return to the point where I was retreating)
Times for me.
Middle VP - 32s/1:21s
Left VP - 43s/1:52s
Right VP - 35s/1:32s.

Times for enemies.
Middle VP - 15s/39s.
Left VP - 27s/1:11s.
Right VP - 29s/1:13s.

Now, let's take middle VP. It's 42s of difference per retreat which during 1 hour game can turn into 5-8mins of better map presence.
No wonder we have lost by VPs.

What exactly did you prove other than that the map gives an advantage to one side? If you were playing as Wehrmacht or Soviets you would be stuck with that situation regardless.

What exactly did you prove other than that the map gives an advantage to one side? If you were playing as Wehrmacht or Soviets you would be stuck with that situation regardless.

No dude, it's not the map. It's FRP. Without FRP times are similar.
I just showed times between retrat and getting back to the same point for both side but when one side has FRP.

And these times explain why we have lost by VPs.

2. it works because i have done it. ive seen replays that had people in them doing it. use your mouse and troll through the net yourself.

I'll take that as "no I won't prove it go prove it yourself"

3. i dont know how to reply to it because the logic is not compatible with mine.

You should focus on thinking over replies rather than trying to find a rebuttal.

Another thing to consider:

Without choosing doctrines, OKW, USF and UKF do not have halftracks. FRPs are a form of immobile sources of reinforcement. Are we to suggest that OKW also get 251 halftracks, and USF/ UKF swap their doctrinal halftracks with another core unit? All to make the game much more symmetrical?

There is also the tactical disadvantages to having FRPs in the first place. If you set up an FRP in the middle of, say, Red Ball Express, you need to send men in all directions from the FRP source if the enemy took over sectors near your base. OKW can branch out from their FRP source yes, that's kind of the point, but lack of emplacements outside of doctrinal choices means they need to move units around to take back points, or send men to reinforce a position.

End of the day, there are plenty of disadvantages to utilizing forward retreat points. Arguing entirely on the side of time needed for running from base vs FRP, and trying to advocate FRP's removel from only that perspective is, to say the least, idiotic.

No dude, it's not the map. It's FRP. Without FRP times are similar.
I just showed times between retreat and getting back to the same point for both side but when one side has FRP.

The factions that have no FRP- Ostheer and Soviets- have something called Halfracks. Not only are they mobile sources of reinforcement, and also means to transport troops, but can reasonably hold their own and support nearby squads.

So really, time it takes to walk back and forth from base versus a faction that has FRP is unfair, as non-FRP factions has methods to move faster, and not just from base after a retreat, too.

1. I'll take that as "no I won't prove it go prove it yourself"

2. You should focus on thinking over replies rather than trying to find a rebuttal.

Another thing to consider:

Without choosing doctrines, OKW, USF and UKF do not have halftracks. FRPs are a form of immobile sources of reinforcement. Are we to suggest that OKW also get 251 halftracks, and USF/ UKF swap their doctrinal halftracks with another core unit? All to make the game much more symmetrical?

There is also the tactical disadvantages to having FRPs in the first place. If you set up an FRP in the middle of, say, Red Ball Express, you need to send men in all directions from the FRP source if the enemy took over sectors near your base. OKW can branch out from their FRP source yes, that's kind of the point, but lack of emplacements outside of doctrinal choices means they need to move units around to take back points, or send men to reinforce a position.

End of the day, there are plenty of disadvantages to utilizing forward retreat points. Arguing entirely on the side of time needed for running from base vs FRP, and trying to advocate FRP's removel from only that perspective is, to say the least, idiotic.

1. no it means go find hundreds of examples in the Replay section of this website. You can look at my playercard and most of them were 3v3+ games and you think I played my hundreds of games as USF, all of them using FRP, then you are a fool.

2. When you mass retreat as sov, you are GONE for 1 minute +. If you mass retreat with FRP, you are GONE for 20 sec. Also, the longer retreat means you might choose to stay and take casualty because time is also a resource. the fact that you only have to retreat and be back in 20 seconds mean it is logical to retreat as soon as you get suppressed etc etc.

This is as close to the FACTS as you can get without using math. if you somehow convinced yourself otherwise, Im sorry, you are not a compatible specie to mine.

and so called disadvantages you mentioned I already countered like a broken record. so I am not going to reply to that.

The factions that have no FRP- Ostheer and Soviets- have something called Halfracks. Not only are they mobile sources of reinforcement, and also means to transport troops, but can reasonably hold their own and support nearby squads.

So really, time it takes to walk back and forth from base versus a faction that has FRP is unfair, as non-FRP factions has methods to move faster, and not just from base after a retreat, too.

FRP is a way easier to use, needs no micro, does not eat pop cap. You simply do click-click.
With HT you need to micro HT behind your troops all the time and at some point you gonna lose it. Let's say, schreck blob is coming from side, so you need to switch maxim, get cons behind cover, move HT behind maxim. That's damn way more of micro, instead of click retreat a go back in few seconds and at some point so won't be able to control efficiency crew weapons, at guns, cons, tanks and ht.

Still if I retreat blob, how many HTs I need to get back to the same point? How much more micro I need when compare to 5 volks blob mass retreating and mass coming back in next XX seconds?

Plus, if I get under suppression it's over. HT won't help me.