FHQs for USSR - should be really offencive!

Ok, point is simple:

As we all understand here, USSR suppoused to be very offencive-orientated faction. It has totally no defensive structures (like MG bunkers or emplacements or trenches...), their HMG (as we understood in early discussion (which we can restart, actually)) is absolutelty not deffensive, but offencive and a lot of such stuff.

So I don't understand 1 thing - why USSR, as offencive-only faction doesn't have FHQ? Why is it a problem? Because USSR can't be effective in offencive gameplay, when it should retreat through entire map to base and move back to frontline spedning that much time.

Just for example - OKW. They have FHQ + retreat point as TierTruck. Using that provide them ability to attack with their infantry more often and more effective as result. Volks or Sturms may attack somewhere, do some damage, fast retreat to FHQ and fast come back to line! Same works with UK and USF. Having FHQ with retreat point for those factions making them more effective in offencive game than USSR! It just ruins original balance and idea of factions assymetrical balance.

So, I suggest to make "Civil building FHQs" non-doctrinal, for lesser fuel price, without medics and stupid "buffaura", but with retreat point upgrade for additional MP or fuel cost. It also won't stand up instantly, like original FHQs, they will be able to "converse" only by engineers and (maybe) only with Tier 1 and only on captured territory. In that way we solve 2 problems instantly - we making T1 more interesting for players and giving to USSR (as for faction) better offensive abilities.

You can say, that it will be "ridiculously OP", but:

1. That kind of FHQ (building) is not repairable. So it means, that it is way easier to destroy that FHQ, than MedTruck (for example), or UK FHQ.

2. FHQs won't be able to be installed on enemy territory. Guess, it will save us from fast rush'n'push.

3. It won't heal soldiers around (may get medics from Main HQ upgrade maybe), won't buff them anymore. Just retreat and reinforce point. Free medics for OKW?

4. UKF with emplacements have FHQs it is OK. OKW with top-tanks have FHQ and it is OK. USSR without super tanks or defenses get FHQ - OPOPOP! Sounds strange, don't you think?

/thread

No.

Take away FHQ from USF, Brits and OKW.

where do all those trolls get from ? is there a secret cave where you all hide but today you are allowed to start a thread ?

That wouldn't be a bad idea if FHQs weren't horrible for gameplay.

They should be removed from other factions instead.

where do all those trolls get from ? is there a secret cave where you all hide but today you are allowed to start a thread ?

It's not trolling, just an idea. You may agree or not or (better) suggest something too.

That wouldn't be a bad idea if FHQs weren't horrible for gameplay.

They should be removed from other factions instead.

Well, that could be a solution too, but it will make game... less active maybe. But anyway, I agree - or FHQ's for USSR, as for offencive faction, or FHQ's for noone.

The Eastern Front Armies should both have forward retreat points like the Western ones, just doesn't make sense to me why they don't, as to the reason why no one should have them, yeah that maybe so in a 1v1 or 2v2 scenario but try 4v4, oh right sorry I forgot that balance shouldn't be about 4v4, BUT THE GAME MODE IS STILL IN THE GAME MEANING IT'S PART OF THE GAME AND BALANCE. Plus I don't see anybody complaining about the Brits in CoH, they could move their HQ truck anywhere on the map to become a forward retreat point in a sense while their captain had a separate retreat point ability on him as well so I don't see the problem here, it's a game feature, do you prefer retreating all the way back to your base and walking back to the front because f*** logic? Well then, go design your own game, I prefer to reinforce my units quickly and get back to the front, this ain't a parade, we're not here for the fancy walking/marching animations we're here for the fighting.

Plus I don't see anybody complaining about the Brits in CoH, they could move their HQ truck anywhere on the map to become a forward retreat point in a sense while their captain had a separate retreat point ability on him as well so I don't see the problem here, it's a game feature, do you prefer retreating all the way back to your base and walking back to the front because f*** logic? Well then, go design your own game, I prefer to reinforce my units quickly and get back to the front, this ain't a parade, we're not here for the fancy walking/marching animations we're here for the fighting.

Brits were the most hated faction in vCoH, what are you talking about? People hated the truck and emplacement features.

FRP are a shitty gameplay element because it lessens the impact of retreating, and makes blobbing much more useful. Shorter retreat path = retreats are less punished = mass retreats are barely an impact. Try soft retreating instead of hard retreating next time. If you want to reinforce in the field use a halftrack.

Brits were the most hated faction in vCoH, what are you talking about? People hated the truck and emplacement features.

FRP are a shitty gameplay element because it lessens the impact of retreating, and makes blobbing much more useful. Shorter retreat path = retreats are less punished = mass retreats are barely an impact. Try soft retreating instead of hard retreating next time. If you want to reinforce in the field use a halftrack.

+1

I like the idea that OP has, unfortunately, I think most wanna get rid of FRP all together

No.

Take away FHQ from USF, Brits and OKW.

This.

And if you're trying to stay alive in the field, that's what merge and M5 halftracks are for.

Both giving fhq to eastern factions and taking them away for others is a terrible idea.

USF's fhq is extremely important for them in team games late game. They have no field presence otherwise since their tanks kind of suck and they don't have very good defensive tools. It allows them to keep consitent rifle presence which is imperative to late game USF.

It's balanced by the fact that it's easily destroyed any axis player not actively trying to find and destroy these deserves to lose.

OKW's is also necessary for a lot of the same reasons the US one is. Although it's easily the worst balanced thanks to it's durability and how easy it is to keep defended with the schwerer. But there's no doubt the faction would be devestated if a lot of their aggressiveness was taken from them.

Brit one is the most balanced due to the amount of manpower it takes to put up especially for a manpower starved faction, and is a big choice since you are likely choosing it over having other things.

But wher and sov both have ways of naturally holding field presence. Soviets through their durable infantry and support weapons, as well as merge and some pretty tough multirole tanks. Wher has the best defensive tools, MGs, and the most cost effective tanks. Unless it was a commander choice it would be a huge all around buff to these factions that they honestly don't need in any gamemode.

The entire point of forward HQ's was to fit the playstyle of the factions.

OKW had a relatively early one because they are meant to be deployed in the field. All their trucks are designed to benefit them outside of their base. The downside to this is if they got caught constructing a truck in the open it could be really bad for them and they could lose a ton of time and resources.

The changes to OKW teching made losing trucks less punishing, except for the panzer command which is now crippling to lose. (JP4 moved to T4 means you have no real armour if you don't have it.)

Brits have a forward retreat point because they're slow and their units are expensive and relatively immobile when fighting.

America's retreat point is late game and requires two squishy units to work together. Useful and fits their field presence heavy playstyle in the late game. Same reason America can repair their own vehicles and get back in the fight quickly.


Ostheer doesn't have one because they have the tools to maintain field presence (Defensive structures like bunkers, in field reinforcement, area controlling support weapons) and Soviet don't have one because they are extremely mobile (Oorah, Sprint, fast light vehicles) and plentiful.

You'll note that forward retreat points are relatively vulnerable. The forward assembly isn't very durable and the Major is expensive to reinforce plus relatively defenseless even with weapon upgrades. The forward hearquarters is the strongest of the bunch, but it's also a functional tech structure and still pretty vulnerable. (You can even kill the medics to make it much less useful)


The forward HQ soviets do have is interesting because they can't retreat to it but it does create for a fun playstyle.


All the bitching about forward HQ's is bullshit, honestly. They're pretty easy to punish because they're super juicy targets for artillery and off maps.

I dont think FHQs require any kind of buff. Soviet FHQ cannot be decaptured, which is plain bullsh*t. Any proper player knows which buildings can be used for an FHQ... if it installed in a concrete building it takes 10 minute of bombardment to destroy that sh*t even when its empty. So no thanks... no buff for that sh*t.

I can appreciate why some people don't like forward retreat points. I think they underestimate just how vulnerable it makes large groups of infantry to indirect fire (few things fill me with more joy than finding a deployed major and ambulance), but on smaller maps they could be removed without too much hassle.

The biggest issue with removing FRPs is that when you get to the larger maps it's really frustrating to waste several minutes getting a squad back out on the field just because they encountered a single MG. A lot of those maps just have dead areas that are never contested and simply make the game boring as you sit there twiddling your fingers while troops trudge for miles through nothing.

There's about zero chance FRPs will get removed though, so I think the vanilla factions are very overdue for their own FRPs to balance things out. Ostheer early game, which is so fragile currently, could greatly benefit from command bunkers serving as FRPs.

Ok, point is simple:
bla bla

How many times do you use the M5 to reinforce on the field? this unit is better than any FRP if you are not just blobbing till getting suppressed/pinned.

Same goes with the SDFK.

But they require micro while USF/OKW/UKF one does not. And this is why we never see them and this is why we always see UKF/USF/OKW blobbing.

My point still stands, FRPs hurt 1v1 and maybe 2v2 but are essential in large map team games where the Bases are largely apart and these FRPs work well with both attackers and defenders.

Edit: how about you different "mods" for 1v1s and larger team games? They can just be separated inside the game itself.