The problem with FHQs/ forward retreat
13 May 2017, 02:21 AM
#21
Posts: 68
It would be lovely if FHQ could just be removed from the game. So much map control is granted by any sort of forward retreat point, and it promotes bunkering/bunker busting gameplay, instead of maneuvering and outplaying your opponent for map control.
13 May 2017, 12:43 PM
#22
Posts: 808
or just give all factions FRP?
13 May 2017, 15:20 PM
#23
Posts: 2066
I kind of like this idea, but the Halftracks seem an overnerf. Yet you still have entire armies retreating to a forward point on the map and returning in the blink of an eye whilst Soviets need a doctrine for this and Ostheer have literally no option here.
13 May 2017, 15:28 PM
#24
Posts: 2742
Are we talking FHQs or FRPs? They're very different things...
FRPs are pretty annoying for how they aren't available to all factions.
Teams should be able to designate each other's HQs are retreat points.
FHQs are a different thing, and aren't well implemented in CoH2 IMO. They worked well for CoH1, but they functioned very differently.
FHQs were just ambient buildings you spent manpower on to 'capture'. You could then produce any unit you'd build tech buildings for from it. Opponents could decap the FHQ as long as it wasn't garrisoned. The FHQs gave no aura bonuses.
FRPs are pretty annoying for how they aren't available to all factions.
Teams should be able to designate each other's HQs are retreat points.
FHQs are a different thing, and aren't well implemented in CoH2 IMO. They worked well for CoH1, but they functioned very differently.
FHQs were just ambient buildings you spent manpower on to 'capture'. You could then produce any unit you'd build tech buildings for from it. Opponents could decap the FHQ as long as it wasn't garrisoned. The FHQs gave no aura bonuses.
13 May 2017, 16:19 PM
#25
Posts: 2066
Are we talking FHQs or FRPs? They're very different things...
FRPs are pretty annoying for how they aren't available to all factions.
Teams should be able to designate each other's HQs are retreat points.
FHQs are a different thing, and aren't well implemented in CoH2 IMO. They worked well for CoH1, but they functioned very differently.
FHQs were just ambient buildings you spent manpower on to 'capture'. You could then produce any unit you'd build tech buildings for from it. Opponents could decap the FHQ as long as it wasn't garrisoned. The FHQs gave no aura bonuses.
Yeah CoH1 did so many things better...
13 May 2017, 19:00 PM
#26
Posts: 466
FHQ should have never been added into the game. makes players blob brainless. and give little to nothing breathing room for ost and soviet players to breath after defending.
well at least ost has reinforcement bunkers and med bunkers but at the end of the day what does soviets have lol ?
well at least ost has reinforcement bunkers and med bunkers but at the end of the day what does soviets have lol ?
13 May 2017, 22:35 PM
#27
Posts: 3032 | Subs: 3
I kind of like this idea, but the Halftracks seem an overnerf. Yet you still have entire armies retreating to a forward point on the map and returning in the blink of an eye whilst Soviets need a doctrine for this and Ostheer have literally no option here.
I think I can't agree more with all you guys. Not FHQs, but FRPs are the real problem.
And yeh half tracks would be too over-nerfed
2 users are browsing this thread:
2 guests
Livestreams
Offline
Ladders Top 10
-
#Steam AliasWL%Streak
- 1.831222.789+37
- 2.615222.735-2
- 3.35057.860+15
- 4.1110614.644+11
- 5.276108.719+27
- 6.306114.729+2
- 7.918405.694+2
- 8.262137.657+3
- 9.722440.621+4
- 10.1041674.607-2
Replay highlight
VS
- cblanco ★
- 보드카 중대
- VonManteuffel
- Heartless Jäger
Einhoven Country
Honor it
9
Download
1236
Board Info
833 users are online:
833 guests
0 post in the last 24h
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
5 posts in the last week
33 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49132
Welcome our newest member, tik2video
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM
Welcome our newest member, tik2video
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM