Login

russian armor

Forward retreat points.

4 Jun 2017, 19:02 PM
#21
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

There wasnt a single reason to give FRP to WFA and Brits.
All FRPs should be removed right away.
They support blobbing and careless playstyle.

Remove them and add some field reinforce for UKF, USF and OKW which should be quite easy.
4 Jun 2017, 19:16 PM
#22
avatar of mediev

Posts: 93


When the hell do usf ever go double mortars? And have fun trying to get your major into range of their frp. That's the oddest thing I've ever heard. Plus, everyone's missing the point; it's not a question of who has them, how to counter them whether pak howie is balanced(?), it's just that they're stupid and encourage blobbing and shitty infantry play no matter which way you swing it.


When I rarely play team games as Axis against USF, they usually make a blob, and then straight away follow it with a mortar/double mortar to clear MGs(they never use smoke of course, why would they?). They can pretty much just follow the blob, because the mortars pack up almost instantly. In 1v1s, FRP are mostly pointless, because the maps are small and having a FRP somewhere makes it vulnerable. Also, it is kinda curious that I made the same point about emplacements(that they encourage dumb behavior), and you reacted by an almanach of hypothetical counters to them, and now you berate me for it.

And like someone said here earlier. If they were removed, people would just booby-trap the map with 5 MGs and constantly force retreats. It would be even bigger cancer than it is now, especially on maps like Steppes and General Mud, which take several minutes for infantry to cross. Either give everyone a halftrack, or give everyone a FRP. Otherwise, people will keep on haggling. Team games are a blobberino-artyspam-simcity clusterfuck, and in this game, they will probably stay that way forever. If you don´t like it, go play 1v1.

I personally think that buffing MGs and nerfing received accuracy(like removing Riflemen "yellow cover in the open" bonus, but also just increasing the damage that ALL units take in the open) across the board would encourage players to stick to cover and not blob all the time.
4 Jun 2017, 23:24 PM
#23
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post4 Jun 2017, 19:16 PMmediev


When I rarely play team games as Axis against USF, they usually make a blob, and then straight away follow it with a mortar/double mortar to clear MGs(they never use smoke of course, why would they?). They can pretty much just follow the blob, because the mortars pack up almost instantly. In 1v1s, FRP are mostly pointless, because the maps are small and having a FRP somewhere makes it vulnerable. Also, it is kinda curious that I made the same point about emplacements(that they encourage dumb behavior), and you reacted by an almanach of hypothetical counters to them, and now you berate me for it.

And like someone said here earlier. If they were removed, people would just booby-trap the map with 5 MGs and constantly force retreats. It would be even bigger cancer than it is now, especially on maps like Steppes and General Mud, which take several minutes for infantry to cross. Either give everyone a halftrack, or give everyone a FRP. Otherwise, people will keep on haggling. Team games are a blobberino-artyspam-simcity clusterfuck, and in this game, they will probably stay that way forever. If you don´t like it, go play 1v1.

I personally think that buffing MGs and nerfing received accuracy(like removing Riflemen "yellow cover in the open" bonus, but also just increasing the damage that ALL units take in the open) across the board would encourage players to stick to cover and not blob all the time.

I have never seen a half competent usf player make more than one mortar. I usually don't even make one. The difference between frps and the emplacement issue (which, don't get me wrong, is still a total shitshow) is that emplacements are a joke if you know what you are doing. Frps are not. They actually work and can also give a little too much easy power to even the competent players (the kind that don't just blob everything up and throw it around). Emplacements, on the other hand, are very easily countered and making a simcity is basically shooting yourself in the foot even if they are mindless and cheesy. When I see a player on my team making emplacements, I always groan and wish they hadn't. It's like watching a teammates' army get flanked and wiped. What I never do is see a player setting up their battlegroup hq or major+ambulance and go "oh you fucking idiot why are you using frps?" (unless they put it literally right on the front lines, like in-range-of-mgs on the front lines). One works and one doesn't.

Edit: I do mostly agree with your last point though. I don't think mgs need that much buffing, and it's not just riflemen who get really great RA bonuses (they are the prime offender though), but cover really should be worth more. It feels like cover is pretty much inconsequential after the first like 15-20 minutes of a game, and flanking cover doesn't really matter. It really should change engagements more than it does now.
4 Jun 2017, 23:44 PM
#24
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2

So it's not really about balance, giving everybody FRPs whatnot, but rather looking at FRP and seeing if it promotes good fun gameplay or bad gameplay.


FHQ:
Change it from a toggle, to an active ability. 2 mins cooldown, 1 min duration ability. Now you actually have to time it and use it with some thought behind.
5 Jun 2017, 00:40 AM
#25
avatar of mediev

Posts: 93


I have never seen a half competent usf player make more than one mortar. I usually don't even make one. The difference between frps and the emplacement issue (which, don't get me wrong, is still a total shitshow) is that emplacements are a joke if you know what you are doing. Frps are not. They actually work and can also give a little too much easy power to even the competent players (the kind that don't just blob everything up and throw it around). Emplacements, on the other hand, are very easily countered and making a simcity is basically shooting yourself in the foot even if they are mindless and cheesy. When I see a player on my team making emplacements, I always groan and wish they hadn't. It's like watching a teammates' army get flanked and wiped. What I never do is see a player setting up their battlegroup hq or major+ambulance and go "oh you fucking idiot why are you using frps?" (unless they put it literally right on the front lines, like in-range-of-mgs on the front lines). One works and one doesn't.

Edit: I do mostly agree with your last point though. I don't think mgs need that much buffing, and it's not just riflemen who get really great RA bonuses (they are the prime offender though), but cover really should be worth more. It feels like cover is pretty much inconsequential after the first like 15-20 minutes of a game, and flanking cover doesn't really matter. It really should change engagements more than it does now.


Emplacements can be very strong for a good player. It is just that most players who make them are bad, so they lose just by the sheer skill differential. If you can micro the rest of your army however(which large portion of these cancer abusers are unable to do, thank God), you can just lock down a VP and fight over the others, repair your team mates tanks and so on. I would by no means call the counter for them "easy". If the offender knows what he is doing, you have to be very careful, so your counter just doesn´t blow up mysteriously.

Like I said, either give it to everyone, or give everyone a HT and be done with it. Maybe not exactly buff the MGs, but buff the suppression itself, so the suppressed squads do less damage than now. I believe that now, it lowers your DPS to 25%. That means that if you meet a 4-squad blob, which you often do, you have one full squad firing at you, regardless of suppression. But then again, the RA nerfs will help with that, too. Having more received accuracy means that you take more bullets from the MG, so more suppression, therefore you get pinned quicker.

Just NERF RECEIVED ACCURACY ACROSS THE BOARD. That is the cure to most infantry-based problems in this game for me.
5 Jun 2017, 01:08 AM
#26
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Jun 2017, 00:40 AMmediev


Emplacements can be very strong for a good player. It is just that most players who make them are bad, so they lose just by the sheer skill differential. If you can micro the rest of your army however(which large portion of these cancer abusers are unable to do, thank God), you can just lock down a VP and fight over the others, repair your team mates tanks and so on. I would by no means call the counter for them "easy". If the offender knows what he is doing, you have to be very careful, so your counter just doesn´t blow up mysteriously.

Like I said, either give it to everyone, or give everyone a HT and be done with it. Maybe not exactly buff the MGs, but buff the suppression itself, so the suppressed squads do less damage than now. I believe that now, it lowers your DPS to 25%. That means that if you meet a 4-squad blob, which you often do, you have one full squad firing at you, regardless of suppression. But then again, the RA nerfs will help with that, too. Having more received accuracy means that you take more bullets from the MG, so more suppression, therefore you get pinned quicker.

Just NERF RECEIVED ACCURACY ACROSS THE BOARD. That is the cure to most infantry-based problems in this game for me.

25% is pretty huge. I get what you are saying but even if you only have 1 squad, they can effectively fight all those troops as long as it is backed by an mg. Still a huge force multiplier. Don't forget that the squad spends a lot more time aimlessly crawling around too. Nerfing RA would make the game realllllllly frustrating for everyone though, as infantry would get randomly killed really fast in the late game and unit preservation would go out the window, and you would still have blobs, they would just kill and die a lot faster. I think that if cover improved with vet or something it'd be a better solution.

About emplacements, you are jsut simply wrong. If you attack once with your whole army, you can take them out, especially if he's off capping somewhere else, and the brit has basically lost. Or you can just whittle down the pit with indirect. Remember that if he goes emplacements, his army's going to be that much smaller than yours as well.
5 Jun 2017, 01:55 AM
#27
avatar of Nano

Posts: 212

And so continues the endless quest of these forums to make every team exactly the fucking same as the others.
5 Jun 2017, 04:39 AM
#28
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2



FHQ:
Change it from a toggle, to an active ability. 2 mins cooldown, 1 min duration ability. Now you actually have to time it and use it with some thought behind.


Why complicate if you can just remove them? ;)
5 Jun 2017, 07:02 AM
#29
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



Why complicate if you can just remove them? ;)


Can?, you'll have to redesign 2 factions to make them effective without FRP. There is a reason with USF and OKW infantry is so strong. It is because their support tools are weak and you usually can't stand on a defensive ground. Should we give everyone a HMG42 like T0? Don't you see how Soviet is struggling right now with their useless T2, they have to rely and cheese, cheese and more cheesy strats to stay on the game. Do you want the same to happen to OKW and USF?
Do you remember, USF doesn't have stock rocket arty or late game stock heavies and OKW tanks cost you an arm.

I'm not saying the game is currently balance or FRP is currently balanced but such easy statement like "hey guys, let's just remove it from the game" are plainly stupid when taking the game design and balance as a whole.
5 Jun 2017, 10:34 AM
#30
avatar of mediev

Posts: 93


25% is pretty huge. I get what you are saying but even if you only have 1 squad, they can effectively fight all those troops as long as it is backed by an mg. Still a huge force multiplier. Don't forget that the squad spends a lot more time aimlessly crawling around too. Nerfing RA would make the game realllllllly frustrating for everyone though, as infantry would get randomly killed really fast in the late game and unit preservation would go out the window, and you would still have blobs, they would just kill and die a lot faster. I think that if cover improved with vet or something it'd be a better solution.

About emplacements, you are jsut simply wrong. If you attack once with your whole army, you can take them out, especially if he's off capping somewhere else, and the brit has basically lost. Or you can just whittle down the pit with indirect. Remember that if he goes emplacements, his army's going to be that much smaller than yours as well.


Of course, my little example counted on them all getting suppressed at the same time which mostly doesn´t happen. The blob usually murders the MGs with sheer firepower before it can lock on a target, because they keep killing the gunner.

Nerfing RA would make sticking to cover an actual tactic in the late game, as opposed to simply running units around on A-move, or even without it(especially Riflemen are guilty of this). People would have to be a lot more careful with their vetted infantry, which is a good thing IMO. Laying traps and ambushes would become a lot more effective, which again, is good.

As for emplacements, I have said what I wanted. If a top 10 player(HelpingHans) says it is VERY difficult to take out once established, and you say it is easy, there is nothing more I can say. We both have used our arguments, we will simply not agree. There will be no more talk about emplacements from me, not in this thread.
5 Jun 2017, 10:47 AM
#31
avatar of Mr.Smith

Posts: 2636 | Subs: 17



FHQ:
Change it from a toggle, to an active ability. 2 mins cooldown, 1 min duration ability. Now you actually have to time it and use it with some thought behind.


Anything that narrows the window of FRPs will still promote the idea of human-wave attacks. Because, let's face it; if people blob, they're going to hit that mass retreat anyway.

It's better to just get rid of that mechanic altogether, see how the factions perform without it, and compensate with something else if needed (e.g., ambulance speed, IRHT/Stuka forward reinforcement, medics for Brits, etc).
5 Jun 2017, 14:53 PM
#32
avatar of Australian Magic

Posts: 4630 | Subs: 2

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Jun 2017, 07:02 AMEsxile


Can?, you'll have to redesign 2 factions to make them effective without FRP. There is a reason with USF and OKW infantry is so strong. It is because their support tools are weak and you usually can't stand on a defensive ground. Should we give everyone a HMG42 like T0? Don't you see how Soviet is struggling right now with their useless T2, they have to rely and cheese, cheese and more cheesy strats to stay on the game. Do you want the same to happen to OKW and USF?
Do you remember, USF doesn't have stock rocket arty or late game stock heavies and OKW tanks cost you an arm.

I'm not saying the game is currently balance or FRP is currently balanced but such easy statement like "hey guys, let's just remove it from the game" are plainly stupid when taking the game design and balance as a whole.


All you need to do is to give them mobile reinfore platform.
It's not like OKW is helpless if not going for Med truck with FRP. Same for UKF. In fact, in 1v1 you hardly see FRPs from OKW and UKF and yet somehow they stay ground, while you are trying to say that without FRPs, there is a need to redesign whole faction.

Well, there isn't
5 Jun 2017, 17:19 PM
#33
avatar of Esxile

Posts: 3602 | Subs: 1



All you need to do is to give them mobile reinfore platform.
It's not like OKW is helpless if not going for Med truck with FRP. Same for UKF. In fact, in 1v1 you hardly see FRPs from OKW and UKF and yet somehow they stay ground, while you are trying to say that without FRPs, there is a need to redesign whole faction.

Well, there isn't


This is why I'm, not talking about UKF. Mobile reinforcement truck is a solution yes but you need to implement 2 new stock units, one for the USF and one for the OKW.
5 Jun 2017, 18:23 PM
#34
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Jun 2017, 10:34 AMmediev


Of course, my little example counted on them all getting suppressed at the same time which mostly doesn´t happen. The blob usually murders the MGs with sheer firepower before it can lock on a target, because they keep killing the gunner.

Nerfing RA would make sticking to cover an actual tactic in the late game, as opposed to simply running units around on A-move, or even without it(especially Riflemen are guilty of this). People would have to be a lot more careful with their vetted infantry, which is a good thing IMO. Laying traps and ambushes would become a lot more effective, which again, is good.

As for emplacements, I have said what I wanted. If a top 10 player(HelpingHans) says it is VERY difficult to take out once established, and you say it is easy, there is nothing more I can say. We both have used our arguments, we will simply not agree. There will be no more talk about emplacements from me, not in this thread.

I thought the same thing for a long time, but then someone pointed out that even if it is cheesy, it makes sense for a blob to take out a single unsupported mg. Think about it: 4+ squads (so over 1000 manpower) probably with at least 60 muni worth of upgrades on each, vs. one 260-280 manpower mg on its own. It just doesn't make sense. It's like saying "7 a-moving su85s can kill one elefant this is a problem because elefant is supposed to counter su85, elefant UP" BTW, when squads don't all get suppressed at the same time hey usually bunch up really hard once they do, so grenades and barrages totally wreck them if they don't retreat immediately (said hitch they usually do).

I still think that nerfing RA will not fix anything for anyone, but just make tanks in lategame super op and make random infantry wipes as normal as model drops. There are other ways to stress cover in the lategame (like some of my proposals in the post you quoted).

Yeah let's just stop talking about emplacements on this thread, no reason for it.
5 Jun 2017, 18:24 PM
#35
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053

jump backJump back to quoted post5 Jun 2017, 17:19 PMEsxile


This is why I'm, not talking about UKF. Mobile reinforcement truck is a solution yes but you need to implement 2 new stock units, one for the USF and one for the OKW.

Just give usf an m3/m5 and give okw a 250 or 251 and call it a day.
5 Jun 2017, 18:26 PM
#36
avatar of LoopDloop

Posts: 3053



Anything that narrows the window of FRPs will still promote the idea of human-wave attacks. Because, let's face it; if people blob, they're going to hit that mass retreat anyway.

It's better to just get rid of that mechanic altogether, see how the factions perform without it, and compensate with something else if needed (e.g., ambulance speed, IRHT/Stuka forward reinforcement, medics for Brits, etc).

Yeah that's what I was thinking. All a blobber would have to do is hit one extra button before they retreat, and it would actually hurt players who don't blob and mass retreat, since they couldn't retreat squads one by one very well under a mechanic like this.
5 Jun 2017, 18:35 PM
#37
avatar of elchino7
Senior Moderator Badge

Posts: 8154 | Subs: 2



Why complicate if you can just remove them? ;)


Cause i don't think it's that "ez" to just remove it. In the sense that Relic would like/approve to remove a "feature".

It's better to just get rid of that mechanic altogether, see how the factions perform without it, and compensate with something else if needed (e.g., ambulance speed, IRHT/Stuka forward reinforcement, medics for Brits, etc).


If you think Relic would approve. Go ahead.

Anything that narrows the window of FRPs will still promote the idea of human-wave attacks. Because, let's face it; if people blob, they're going to hit that mass retreat anyway.


At least now you have a window of opportunity to punish it. AND they have to prepare/plan for it.
5 Jun 2017, 19:19 PM
#38
avatar of Garrett

Posts: 309 | Subs: 1

Forward Retreat points are like the repair speed differences between the factions. Just with the difference that it is the infantry that is returning back to the battle too fast, instead of the vehicles. However, infantry would be completely worthless in large team games due to the map size. But yeah, this game shouldn't discriminate against the old factions then...
5 Jun 2017, 19:20 PM
#39
avatar of SkysTheLimit

Posts: 3423 | Subs: 1

FRPs are dumb, and by far the most broken thing in the game. I cannot fathom how they have not been removed when the two most broken blobbing factions (US and OKW) are the ones using their FRP the most often.

It's been a broken feature for a while and only serves to dumb down infantry play. Completely removes the critical thinking component of deciding whether or not to retreat, and turns it into a brainless reset button.
5 Jun 2017, 21:28 PM
#40
avatar of GhostTX

Posts: 315

As it's been mentioned, I'd be curious to see if FRP were removed and only soft-retreat reinforcing were available (vCoH style playing ergo Forward HQ). Still keep the game the same way, with the USF ambu, OKW truck, Sov/Ost HT...just remove the ability for the "get out of jail" retreat card to be so close to the front.

If you do a hard retreat, that's part of the penalty for retreating, you go allll the way back to your base. Again, I think the early FRP of OKW makes them so powerful early game. They already have the strongest early game units (SP & Kubel combo), no sense it getting those back in action so quickly after a hard retreat. Give the other side a reward and time to breathe for forcing OKW back.

FRPs are dumb, and by far the most broken thing in the game. I cannot fathom how they have not been removed when the two most broken blobbing factions (US and OKW) are the ones using their FRP the most often.

It's been a broken feature for a while and only serves to dumb down infantry play. Completely removes the critical thinking component of deciding whether or not to retreat, and turns it into a brainless reset button.

USF can only do FRP at T3 (Major). That's LATE game. OKW can FRP at T1. Slight difference. USF has ambulance at T1, but that's only for soft retreat, and it's weak as hell. When USF retreats it's blob, it goes back to base. OKW retreat it's blob, and it only goes back 1 sector (or whereever the truck is planted).
1 user is browsing this thread: 1 guest

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

779 users are online: 779 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49062
Welcome our newest member, Mclatc16
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM