Is FRP beneficial to GAMEPLAY?

not balance, gameplay.

I argue that it is not. We all know relic designed and balanced the game around 1v1. FRP in that sense makes sense - maybe 10 sec off the retreat, or completely change the battlefield by basically moving the base to another corner of the map, OPP cost being that you get farther away from the region you decided stay away from. The maps in 1v1 are sizeable enough to make that kind of thinking make sense. All that gets destroyed as soon as you go up ONE gamemode. Instead 10 sec, its 30, 40, 50, 60 secs... Instead of helping you to focus on a part of the map by forgoing the other, you get to focus on only part of the map you need to focus on. FRP simply does not work as intended 2v2+, i would argue, and it disrupts the hard retreat, soft retreat and back and forth mechanics of CoH2 negatively.

Why after years have people just deiced that this mechanic needs to go?

Instead of just giving it to the two teams that don't have it as a doctrine or something?

It's fun to play USF or OKW because I get to apply constant pressure, some times I want to play things slower and safer with other teams. Removing it will just make the game that bit more boring...

i personally been against this for basically since WFA. and made some threads, and many people agreed and disagreed. and discussion died down because it was obvious relic was not for removing FRP or even taking it as an issue - a symptom of ignoring team games all together.

so this idea of removing FRP did not pop out instantaneously - it is just getting more fuel now because it seems like there is a real opportunity to change team games for better and people like me think removing FRP is one of the first thing to make team games better by restoring old mechanics.

EDIT: and i really think this argument is your words vs. mine and it won't go beyond that since this is strictly gameplay issue. so the poll.

Whilest I certainly agree with op in principle there are other factors that should also be considered. I am mainly speaking about the influence of indirect fire and to a lesser degree clumping.

It annoys the hell out of me how often i send a unit to the frontline only for it to be hit by indirect fire or tank, resulting in in most units dead and majority of health gone instantly. The result is immediate retreat all the way back to base.

Soft retreat is obviously a skill and more tactical than blobbing but coh1 was a slower game and unit preservation was easier.

I am not completely against removing frp just saying it us not clear cut issue.

Sorry for any typos, using damn phone.

EDIT: and i really think this argument is your words vs. mine and it won't go beyond that since this is strictly gameplay issue. so the poll.

I'm good with trying to improve the game, I really am. But I really think that there are bigger issues that should be dealt with before we jump to changing major mechanics.

Map issues, bugs, minor balance tweaks for example. All good stuff that will really improve things.

Also, has there actually been any word from Relic on weather or not they want the FRP changed or is it all just talk from community, I legit can't even tell?

If you retreat multiple squads, you should be punished by losing field control, which is exactly what FRPs prevent. If it only allowed for one squad at a time with a cooldown, it would probably be fine since you could retreat from a bad RNG roll or keep a key squad near the front, but not outright lose a fight or yolo an MG face-first and walk it off like it was nothing,

I suspect counter-play is an important factor. For example, the USF major is super squishy. Almost any artillery will punish an overextended FRP using that squad, not to mention the need for an additionally squishy and slow ambulance.

By contrast, the OKW Med HQ can weather almost any single artillery attack. It's generally pretty unlucky if you actually lose a squad near a med HQ.

If the OKW FRP function was, say, an ability to call in their own pricey and fragile commander unit, then we might see some better counter-play. And since Ost bunkers are pretty easy to kill, being able to upgrade a command bunker to be a FRP for a reasonable cost could work. This way both Ost and OKW are separating FRP from at least one (if not both) of healing/reinforcement functions with vulnerable units/structure that add a high risk/high reward element.

Also, some of those larger maps are a freaking nightmare without FRP. They have these huge dead areas between the bases and actual strategic areas where the enemy almost never goes. If FRPs went, certain maps would need to be shortened.

Also, some of those larger maps are a freaking nightmare without FRP. They have these huge dead areas between the bases and actual strategic areas where the enemy almost never goes. If FRPs went, certain maps would need to be shortened.

People always forget that EFA has no FRP, and they do ok. If FRPs go, then all factions should probably get some halftrack or something to reinforce off of and ferry units between those stupid long spaces mentioned (not that many EFA players use halftracks to transport, but at least its an option).

If you retreat multiple squads, you should be punished by losing field control, which is exactly what FRPs prevent. If it only allowed for one squad at a time with a cooldown, it would probably be fine since you could retreat from a bad RNG roll or keep a key squad near the front, but not outright lose a fight or yolo an MG face-first and walk it off like it was nothing,

Yes. I still don't think they should even allow one squad to retreat cost-free though, especially since it would be much much more effective when utilizing elite infantry like rangers or obers or stormtroopers to some extent.

People always forget that EFA has no FRP, and they do ok.

No, that's exactly what I'm referring to. I would deliberately avoid EFA because of certain 3v3 and 4v4 maps where the down time from marching units all the way back to the front was just outright boring and frustrating. Sure, it might balance it with other factions if FRPs were removed, but this discussion is about gameplay, and I would argue that it is detrimental to fun gameplay to have huge non-contested zones between your base and the VPs. Even with FRPs though, it is probably still a map design issue and a bit out of scope of this thread.

No, that's exactly what I'm referring to. I would deliberately avoid EFA because of certain 3v3 and 4v4 maps where the down time from marching units all the way back to the front was just outright boring and frustrating.

100% agree, that's why we should look at the maps first before ditching game mechanics... I don't even just mean FRP, also mortar pits and huge tanks for example.

It goes equally for maps like Hill 400 where British mortar pits are stupid O.P. or The Port where Jagdtigers can annihilate everything.

Remove the tiny maps from larger games and either remove or change the larger maps so they aren't so painful to retreat from is my vote.

Today I played a 4v4 randoms game on hill 400 with only EFAs. It was a completely different game. It felt slower but more tactical and was very refreshing. Idk how much the lack of FRPs bless to it being a slower game but I do know it was a refreshing game to play...

FRPs are a risk and reward thing that's only beneficial to a smart user on a large map.

It hurts gameplay on smaller maps and EFAs

Remove frp pls.

Thanks.

Remove frp pls.

Thanks.

^

But give make sure all factions have non-doc smoke and recon options. Otherwise it would be pain to fight HMGs and other suppression stuff.

I can't think of any single squad that requires access to FRPs to perform; let alone an entire faction.

FRP-assisted team-weapons are a no-go too. A single FRP-assisted MG doesn't give a fuck about your flanks; just hit retreat, and setup ahead of the enemy.

Rather than getting rid of FRP's could we not make them easier to counter? So maybe Heavy arty being cheaper? I don't want to remove options or gameplay mechanics.

Ostheer and Soviets (except doctrinal) never had one and it can come by fine.

I think it is beneficial for certain 3v3 and 4v4 (and maybe some 2v2) maps. WIthout them, infantry becomes practically useless when it takes you mins to retreat, refresh and return them to combat. Ofc there is the problem of 2 factions not having them...

It affect both gameplay and balance. The affect of FRP simply needs to be toned down. That can be achieved with a number of changes like:

1) Allow them only to be upgrade in sector adjutant to base sector
2) Delay their appearance by giving them tech requirements.

not balance, gameplay.

I argue that it is not. We all know relic designed and balanced the game around 1v1. FRP in that sense makes sense - maybe 10 sec off the retreat, or completely change the battlefield by basically moving the base to another corner of the map, OPP cost being that you get farther away from the region you decided stay away from. The maps in 1v1 are sizeable enough to make that kind of thinking make sense. All that gets destroyed as soon as you go up ONE gamemode. Instead 10 sec, its 30, 40, 50, 60 secs... Instead of helping you to focus on a part of the map by forgoing the other, you get to focus on only part of the map you need to focus on. FRP simply does not work as intended 2v2+, i would argue, and it disrupts the hard retreat, soft retreat and back and forth mechanics of CoH2 negatively.

Is infantry murdering machine such as the KT or the brumbar beneficial to gameplay? Because if the answer is yes, I don't know why you could suffer a almost instant wipe squad and then have to hard retreat till the end of the map to come back.
FRP is a necessity for at least the factions not having heavy stock tank detering both infantry and tanks around.