Is FRP beneficial to GAMEPLAY?

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.

Okw and brits both have their share of heavy hitters in the late game. They also get access to their frps long long before even a medium tank hits the field.

Okw and brits both have their share of heavy hitters in the late game. They also get access to their frps long long before even a medium tank hits the field.

I know but it doesn't solve the issue for one faction having non of it.

What about instead a FRP, we change for a FDP (Forward deployment point) ???

Like in old CoH2 alpha, units (tanks and inf) deployment will ocurr in advanced captured sectors instead the home base. Map laterals, in this case.

I'd remove FRP. I think it partly negates the suppression mechanic and blobbing is much more viable.

Plus two armies don't have it and are at a severe disadvantage.

Why is this community so intent on removing features from this game? I get the argument that playing against FRPs is at time frustrating, but usually the use of FRPs by your enemy opens up many ways for a creative and skilled player to punish. Add to this the fact that EFA armies have ways to reinforce out in the field that don't require the use of static/slow as shit (ambulance) options, and taking away FRPs from WFA significantly cripples their on field staying power.

The removal of FRPs is going to require alot of thought as well as additional reinforce-on-the-field options that aren't doctrinal to WFAs. It's not an awful idea, but it is an idea that's going to require alot more thought than some of you seem to be willing to put into it.

Why is this community so intent on removing features from this game? I get the argument that playing against FRPs is at time frustrating, but usually the use of FRPs by your enemy opens up many ways for a creative and skilled player to punish. Add to this the fact that EFA armies have ways to reinforce out in the field that don't require the use of static/slow as shit (ambulance) options, and taking away FRPs from WFA significantly cripples their on field staying power.

The removal of FRPs is going to require alot of thought as well as additional reinforce-on-the-field options that aren't doctrinal to WFAs. It's not an awful idea, but it is an idea that's going to require alot more thought than some of you seem to be willing to put into it.

Agreed, 100%.

Why is this community so intent on removing features from this game? I get the argument that playing against FRPs is at time frustrating, but usually the use of FRPs by your enemy opens up many ways for a creative and skilled player to punish. Add to this the fact that EFA armies have ways to reinforce out in the field that don't require the use of static/slow as shit (ambulance) options, and taking away FRPs from WFA significantly cripples their on field staying power.

The removal of FRPs is going to require alot of thought as well as additional reinforce-on-the-field options that aren't doctrinal to WFAs. It's not an awful idea, but it is an idea that's going to require alot more thought than some of you seem to be willing to put into it.

If all FRPs were of equal weakness, that'd be one thing. But they're not and so disproportionate to the sides. The biggest disparity is OKW and USF, where OKW, with the strongest opening units (SP & Kubel cheese), gets FRP earlier than any one else AND its the toughest to kill; whereas USF, gets the latest (Major) and weakest (ambu) FRP of the bunch.

If FRPs were all as "squishy" for the risk/reward (forward retreat point, but you gotta work at preserving it), that'd be one thing, but they're not.

I'd be more a fan of soft-retreat reinforcing, rather than the "get out of jail FRP because blob got stopped then I resend blob 5s later"

If all FRPs were of equal weakness, that'd be one thing. But they're not and so disproportionate to the sides. The biggest disparity is OKW and USF, where OKW, with the strongest opening units (SP & Kubel cheese), gets FRP earlier than any one else AND its the toughest to kill; whereas USF, gets the latest (Major) and weakest (ambu) FRP of the bunch.

If FRPs were all as "squishy" for the risk/reward (forward retreat point, but you gotta work at preserving it), that'd be one thing, but they're not.

I'd be more a fan of soft-retreat reinforcing, rather than the "get out of jail FRP because blob got stopped then I resend blob 5s later"

I agree, it'd be better to just rework the available FRPs currently available to be more or less consistent with each other, rather than flat out removing them. Perhaps the tech with Battlegroup HQ could produce units that could act like USFs major and ambulance combo instead of unlocking the abilities for the truck. You'd limit those units to only one of, they'd be easier to punish then the truck but they'd also provide the option to move around the field.

On the other hand though, I feel you'd be giving up alot of the faction flavor of OKW, a faction that kind of rides on the risk/reward of putting it's production buildings out in the field. One of my favorite things to do as allies is to find and destroy OKW trucks to limit what my enemy can build and to force them to waste resources, as well as have arty on the ready to punish the FRP.

The truck mechanic of OKW I have no problem with. The fact that IT is the FRP is the problem. It's too early and too tough for the early tier units, IMO, especially with OKW's early fuel owning units. Give a Kubel the FRP ability, or a special officer, but not the truck itself and only allow to reinforce with the FRP unit and a truck within a certain range.

Out of the 5 factions, I cannot think of a single squad that requires FRP to work (or for which adding FRP on top of their abilities doesn't make them OP).

This is especially so for OKW and Brits, which already have access to some of the best tanks in the game:
- FRP and MGs? NO way; too much turtling
- FRP and Volks? They have passive healing and sandbags. Those guys also have salvage to deny team-weapons they can't cap
- FRP and Pfussies/Obers? No way, they have passive sprint for that; just reduce reinforce time for Obers (which we did)
- FRP and Falls/JLI? No need; those guys are strong enough and have stealth
- FRP and Tommies? No need; look at Volks; 5-man upgrade is also supposed to cover for that
- FRP and Sappers? No need; same as tommies
- FRP and Commandos? They have stealth to get back to the frontlines

USF and FRP? Not really necessary; just make the Ambulance less of a chore to micro.

If you think that removing FRP homogenises factions too much, and you want us to buff counters instead, think of the number of non-doc options we would have to add USF and Brits to counter the extreme turtling inherent in FRPs. Then, think again whether adding non-doc heavy artillery to every single faction is more invasive than removing FRPs, or less invasive.

The truck mechanic of OKW I have no problem with. The fact that IT is the FRP is the problem. It's too early and too tough for the early tier units, IMO, especially with OKW's early fuel owning units. Give a Kubel the FRP ability, or a special officer, but not the truck itself and only allow to reinforce with the FRP unit and a truck within a certain range.

Maybe just make the truck a bit more susceptible to small-arms after the FRP upgrade. This will do two things: 1. make the FRP that much more punishable early game and 2. Promote actual decision making for the OKW player (Do I just soft retreat to truck for heals and reinforce, or do I unlock the FRP and make it that much easier to destroy?).

Or like I suggested previously make the BGHQ upgrades produce units that would serve the same purpose instead of unlock abilities on the truck.

Out of the 5 factions, I cannot think of a single squad that requires FRP to work (or for which adding FRP on top of their abilities doesn't make them OP).

This is especially so for OKW and Brits, which already have access to some of the best tanks in the game:
- FRP and MGs? NO way; too much turtling
- FRP and Volks? They have passive healing and sandbags. Those guys also have salvage to deny team-weapons they can't cap
- FRP and Pfussies/Obers? No way, they have passive sprint for that; just reduce reinforce time for Obers (which we did)
- FRP and Falls/JLI? No need; those guys are strong enough and have stealth
- FRP and Tommies? No need; look at Volks; 5-man upgrade is also supposed to cover for that
- FRP and Sappers? No need; same as tommies
- FRP and Commandos? They have stealth to get back to the frontlines

USF and FRP? Not really necessary; just make the Ambulance less of a chore to micro.

If you think that removing FRP homogenises factions too much, and you want us to buff counters instead, think of the number of non-doc options we would have to add USF and Brits to counter the extreme turtling inherent in FRPs. Then, think again whether adding non-doc heavy artillery to every single faction is more invasive than removing FRPs, or less invasive.

You'd need to add nondoc options to factions that already have plenty in order to counter something that is already pretty easy to counter? Why? Why is removing FRP priority over so many other glaring balance issues?

Lack of suppression platforms and smoke for OKW
Lack of lategame staying power for USF
Incredibly effective and durable emplacements for UKF on top of having the best and most durable lategame infantry.
Little incentive to tech t2 as Soviets, especially considering doctrinal options available

Wehr is practically the only faction that doesn't need to be touched, but based off your track record you'll probably find something to remove or mess with there, too.

How about moving the focus away from removing features from the game to reworking and tweaking them instead. If you wanted to make drastic changes like these to the game then just make the "balance" mod your own separate mod that didn't influence the balance direction of the game.

Lack of suppression platforms and smoke for OKW

Lack of suppression platforms? On OKW? Wtf, really?

We've already addressed the lack of smoke for OKW in the EFA revamp. Therefore, the FRP is really too much and we've removed it.

OKW is supposed to be an aggressive faction (unless for some reason you want 2 defensive Axis factions..). FRPs are artifacts of the original ultra-turtle-style OKW. Therefore, FRPs do not belong to OKW.

Little incentive to tech t2 as Soviets, especially considering doctrinal options available

We've also already addressed that in the EFA revamp

Lack of lategame staying power for USF
Incredibly effective and durable emplacements for UKF on top of having the best and most durable lategame infantry.

We haven't addressed those factions, yet. However that's roughly how we plan to address them.

How about moving the focus away from removing features from the game to reworking and tweaking them instead. If you wanted to make drastic changes like these to the game then just make the "balance" mod your own separate mod that didn't influence the balance direction of the game.

Can you point out to me a single squad that requires access to a forward retreat point?

Lack of suppression platforms? On OKW? Wtf, really?

We've already addressed the lack of smoke for OKW in the EFA revamp. Therefore, the FRP is really too much and we've removed it.

OKW is supposed to be an aggressive faction (unless for some reason you want 2 defensive Axis factions..). FRPs are artifacts of the original ultra-turtle-style OKW. Therefore, FRPs do not belong to OKW.



We've also already addressed that in the EFA revamp



We haven't addressed those factions, yet. However that's roughly how we plan to address them.



Can you point out to me a single squad that requires access to a forward retreat point?

Single Squads? No. Entire factions? Yes. Three of them.

Why?

USF: Only way currently to deal with that late-game deficiency, which in most cases just results in another vulnerability anyways (plenty of ways to punish FRP Major and Ambulance combo, even if the USF player just breaks the FRP and mass retreats to base).

OKW: The faction has always been one that plays around it's trucks. Removing the FRP from BGHQ without providing an alternative means absolutely 0 incentive of placing your trucks in the field since the ability to support your trucks is significantly crippled. Whermact 2.0, no thanks.

UKF: More or less for the same reasons listed above. While yes, emplacements are currently incredibly strong, investing in them without an FRP next to them in the lategame will be the same as throwing your manpower into the wind.

I appreciate all the effort you guys put into the balance mods but if someone is having to point out to you why straight up removal of a feature without taking the above into consideration is a bad idea then I cannot have a good outlook on the future of this game with you at the helm of balance decisions.

The fact that a terrible design choice has been bundled with the game since release doesn't mean we should stick with it forever.

Otherwise, let's go ahead and put Blizzard, Volkschrecks and Rifle flamers back in the game. Also, let's revert Brace back to 100% uptime too, herpderp.

ffs smith, you dont need to remove FRP from the game just bloody rework it.

The fact that a terrible design choice has been bundled with the game since release doesn't mean we should stick with it forever.

Otherwise, let's go ahead and put Blizzard, Volkschrecks and Rifle flamers back in the game. Also, let's revert Brace back to 100% uptime too, herpderp.

Why stop there Smith? Why not just make every faction have the same units accessible at the same tiers, and just reskin them for each faction. That sounds like a game you might want to play.

Seriously though, you shit on faction diversity so hard if you remove FRP. These factions we're essentially built on keeping their infantry in the field for different reasons. There are plenty of disadvantages already in place for banking on and camping a FRP.

You will create a balance nightmare when you remove them. It's unfortunate you've been given the keys to the balance-mobile, because you're gonna drive it straight off the fuckin bias-cliff. Wish I could say I didn't see this coming.

some ppl, including me thinks FRP impacts team games way more negatively than anything elae except forthw flawed map design philosophy which simply cannot be fixed.

i also have no idea how USF is weak late game...

ffs smith, you dont need to remove FRP from the game just bloody rework it.

Is it necessary to re-add them though? Like, is there a good gameplay reason to re-add them to the mod? There are numerous gameplay reasons why FRPs should go.

FRPs having been there since "the release of OKW" is not a good gameplay reason.

At some point, OKW didn't have a non-doctrinal MG. Now that it has a doctrinal MG. The fact that OKW has access to suppression platforms is good enough reason for them not having access to FRPs anymore.

Also, have you played EFA mod version as OKW? Do you think they still need FRPs after their rework?

Is it necessary to re-add them though? Like, is there a good gameplay reason to re-add them to the mod? There are numerous gameplay reasons why FRPs should go.

FRPs having been there since "the release of OKW" is not a good gameplay reason.

At some point, OKW didn't have a non-doctrinal MG. Now that it has a doctrinal MG. The fact that OKW has access to suppression platforms is good enough reason for them not having access to FRPs anymore.

Also, have you played EFA mod version as OKW? Do you think they still need FRPs after their rework?

I'd definitely like to give it a shot just to see how it plays out, but if I did I'd likely play as an EFA. That way I can shit on unsupported trucks and emplacements, and force the USF to blob even harder because it's the only way he'll be able to maintain field presence longer than 15 seconds with his rifleman after the beginning of any engagement.

You would re-add FRPs because, as you'll find out, you'll effectively half the useable units/features of two of the armies, while forcing the third to either blob harder or stay in his base in order to keep units alive.