Is FRP beneficial to GAMEPLAY?

Why do others believe USF needs to blob to remain effective and must blob more if FRP is removed? Bloody hell USF actually is one of the better factions to soft retreat with Captain On Me! back into ambulance heal. USF can remain effective on the field without FRP as I mostly don't need or require it in 1s or 2s. I mean USF does have two half tracks albeit limited to doctrines but USF doesn't require FRP and I would gladly give away FRP if it meant OKW and Brits had their's removed. FRP have no place in CoH2 as it's just a crutch for bad positioning and lessens the impact of punishing a blob.

Why do others believe USF needs to blob to remain effective and must blob more if FRP is removed? Bloody hell USF actually is one of the better factions to soft retreat with Captain On Me! back into ambulance heal. USF can remain effective on the field without FRP as I mostly don't need or require it in 1s or 2s. I mean USF does have two half tracks albeit limited to doctrines but USF doesn't require FRP and I would gladly give away FRP if it meant OKW and Brits had their's removed. FRP have no place in CoH2 as it's just a crutch for bad positioning and lessens the impact of punishing a blob.

yh cuz usf have an ambulance right from the get go to reinforce and heal on the field, what do OKW have? the reason i say this because mr smith is assuming building the battle HQ outside of the base without FRP is a viable tactic which is not, without being able to retreat to the battlegroup hq, you wont be able to defend it properly, unless you babysit your whole army next to it

Why do others believe USF needs to blob to remain effective and must blob more if FRP is removed? Bloody hell USF actually is one of the better factions to soft retreat with Captain On Me! back into ambulance heal. USF can remain effective on the field without FRP as I mostly don't need or require it in 1s or 2s. I mean USF does have two half tracks albeit limited to doctrines but USF doesn't require FRP and I would gladly give away FRP if it meant OKW and Brits had their's removed. FRP have no place in CoH2 as it's just a crutch for bad positioning and lessens the impact of punishing a blob.

This would be fine had these factions not been built around this mechanic in one way or another. One can argue that with enough reworking the removal of FRPs would add more tactical depth to the game without limiting it's current features, but before that can happen there needs to be much more discussion and changes made. This whole idea of removing features without major overhauls to the factions you'd be removing them from is so reckless and I guarantee you will result in far more unfavorable outcomes.

This would be fine had these factions not been built around this mechanic in one way or another. One can argue that with enough reworking the removal of FRPs would add more tactical depth to the game without limiting it's current features, but before that can happen there needs to be much more discussion and changes made. This whole idea of removing features without major overhauls to the factions you'd be removing them from is so reckless and I guarantee you will result in far more unfavorable outcomes.

While I think FRP removal is a must I do agree with the fact there will be a need to compensate the factions with other alternatives. Saying that I wouldn't agree with giving USF, Brits, and OKW a half track non doctrinal as there should be some differences, strengths, and weaknesses present.

OP needs to clarify the difference between gameplay and balance, since it is explicit stated that they aren't the same. To me they're sort of like the comparing twins; yes they're not exactly the same, but not different as in apples and concrete rebar, either.

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).

People don't forget, they are just focusing on the factions that have it, since that is the subject. As for halftracks, then that's just introducing more balance issues because you are removing a feature in one faction and replacing it.
If there's something that people always forget, it's that FRP isn't the same for all factions.

On the issue of game/ map size this is actually the biggest reason why people bitch about FRP: most of them are likely 1v1 players on some of the smallest maps ever made for this game. The nature of FRP is far different than if they played Lorsch Assault where the map size is gigantic and while you might think FRP is much better on those maps, it is also far riskier and takes longer.

If there was a way to design the factions where certain functions don't exist in some maps while others do, that may solve the problem. But that would require some pretty dedicated WFA revamps to achieve.

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.

Nice try with trying to trick people in thinking your opinion is fact.

There are numerous gameplay reasons why FRPs should go.

Are they good reasons? There's also a lot of gameplay reasons for why they should stay.

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

Yes, especially given that a bunch of nerfs and paywalls are complimentary cherries on top.

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.

That's precisely what happened when I played this mod; since T2 truck still allowed reinforcing I just stuck around there even more since retreat didn't do the job for me. It doesn't help that you can still upgrade to have medics.
If you want OKW to be aggressive faction it has to be much more like USF, not Ostheer. They would need halftracks and more weapon upgrades that are more accessible. Or more effective vehicles.
Even a basic change like swapping fuel cost for T2 and T3 truck deployment could greatly change the way OKW is played because you'd finally have incentive to try Luchs and Puma over Volksblob around FRP. No one's going to try the former when the latter cost far less fuel, and for a faction that can't even build caches.

That itself is also worth trying to change: make OKW's vehicle play far more attractive than infantry blob. The biggest reason why I blob with Volks is because I need to save fuel, and I cannot get more by building caches: I need to place an FRP on that fuel point and guard it with as many units since HQ trucks don't even secure territory. It isn't like I can choose since there is a large fuel cost disparity, you basically HAVE to blob infantry until either truck arrives.

There's also the fact that T2 has far less fuel investment compared to T3, so that means you're ever more enticed to blob regardless of OKW having FRP or not, because T2 provides reinforcement and healing, while having little fuel burden aside from being necessary tech level.

Even if Forward Retreat Points are bad gameplay decisions, a LOT of other gameplay decisions are also inherently attached to it, so the sum total is actually more negative if FRP is simply removed from all factions like it doesn't require further thought. Forward Retreat benefits the player in many more ways than merely being able to retreat somewhere else, so don't assume that things can only get better if FRP is removed.

^

the mod team are removing FRP or at least experimenting with removing them. if the only problem with FRP was balance, of course removing it does not make sense... I want to remove FRP solely due to how it muddies other basic core CoH franchise mechanics, not because of "unfair advantages" blah blah blah.

yea, i see how one can argue using balance by saying FRP gives unfair advantage thus it affects the gameplay negatively, but that is not a good argument and in terms of REMOVING FRP, that really isn't an argument at all.

-------------------------

team games, was always infected with constant head butting due to bad maps (too small in 90% of cases). The only way to do 1v1 style maneuvers of gaining better ground during lulls or on unoccupied territories primarily only happened when you won a skirmish and there was a little hole made in the front line.

Since WFA+, this occasions happen less and less due to FRP. It is constant headbutting.

-------------------------

if the only problem with FRP was balance, of course removing it does not make sense... I want to remove FRP solely due to how it muddies other basic core CoH franchise mechanics

Those basic core franchise mechanics being what? Was it a huge problem that Brits in CoH1 had it?

team games, was always infected with constant head butting due to bad maps (too small in 90% of cases). The only way to do 1v1 style maneuvers of gaining better ground during lulls or on unoccupied territories primarily only happened when you won a skirmish and there was a little hole made in the front line.

Since WFA+, this occasions happen less and less due to FRP. It is constant headbutting.

I'm not a 1v1 CoH tounrey elitist, so you will have to be gracious and define headbutting. Or for that matter, what gameplay means in contrast to balance.

Gameplay reason alone, the various manifestations of FRP makes three factions different from the other two.

It also sounds like more and more problems are being found from map design or size. Using FRP in a map like Hill 400 is way different than Lorsch Assault or General Mud, especially in a custom Annihilation match.

The most important thing people should realize, is that Forward Retreat is more than just ability to retreat elsewhere. There are loads of gameplay and balance considerations in the mix. So if there is a problem, it's that FRP is much more than just lower retreat downtime, when it should be JUST that.

That itself is also worth trying to change: make OKW's vehicle play far more attractive than infantry blob. The biggest reason why I blob with Volks is because I need to save fuel, and I cannot get more by building caches: I need to place an FRP on that fuel point and guard it with as many units since HQ trucks don't even secure territory. It isn't like I can choose since there is a large fuel cost disparity, you basically HAVE to blob infantry until either truck arrives.

This is precisely why the entire fleet of OKW vehicles now costs less fuel. There's no longer a fuel disparity. Your tanks are worth the precise amount of fuel you are paying for them; just so that you don't have to blob Volks.

Also; did you try going MedHQ and fast FlakHQ (it's 60FU after the MedHQ). The benefit of going MedHQ is that you can get your Obers event faster. Earlier Obers vet up faster, and vetted Obers can sprint back to your MedHQ to hold the territory while you push.

Alternatively, you can forego T1 (or postpone it) and go for heavy vehicle play. Then when you get your cheaper FlakHQ, you inevitably have to play a bit defensive with the JP4 (since you spent so much fuel).

The point is: Volks start as strong as before (with STGs and everything), and you can use them to hold territory or push. However if you overinvest in them, you will no longer be able to push effectively with them, and they will force you to play defensively.

Having said that, FRPs might have made sense in the initial incarnation of OKW when it was camp-until you can get your 1 tank out.

Early game, OKW has their Volks. Lategame they have their tanks and elite infantry. I don't see why they would need FRP on top of that to hold territory.

Those basic core franchise mechanics being what? Was it a huge problem that Brits in CoH1 had it?

hard retreats, soft retreats, and the time management that goes along with it. being aggressive - high reward but higher risk of general retreat vs. more careful engagements and longer field prescience.

With FRP, the these aspects just disappears and why wouldn't you constantly attack if you can be back on field immediately, when retreating does not mean lesser field presence.

I'm not a 1v1 CoH tounrey elitist, so you will have to be gracious and define headbutting. Or for that matter, what gameplay means in contrast to balance.

Gameplay reason alone, the various manifestations of FRP makes three factions different from the other two.

It also sounds like more and more problems are being found from map design or size. Using FRP in a map like Hill 400 is way different than Lorsch Assault or General Mud, especially in a custom Annihilation match.

The most important thing people should realize, is that Forward Retreat is more than just ability to retreat elsewhere. There are loads of gameplay and balance considerations in the mix. So if there is a problem, it's that FRP is much more than just lower retreat downtime, when it should be JUST that.

i never played coh1 multiplayer.

yea, FRP make factions different. but i personally am not arguing "Eastern Front Armies don't have retreat points so its not fair". no one should have it. and FRP is the main draw for other people towards WFA+ armies, well so be it. I think there more than enough difference to merit playing WFA+ armies even without their FRPs. Seeing some people using terms "homogenisation" to argue against this is really just a witch hunt - 3 armies all have FRPs but they are vastly vastly different in other aspects.

If we can fix the maps that be great. If we can fix the maps so that FRP is used like in 1v1s, I probably go for that solution. But we can't fix maps that drastically. The whole underlying principle of same number of resource points and values for 1v1 maps to 4v4 maps does not make sense. it will not change. the idea of having half the size of 1v1 map for each player on either side to fight on in 4v4 maps is ludicrous. But we can't even half-ishly fix that even if we get a greenlight to attempt to fix the maps.

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.

true i think we should leave this part of the game mechanic alone, i never had a problem with it, i always punish someone who overextended there frp, sometimes ive been punished, thats my fault tho. i think since usa have no real arty for anti inf or blob killers thats why they were given frp to constantly use there infantry for killing other infantry it really makes sense. and a stuka will obliterate med truck major and everything else in one shot if found... i really think we should leave this alone.i feel like german bunker should get a frp if t4 is bought and m5 should get a frp if t4 is bought to even it out in some way, or maybe certain commanders like FHQ or something, dunno why frp is being taken away all of a sudden, its really good content being removed from game

With FRP, the these aspects just disappears and why wouldn't you constantly attack if you can be back on field immediately, when retreating does not mean lesser field presence.

There's this thing called MP bleed.

Seeing some people using terms "homogenisation" to argue against this is really just a witch hunt - 3 armies all have FRPs but they are vastly vastly different in other aspects.

Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black.

FRP are not skillful, and negate a core aspect of COH2 design. Before western front armies they did not exist, and this created important costs for losing early engagements. Factions also access their FRP at different times and these cause ugly consequences.

Team games suffer most, but I don't like to see 1v1 games where an OKW FHQ allows one player to ignore suppression in an uninspiring way.

Forward retreat is one of the biggest reasons WFA are blobby shit show noob factions. When you have to run a long distance after a retreat, you spread out. Walking in to an MG with 4+ units is not a huge deal when you can retreat and return from another angle in 20 seconds.

People don't forget, they are just focusing on the factions that have it, since that is the subject. As for halftracks, then that's just introducing more balance issues because you are removing a feature in one faction and replacing it.
If there's something that people always forget, it's that FRP isn't the same for all factions.

My point was that on maps like, for example, Lorch Assault as you stated later, ostheer and soviets do have to retreat all the way back to their base just the same as okw, brits, or usf without an frp, so the argument that they are necessary or near necessary doesn't hold as much ground in light of that. I believe that I was addressing that issue with the post you quoted. As for the halftracks, I was kinda just throwing that out as an idea and something that probably should be looked into if FRPs are removed, because it would be the reactionary change to counterbalance removing FRPs.

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:

This is a valid assessment of the situation, but it makes more sense to look at it from the other side of the coin.

- FRP and MGs? NO way; too much turtling

This is true, which is why it sort of works having the gimmicky MG34 OKW has now. Anything better should be doctrine, which it is (i.e. bunkers).

- FRP and Volks? They have passive healing and sandbags. Those guys also have salvage to deny team-weapons they can't cap

Volks have no need for a silly out of combat healing mechanic when the faction was designed with a quick FRP in mind. OKW are good at constantly applying pressure, that would seem to me why they have inherent weaknesses to support weapons (like no smoke). It makes more sense to remove the stuff that makes no sense then to remove the mechanic the team was based on.

We already made that mistake once when we ditched the trade system and for no reason at all didn't give caches. The salvage made more sense when trading was a mechanic because you had to make strategic decisions about what to salvage for needed resources and what to take for yourself since you lacked good PAK/mortar/MG. The same reason why advance salvage is now totally out of place.

Perfect example of why removing game mechanics instead of fixing them makes no sense, and we want to just do it again?

- FRP and Pfussies/Obers? No way, they have passive sprint for that; just reduce reinforce time for Obers (which we did)

Panzer Funz don't seem balanced right now (ex pop cap). Once again, they are an out of place relic from how OKW used to be when you had to use Volk as AT/cannon fodder. Obers are out place too because they were the dedicated AI, now Volk have STG and do it instead cheaper and subjectively faster.

Instead of addressing balance as best as possible, we have created all these problems you are trying to fix by changing game mechanics, messing with more mechanics is just repeating issues.

I understand the frustration of dealing with bad design though, so props on effort.

Regarding the poll: Well, in 1v1 FRP seem to be mostly irrelevant. I haven't checked for USF and UKF, but for OKW the FRP was researched once in 55 GCS games. True though, the map pool is limited and there are some maps in automatch where a FRP would be more prevalent.

For teamgames:

I think one thing we tend to forget here is that a lot of players are of the more casual kind, probably don't read the forums here and also don't keep up with patches and mods. My guess is that for several of them the FRP is a QoL thing, not having to walk back to where the action is; and removing FRPs carries the danger of getting them to leave because without they would perceive playing as awkward. Just saying.

Personally, I'm torn. I do see aspects in which gameplay would be improved (in terms of suppression vs. soft and hard retreats). However, on the other hand there are a lot of aspects of gameplay where FRPs actually help:

• They do offer another basic risk/cost/benefit decision that the player has to do, so the game becomes more strategical.
  
  • Putting it further forward helps but also makes it more vulnerable.
    
  • Also, putting it center forward might mean that the positions can be flanked more easily and territory can be cut off at weakly defended points near the base (this obviously depends on the map).
    
  • Another question is WHEN to buy it, so it becomes to some extend the question of less field presence now for more field presence in the future.
    
  
  
• It helps infantry to stay more relevant later on when fast vehicles are an alternative that can move around with relative ease.
  
  
• They make up for nice, static targets near the frontline.
  
  • The obvious issue with static howitzers is that they are static. That's problematic due to offmaps, but also because they don't work well when the frontlines are shifting much on larger maps. FRPs provide nice targets so you can hope to get some milage out of your howie.
    
  • Forcing retreats is twice the fun when you can follow up with a well time barrage on the FRP. If the blob retreats back to base it will be nearly impossible to reach it with on-map artillery pieces.
    
  
  
• Many people will view walking back to the frontline with your infantry units as a chore.
  

So, overall I'm probably more in the "rework instead of remove" camp (and, for the record, whenever I play my low level 4v4s, I do so on the EFA factions). Timing, price, requirements, squishiness are all things that can be adjusted.

Btw, I don't get the "name a squad that requires FRP to work". Isn't this like "name a squad that requires Howitzers to work"?

My point was that on maps like, for example, Lorch Assault as you stated later, ostheer and soviets do have to retreat all the way back to their base just the same as okw, brits, or usf without an frp, so the argument that they are necessary or near necessary doesn't hold as much ground in light of that. I believe that I was addressing that issue with the post you quoted. As for the halftracks, I was kinda just throwing that out as an idea and something that probably should be looked into if FRPs are removed, because it would be the reactionary change to counterbalance removing FRPs.

No, your point was that EFA doesn't have it and they work fine because they are working as designed, and that somehow if this was applied to WFA factions it would result in the same thing.
My point was that it doesn't and won't for obvious design reasons.

As for large maps like Lorsch Assault I'd want EFA factions to also have FRPs for the same reasons I want WFA factions to keep them; they are useful and strategic for large maps. If you remove them then it will mean the larger game player base won't have as much fun because part of gameplay is establishing a forward position while denying the opponent their own. No FRPs mean the game is dragged that much longer to the same extent of EFA factions, which I have never liked.

If OKW is going to not have FRPs anymore then they need halftracks and bunkers to make up for the lack of defensive power; USF already has these options by default. Like I said, the factions have them differently.

hard retreats, soft retreats, and the time management that goes along with it. being aggressive - high reward but higher risk of general retreat vs. more careful engagements and longer field prescience.

With FRP, the these aspects just disappears and why wouldn't you constantly attack if you can be back on field immediately, when retreating does not mean lesser field presence.

I don't agree one bit. FRP is an investment on its own, and until you can hard retreat to FRP (because that's what it is, clicking the retreat button) you won't benefit from it. FRP is far from free. Plenty of matches I've had it where failing to properly secure position either by taking territory or keeping the enemy away means OKW can't place T2 and thus researching to FRP is greatly delayed and thus greatly limiting not only blobbing but general tech and accessibility options. Successful FRP establishment is a result of one or both things: you successfully push and hold, or the enemy fails to.

Seeing some people using terms "homogenisation" to argue against this is really just a witch hunt - 3 armies all have FRPs but they are vastly vastly different in other aspects.

Well at least you're trying to avoid criticism by putting connotations of a witch hunt, rather than outright lie and say it is a false argument.

And since I already asked and was ignored Ill just have to assume you are not interested in clarifying the terms of headbutting and gameplay and more interesting in lobbying.

dOPEnEWhAIRCUT is also correct on MP bleed; the faster and more often you retreat a blob the more MP you are expending. The more often you retreat the less time your squads are out fighting; the ONLY time they are doing both at once is the absolute worst situation of your FRP position being attacked. Even on custom matches with 2x income mods, MP drain goes really fast and you can be left with no manpower for bringing up vehicles because you are overinvesting into preserving your squads. That's a predictable and justified drawback of relying on FRPs....it is also much more punishing on larger maps because the alternative of retreating back to base gives up even more time, and exposes your FRP position to attack without squads there to protect it. For OKW, the situation is ten times worse if no FRP exists....but of course I can only assume players that want it remove expect OKW trucks to always be in base.

So as to the argument that "OKW used to be like that, but they're not anymore so change them" (which BTW is just a fancy way of saying yes I want homogenized factions) then they also have to concede that OKW's HQ trucks should just be base structures and homogenize the faction even further. With the EFA mod, the T4 gun is also locked behind 120 munitions for the purpose of removing its relevance.

On the topic of making FRPs a "harder" investment I also thought of FRP being a toggle just like OKW's original resource transfer; basically, toggling FRP means you sacrifice income for the benefit, and also has a cooldown so you cannot immediately switch it on and off for convenience. Thus whenever anyone uses FRP, they need to be mindful of when to use i at its best economic and tactical time. This introduces an economic and micromanagement incentive to not have it de-toggled as often as possible; if you forget it you're crippling your economy, and if you retreat and forget to turn it on, or the cooldown is not active, you don't even benefit from it.
Ideally the result is that those that play smaller maps or otherwise have no use for the FRP option wil never burdened by it, whereas the player that chooses a strategy that relies on FRP's constant use will find it very difficult to win the game due to the equivalent of fielding a tank that can neither fire nor protect itself. The income penalty can thus be adjusted according to faction. On larger maps this reduces the time between engagements because of much shorter distance to travel, but also means less resources to invest in defending or attacking portions of the map.
This makes the FRP situation much more like UKF's, where cost for units and emplacements is high and FRP's manpower cost requires sacrificing an emplacement or a squad, and thus trying to put it off and finding yourself needing to retreat means your investment in field presence is greatly compromised.
I think this is worth trying in a mod, one simply has it where toggling FRP induces an income penalty like resource transfer (or Ostheer's Tiger Ace).

Show Spoiler

+1 Fully agreed.

dOPEnEWhAIRCUT is also correct on MP bleed; the faster and more often you retreat a blob the more MP you are expending. The more often you retreat the less time your squads are out fighting; the ONLY time they are doing both at once is the absolute worst situation of your FRP position being attacked. Even on custom matches with 2x income mods, MP drain goes really fast and you can be left with no manpower for bringing up vehicles because you are overinvesting into preserving your squads. That's a predictable and justified drawback of relying on FRPs....it is also much more punishing on larger maps because the alternative of retreating back to base gives up even more time, and exposes your FRP position to attack without squads there to protect it. For OKW, the situation is ten times worse if no FRP exists....but of course I can only assume players that want it remove expect OKW trucks to always be in base.

Retreating often and fighting with healed and fully reinforced troops makes you bleed more MP? Really?
It is completely other way around! You can keep the same ground while bleeding less, or take more ground while investing the same!

FRP position attacked => you fight with full force (keep reinforcing), while incoming damage become less and less as enemy model count thins out. The more enemy stays in fight with your reinforcing troops the more this trade favors you.

What does "overinvesting into preserving your squads" term even means? How often you don't reinfoce/heal to full when you are near reinforcement/healing source? And if you have enough infantry to keep opponent at bay then don't build more squads, right?

What you wanted to say is probably "how effectively you trade your investments with enemy". If that is so, then FRP only helps it as you don't have to choose between retreating 4-man Cons to reinforce, or keep them at the frontline. It costs you less time to reinforce, heal and come back.

The only drawback of FRP is investment into obtaining itself.
I'm sorry if I sound like an asshole, but reading how "healing and reinforcing often is bad" is just laughable.

EDIT: This all is BALANCE talk. OP wanted to talk about gameplay aspects of FRPs. Let's assume you and your opponent are of the same skill level and you won't be pushed to your base sector and get your FRP destroyed somewhere halfway to your base.

There's this thing called MP bleed.



Now ain't that the pot calling the kettle black.

i dont know why you are getting so testy.

i already admitted it is only my word vs yours. im not trying to talk down or anything.

i also do not understand the last sentence ( i understand the phrase).