Is FRP beneficial to GAMEPLAY?

@nee

i am glad you are just as testy as the other dude.

"witch-hunt" was a bad choice of word. i was trying to argue how arguing for FRP using homogenisation is a bad argument but i did not argue well. and you go ahead and use word "lobbying" to connect me to the very negative connotation the word has. Aren't we all trying to argue for one side or another?

"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 dont know how this does not explain "headbutting" - constantly on the field, no respite, no maneuvers. i am trying to clarify what i mean. You disagree with it, that is fine but dont try to make me look like i am playing semantics game.

i basically agree with ESlayer.

i mean, you get to hard retreat more - less MP bleed.
if you put your FRP so forward that it is in range of early game arties, that is not FRP's fault for making the user bleed more. you get pushed back to FRP and the enemy throws awesome nades, or get awesome hits with moved up mortars etc, that is not the proof of FRP's weakness to indirect fire or whatever.

in vast majority of cases in 3v3+, you can put FRP just far enough that you still save ~20 seconds every retreat and just in range of rocket arties when they move up to the front line.

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).

I apologize. I get a little adversarial sometimes, especially about things I'm passionate about.

The last sentence is applicable because you're comparing the defending of keeping FRPs for the sake of avoiding homogenization to witch hunting, and I'm calling out your desire to do away with FRPs as the same thing.

While I understand the points that everyone opposing FRPs has, and while I also think at some point the removal of FRPs might be feasible, my opinion is that currently this change would be very damaging to the state of the game, both in terms of balance and gameplay (I don't understand how one is exclusive from the other, please elaborate on this). I've already listed why I think this, and I've seen that there are others with similar concerns.

Using the Unofficial Balance Patch as a platform to test changes like this is great, however with the current modders at the helm of said balance patch I am a little concerned for the overall future of this game. We've already seen plenty of feautures removed from the game for the sake of shaking up previous iterations of meta only to be met with new balance problems each time. The game is pretty far along in it's lifespan, and at this point (at least in my opinion) the focus should not be on drastic overhauls and removal of features, but on small tweaks that are meant to fine tune unit performance so that no single unit clearly overperforms outside of it's own role.

yea. it was bad choice of word for me, too.

i understand the other side's argument. I will be for removing but I understand this is gameplay mechanic so the decision really belongs to all people who have opinions on this.

and i certainly did not foresee such close poll. although it seems more would be on the same side if we made FRP have more cost/ opp cost. again, if it was only up to me, i would remove the mechanic in a heart beat but i can live with compromise or even with current FRP if we get no more patchs (:

FRP is very beneficial

to OKW

A thing i realised after reading this thread: SOFT RETREAT seems to be out of the question.

The only need for FRP is for factions which had difficulty or doesn't have the tools to recover territory once they lose map presence. That is no longer the case for OKW (more so after mod) and probably USF/OKW with some updates.

WFA + UK don't need FRP to be relevant on most 1v1 and several 2v2 maps cause the time saved between base and FRP (safe position) is almost irrelevant. You can reinforce while moving outside of base and finish while getting near the Med HQ/FA. FA are not seen as much and major can also be skipped in favour of call ins.
For 3v3+, human wave tactics works better and small/individual/flank combat are less favoured. Add to that big long maps and you have the ideal scenario for them. Which makes the whole point of why 3v3+ is even more of a blobfest after WFA + UKF were introduced.

To reinfoce my point that they are no longer need, at least the current version of FRP: (you can skip)
Show Spoiler

I prefer if there was a rework or given more handicaps to FRP instead of removing them (cause that would be harder to accept).
What i talk about is for example: cooldown, munition cost, deactivation of reinforcement while FRP is active, suppression forcing retreat back to base, etc.

A thing i realised after reading this thread: SOFT RETREAT seems to be out of the question.

The only need for FRP is for factions which had difficulty or doesn't have the tools to recover territory once they lose map presence. That is no longer the case for OKW (more so after mod) and probably USF/OKW with some updates.

For 3v3+, human wave tactics works better and small/individual/flank combat are less favoured. Add to that big long maps and you have the ideal scenario for them. Which makes the whole point of why 3v3+ is even more of a blobfest after WFA + UKF were introduced.

To reinfoce my point that they are no longer need, at least the current version of FRP: (you can skip)

I agree completely, but surely you can agree that this is down to dumb map designs more than anything? Of course on idiot maps like "The Port" with eight players and only 3-4 ways across parts of the map choke points are inevitable meaning flanks simply can't happen.

Skilled players are rewarded by flanking as per the games very design, but then the stupid map comes along and screws with all that. So why continuously go about changing the game when the maps should be clearly at fault is what I think.

If the map rotation moves more than once every two years, you get better balance, more life breathed into the game and obviously more variety in meta. Which seems like win-win for everyone.

Also you flout the OKW flame doctrine as being a solve to the issues like garrisons but it really isn't that simple. If as OKW you are picking that doctrine it is out of sheer desperation and the need to desperately clear some garrisons or something. You are essentially trading late game superiority like Command Panther/JT/Sturm Tiger for immediate gains.
It is big risk reward, where as every other team can just drop smoke of some kind and bamb. It's very effective against people who don't realise what is happening and keep trying to fight with garrisons but any skilled opponent just adapts and you lose out big. (Which I am not complaining about, but it is far from a good doctrine that really solves issues).

I agree completely, but surely you can agree that this is down to dumb map designs more than anything? Of course on idiot maps like "The Port" with eight players and only 3-4 ways across parts of the map choke points are inevitable meaning flanks simply can't happen.

Skilled players are rewarded by flanking as per the games very design, but then the stupid map comes along and screws with all that. So why continuously go about changing the game when the maps should be clearly at fault is what I think.

If the map rotation moves more than once every two years, you get better balance, more life breathed into the game and obviously more variety in meta. Which seems like win-win for everyone.

Also you flout the OKW flame doctrine as being a solve to the issues like garrisons but it really isn't that simple. If as OKW you are picking that doctrine it is out of sheer desperation and the need to desperately clear some garrisons or something. You are essentially trading late game superiority like Command Panther/JT/Sturm Tiger for immediate gains.
It is big risk reward, where as every other team can just drop smoke of some kind and bamb. It's very effective against people who don't realise what is happening and keep trying to fight with garrisons but any skilled opponent just adapts and you lose out big. (Which I am not complaining about, but it is far from a good doctrine that really solves issues).

I mentioned the OKW commander cause it was not part of the original 6 commander loadout. Same case would be with USF. One "solves" an OKW early game weakness while still providing a relative good offmap (which OKW lacks) while the other is mostly for the cheese/nostalgic goliath. USF got early flamers with Rifle company and the last 2 commanders provided solid Rocket artilley and the other one Elite infantry with a medium-heavy tank.
Since this topic is mostly brought up due to the EFA/OKW mod, it's good to mention they are also gaining smoke.

Mapwise: Relic is not gonna bother making maps. Community map makers have already told several times that it takes WAY MORE WORK to do a 4v4 which can't really be tested (cause it requires 8 people minimum) so unless you pick already released community maps and polished them properly, forget about getting new ones.

Flanking maneuvers are also discouraged due to the nature of the mode.
On 1v1, a single player has to cover 2/3 VPs, munition/fuel points and several strategic points on their own, spreading thin his resources.
When you add players into the mix, you are adding potential of 100popcap of armies which have to contest the same amount of strategic points while resource gain remains the same. There is no such thing as "harass" the back line points rather than "I bring my whole army and pushing heavily one side".

Mapwise: Relic is not gonna bother making maps. Community map makers have already told several times that it takes WAY MORE WORK to do a 4v4 which can't really be tested (cause it requires 8 people minimum) so unless you pick already released community maps and polished them properly, forget about getting new ones.

Steam Workshop disagrees. We are years deep in this game.

As in, the issue isn't that new maps need to be created, but new maps need to be in the rotation.

Also, many existing maps can be improved/altered so that they aren't so problematic.

The thing with new maps is that there aren't enough types of territory/resource points. Map design, especially on the 3v3 and 4v4 is utterly crippled because there is only one type of fuel point, munitions point, and standard resource point. Med and repair points and watchtowers are nightmares balance-wise and just avoid the problem rather than address it.

Point is, until there's more territory/resource point options (outside of using mods *coughmysigcough*) making new maps for 3v3 and 4v4 probably won't improve the situation.

Show Spoiler

Using the Unofficial Balance Patch as a platform to test changes like this is great, however with the current modders at the helm of said balance patch I am a little concerned for the overall future of this game.

There is where I feel you need a sharp slap - there would be no iteration or patch development without these mod makers.

There is where I feel you need a sharp slap - there would be no iteration or patch development without these mod makers.

Which in my opinion, would be preferable over the constant removal of features and toying with units so that they perform functions they were never meant to. Look, I appreciate all the effort that goes into it, but I feel like a product I paid for is misrepresented now, and if the game as it is now was brand new I would not purchase it. That's my opinion, however.

I believe that if you want to play a mod, find it on the workshop and play it. Relic seriously misstepped when entrusting this community with balance, especially with Mr. Smith in one of the decision making roles. The game was more attractive when all factions were unique and there was no shortage in creativity when it came to high level play. The direction balance is headed doesn't seem to promote that same kind of creativity.

Steam Workshop disagrees. We are years deep in this game.

As in, the issue isn't that new maps need to be created, but new maps need to be in the rotation.

"so unless you pick already released community maps and polished them properly, forget about getting new ones."

Words from one of our mapmakers (during the 2v2 tournament/map release)

About 4v4 maps:

Cause the time it takes to make one, test it, and have it be "meh" by 1 person is about 8 months of time.

About picking maps from the Steam Workshop.

It is unreasonable.

This is why. We have to contact the original map maker, see if they are willing to put in the testing and QoL changes that they will all need.

They are almost 100% inactive, so then we have to unpack the map ourselves and do all the work ourselves, then still give credit to them and that is IF we find any that are even 50% completed as most aren't.

And if they are completed they are almost certainty stolen campaign maps where they did next to zero work OR horrifically unbalanced OR a comp stomp map.

The game was more attractive when all factions were unique and there was no shortage in creativity when it came to high level play. The direction balance is headed doesn't seem to promote that same kind of creativity.

Can you describe that "creativity" cause i can't really remember it.

OKW: talking about resource starved OKW with Volk schreck spam or after the rework? Despite what version you talk about, they had been playing with the same commanders and units.
1v1 scavenge has been king since it's release. Then if you move on modes up you see a mix of Breakthrough and Spec ops. Some people go with Overwatch/Luft and with the recent addition of LeFH Fortifications has been back into the menu.
Right now, the whole non doctrinal units are worth and OKW is currently the strongest for 2v2+ for 95% of the playerbase.

USF: the ones who killed "creativity" was Relic introducing Pershing/CalliOP which basically overshadowed all of the other commanders. Note that since now light vehicles are balanced, this means you can't finish as easily games rushing to them which puts on evidence the flaws on the power levels. OKW been untouched by scope means it suffers the consequences on the lategame.
Heavy cavalry, Tactical support and Armor company. Depending on mode, you'll see more of one or the other. Mechanized, Rifle and Infantry are more niche, good, but still 2nd options.

I could continue with the other factions but i guess you get the point.

PD: i'll mention that outside 1v1, i've seen the most commander diversity on 2v2+ for SU since i can remember. Lendlease is a powerhouse on 1v1 but falls on 2v2+ on the lategame. Guard Motor is no longer king.

Retreating often and fighting with healed and fully reinforced troops makes you bleed more MP? Really?

Yes, really. Assuming the argument of being attacked and forced to retreat often means being less prone to preventing casualties, which cost MP to reinforce. The more careless the more casualties suffered, thus more MP needed to reinforce when incurred. I've done that plenty of times when I blob. Ten times worse when the enemy is attacking the FRP and you're stuck there holding ground while not healing and not being reinforced fast enough. A hundred times worse when it's a tank because you're probably not going to blob Sturmpioniers with panzerschrecks. Often it results in no MP left, especially when a teammate decides to camp a VP rather than help defend, or even apply pressure.

It is completely other way around! You can keep the same ground while bleeding less, or take more ground while investing the same!

You'll keep the same ground if you just sit around. But that T2 truck better be like right next to the VP and you got a lot of backup and support weapons on hand....in which case you're not blobbing or the enemy is stupid.

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.

And fighting with full force means you're not moving out of the way for that artillery incoming. Unlike the removal on barrages on HQ sectors for retreat wipes, it still exists on FRPs.

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?

It means spending too much resources into keeping squads alive because, in that presumptive scenario where blobbing is exacerbated by FRPs, you're sinking manpower into keeping that blob alive and effective, as opposed to using it for getting tanks. That occurs when you play carelessly because you know an FRP is half the distance away.
The same thing can be said about USF ambulance though since it is T0 and heals for free via aura as well.

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.

Soviets don't have FRP.

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.

If the only drawback is obtaining FRP then maybe instead of making ideas like 500MP caches for teamgames, FRP cost just increase?

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.

I have asked OP to clarify the difference; so far s/he has not.

"witch-hunt" was a bad choice of word. i was trying to argue how arguing for FRP using homogenisation is a bad argument but i did not argue well. and you go ahead and use word "lobbying" to connect me to the very negative connotation the word has. Aren't we all trying to argue for one side or another?

Yes we are. But I'm not the one that chose to play that game.

i dont know how this does not explain "headbutting" - constantly on the field, no respite, no maneuvers. i am trying to clarify what i mean. You disagree with it, that is fine but dont try to make me look like i am playing semantics game.

Then you should have just said by headbutting you mean being able to constantly be on the field due to FRP benefits.
You ARE playing a semantics game since you're (still) not clarifying what makes something a gameplay aspect as opposed to balance.

if you put your FRP so forward that it is in range of early game arties, that is not FRP's fault for making the user bleed more.

So then how is it beneficial to gameplay if the option to screw yourself over is removed? Should we then start entertaining ideas like not being able to build emplacements unless sappers are not being attacked?

in vast majority of cases in 3v3+, you can put FRP just far enough that you still save ~20 seconds every retreat and just in range of rocket arties when they move up to the front line.

If you mean map size yes, with exceptions like Hill 400.

I believe that if you want to play a mod, find it on the workshop and play it. Relic seriously misstepped when entrusting this community with balance, especially with Mr. Smith in one of the decision making roles. The game was more attractive when all factions were unique and there was no shortage in creativity when it came to high level play. The direction balance is headed doesn't seem to promote that same kind of creativity.

This is honestly the biggest problem I have with people advocating such changes: you can already use mods for it, and a popular mod being pushed for live version is pretty much the raison d'etre of this thread.

You don't see me demanding 2x income and 200 popcap just because I want it, since I can just host custom match and wait for whoever wants it as well. I don't need it to be THE default version to play the game and enjoy myself, especially since it's not something I play every single day.

Can you describe that "creativity" cause i can't really remember it.

OKW: talking about resource starved OKW with Volk schreck spam or after the rework? Despite what version you talk about, they had been playing with the same commanders and units.
1v1 scavenge has been king since it's release. Then if you move on modes up you see a mix of Breakthrough and Spec ops. Some people go with Overwatch/Luft and with the recent addition of LeFH Fortifications has been back into the menu.
Right now, the whole non doctrinal units are worth and OKW is currently the strongest for 2v2+ for 95% of the playerbase.

USF: the ones who killed "creativity" was Relic introducing Pershing/CalliOP which basically overshadowed all of the other commanders. Note that since now light vehicles are balanced, this means you can't finish as easily games rushing to them which puts on evidence the flaws on the power levels. OKW been untouched by scope means it suffers the consequences on the lategame.
Heavy cavalry, Tactical support and Armor company. Depending on mode, you'll see more of one or the other. Mechanized, Rifle and Infantry are more niche, good, but still 2nd options.

I could continue with the other factions but i guess you get the point.

PD: i'll mention that outside 1v1, i've seen the most commander diversity on 2v2+ for SU since i can remember. Lendlease is a powerhouse on 1v1 but falls on 2v2+ on the lategame. Guard Motor is no longer king.

I wrote up a pretty extensive explanation of my thought process, but auto logout fucked me and I made the mistake of not writing my reply on notepad before posting. If I have time I'll try and remember and write it all up again, but basically my gist is this: What exactly has the unofficial balance mod added to the game? USF mortar (which I believed was already confirmed by relic before they started working with Smith and Miragefla but I could be mistaking). That's it. Everything else has either been unit tweaks so that they fill different roles they were never intended to fill, or the replacing of certain features within some commanders (LeFH for Fortification doctrine). Now what features have been removed from the game? And how many more will be removed before the game is considered "balanced"? To me, and this just might be my opinion, but balance is something achieved after many small tweaks to unit stats, not the removal of features or units you find too problematic or hard to balance. How does the removal of features open up more opportunities for creativity, and how does it add to the game? Diversity in 2v2+ has never been in short supply. 1v1 meta changes with any patch that targets the previously dominant meta and this is not exclusive to the patches the unofficial balance team has put out, so this shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. However gimping entire factions by taking away the key features they launched with does limit the decision making you have to do while in game and in turn limits creative workarounds to overcome deficiencies brought about by those decisions aka Do i go for the aggressive FRP knowing my opponent has access to plenty of indirect that will eventually make short work of it?

I guess the team can make that decision for us by taking it away, though.

The fact of the matter is this: the three factions that have access to FRPs have them for a reason. You cannot (at least not without a negative consequence) remove them without EXTENSIVE overhauls to the factions that have them. At that point you might as well make a new game... or an unofficial mod

snip

You have to realise sometimes, less is more. Reducing powerlevel of certains things makes others which are neglected resurface.
Also, elaborate on the features that CURRENTLY had been removed from the game. If you are worried about the mod, then you have to realise things can drastically change on it.

What big changes were implemented:
-The current mortar basically (which then Relic released OP single player mortar instead).
-Making medium/heavy tanks no more no brainers (reduction on rear)
-Remove random wipe from mines and criticals (deflection stun)
-Suppression reduction on grenade range
-AT weapon sniping shenanigans
-Team weapon gunner prioritisation
-A useful T3476
-Differentiation between Su76 and Su85 role
-Penals (which basically brought a different cheese for a unit which had been dead for 3+ years)
-QOL and changes for USF support weapons
-Major artillery
-Scott brought back (although not in the role i would like)
-Brummbear back
-Pios sandbag
-PG finally deserved love.
Now regarding OKW, rework stop midway. So it's both hit and miss in different aspects.
-They now have non doctrinal snare, AI upgrade for Volks and non fuel suppression platform.
-The LeFH you mention is part of having moved the MG34 into the base faction. Same with Luft gaining recon.
About UKF:
-Bren no longer a dead units and quite annoying i would say for 2v2+
-Suxton big QoL (but still Suxton will remain)
OVERALL NERFS TO CHEESE.

That's for the first part. Also bugfixes. So many bugfixes. And QOL.

-Stealth exploit removed.
-No longer light vehicles/tanks deciding on their own the game.
-MOAR Penals changes. Whatever.
-Medkits (OH n OKW)
-Flak HT (after been dead for 1/2 years)
-SQUAD FORMATION AND CLUMPING
-RIP Ghost building exploits
-MOAR QOL/Bugfixes
-Overall nerf on several cheeses

Finally:
-After 4 years, :rip: maxim spam. Welcome to all the ones who didn't remember that Dhska hasn't been touched.
-YAY finally not so stupid late UKF tank game.
-Nerf to crushwell and M10 yolo roadkills.
-The party is over. pARTY cover nerf.

But Axis too stronk now. Teamgames rip due to OPKW and for majority of the playerbase. Well, when faction/units escapes scope, this is ought to happen. There's a reason SU needs some love after having 4 years of playing with cheese to remain competitive with meta (Lend lease been the last bastion).


Now, the only thing i see you mostly complaining is about FRP. I advocate a nerf rather a removal (same concept i apply to emplacements. Less non brainer and more proactive decisions).
But it seems people are mixing 2 different concepts about FRP. The power of soft retreat and having healing and reinforcement on the front is not touched.
It's been showed that on 1v1 is barely used if at all. On 2v2 is situational* mostly depending on the map and for 3v3+ onwards is a no brainer because you cut down so much downtime going from the base up to the engagement which let's you take too many stupid decisions unpunished.

Again, why you need a hard RETREAT POINT instead of MANUALLY soft retreating.

List of changes

Some of these things are no brainers and most of us would be behind them I think, as you rightly point out the most talk is about FRP.

Now, the only thing i see you mostly complaining is about FRP. I advocate a nerf rather a removal (same concept i apply to emplacements. Less non brainer and more proactive decisions).
But it seems people are mixing 2 different concepts about FRP. The power of soft retreat and having healing and reinforcement on the front is not touched.
It's been showed that on 1v1 is barely used if at all. On 2v2 is situational* mostly depending on the map and for 3v3+ onwards is a no brainer because you cut down so much downtime going from the base up to the engagement which let's you take too many stupid decisions unpunished.

So instead of removing a mechanic that arguably makes the game more fun not waiting ages for retreating units on larger game modes, why don't we give doctrinal FRP for the two factions that don't have? Since you say changing maps is impossible, which I doubt. The Sov FHQ could be balanced and have a FRP purchasable upgrade added. and Ost could have a command bunker purchasable FRP upgrade on a doctrine too. That way if the EF armies want the same benefits they don't normally get they have to make strategic risk reward decisions around the doctrine they pick as all games should be.

Again, why you need a hard RETREAT POINT instead of MANUALLY soft retreating.

Because it isn't always possible? Haven't you ever had a squad smacked by a mortar lose like 70% of its HP before? you can't risk a casual walk away when that happens. Walking into Vikars/Maxims/MG34 is a guarantee with OKW/USF especially on larger game modes, try just walking away from that.

Again, why you need a hard RETREAT POINT instead of MANUALLY soft retreating.

Unless you have sprint or, say, Oorah, you can't outpace your enemy and just take more damage and losses. And your infantry won't be able to return fire backtracking either because the infantry won't seek cover or run except to stay in formation. Retreat gives considerable bonuses. Not sure why there's question about that.

"so unless you pick already released community maps and polished them properly, forget about getting new ones."

Words from one of our mapmakers (during the 2v2 tournament/map release)

Oh yeah, I'm well aware of how all that went down. I'll admit it definitely set the precedent for the odds of future improvements to map making and the map pool being dismal at best.

Well, if it's hard then it's not worth doing, eh? I mean, seriously c'mon, it's worth the attempt. Lists have been made of competently made 3v3 and 4v4 maps before. There's no reason the community can't nominate some popular maps for rotation and/or send some messages through steam to mapmakers, inactive or not.

So instead of removing a mechanic that arguably makes the game more fun not waiting ages for retreating units on larger game modes, why don't we give doctrinal FRP for the two factions that don't have? Since you say changing maps is impossible, which I doubt. The Sov FHQ could be balanced and have a FRP purchasable upgrade added. and Ost could have a command bunker purchasable FRP upgrade on a doctrine too. That way if the EF armies want the same benefits they don't normally get they have to make strategic risk reward decisions around the doctrine they pick as all games should be.

Because it isn't always possible? Haven't you ever had a squad smacked by a mortar lose like 70% of its HP before? you can't risk a casual walk away when that happens. Walking into Vikars/Maxims/MG34 is a guarantee with OKW/USF especially on larger game modes, try just walking away from that.

But that's the whole point. Having an ez retreat point diminish the downsides of your failure assault. You didn't scout, you didn't use indirect fire/smoke, you are punished if you can't save the squad by retreating to base and relegating position on the map.

Unless you have sprint or, say, Oorah, you can't outpace your enemy and just take more damage and losses. And your infantry won't be able to return fire backtracking either because the infantry won't seek cover or run except to stay in formation. Retreat gives considerable bonuses. Not sure why there's question about that.

Foresight. Relegate position BEFORE engaging again with low health/models squads. You know like, when you are fighting with 2 squads and make the one who take more damage soft retreat so it can decap when even with 1 model?
The thing is that it's much easier to just have a single group of infantry, make a whole push and if something goes wrong, retreat, heal and repeat. This doesn't necessarily means blob, but more like human wave.

Oh yeah, I'm well aware of how all that went down. I'll admit it definitely set the precedent for the odds of future improvements to map making and the map pool being dismal at best.

Well, if it's hard then it's not worth doing, eh? I mean, seriously c'mon, it's worth the attempt. Lists have been made of competently made 3v3 and 4v4 maps before. There's no reason the community can't nominate some popular maps for rotation and/or send some messages through steam to mapmakers, inactive or not.

You said it. Everyone talks about "the community, the modders, the mapmakers, the OTHERS...", but who is willing to spend his time fixing it?
This is not directed to you, but for those wondering "why we don't get new maps"? Well, someone has to spend countless hours working for "you" to enjoy it. Relic won't bother so, unless you do it yourself or know a group of people willing to do so, then it's just useless rant.

For example: we don't have a list of good maps, maps which need rework and maps which are plain bad. Do we have any list of "good/potential" workshop maps? It's just ez to ask for things.

....

Yes we are. But I'm not the one that chose to play that game.


Then you should have just said by headbutting you mean being able to constantly be on the field due to FRP benefits.
You ARE playing a semantics game since you're (still) not clarifying what makes something a gameplay aspect as opposed to balance.

So then how is it beneficial to gameplay if the option to screw yourself over is removed? Should we then start entertaining ideas like not being able to build emplacements unless sappers are not being attacked?

...

maybe you should look at this from another direction. you are the only one who is fixated in me specifically explaining the difference between gameplay and balance. maybe its you who don't get it. This site and the official forum has 'balance' and 'gameplay' sections and NO ONE ever popped up to ask "what's the difference?" It is implied that they are in complimenting relationship to each other but they are two separate things. It is expected of every user in every gaming forum to be aware of the distinction without explanation.

You can see why I am baffled by your such insistence on this "issue". On top of this weird categorisation game you continue to pursue, in your replys, you continue to choose a tone that implies I am purposely trying to duck your question on the "issue" due to some nefarious reason.

Another weird part is your question on "headbutting" - again, not the best vocab on my part but let's look at the post where I used the word for the first time:
"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."

The first sentence is where I use the word first. The rest of the first paragraph clearly implies that I look upon maneuvering and lulls (between skirmishes) highly and I state how this rarely happened in teamgames due to small maps. And the second sentence I lament that that the team games have even less of these [maneuvers and lulls] due to FRPs, thus more "headbutting". It is pretty strongly implied headbutting means the other part of CoH, fighting....

That is not a hard to see what I mean especially when I stated in multiple forums for past years and recently what I think FRP causes WHICH I KNOW you've read.

------------------------
I will try to explain myself using analogy - kubel's current form in the live version. If I have a problem with kubel and want to change it somehow, let's say remove capping.

If I argue that we should remove capping because vehicles should not be able to cap, because somehow infantry only capping gameplay is better, then I am arguing gameplay wise... according to that argument, it does not matter whether kubel is in T0 or T4, has 4.5 armour or 0 armour.... the argument is that its ability to cap somehow infringe upon sanctity of capping games before the unit was introduced in that form.

If I argue that we should remove capping because Kubel is OP and I say, it already has 4.5 armour, fast, decent damage, T0 unit... so take away the capping ability to compensate, the argument hints that I have no problem with the very aspect of kubel capping (the ability I want to remove) but I rather have problem with the performance of kubel, thus i want to weaken it by removing the capping ability. This view is from the point of view from balance. And if I am really purely making a balance argument, I would be at least have to consider counter arguments such as 'oh just lower the armour' or 'lower the damage' etc etc, which will not be the case if I had a problem with kubel capping gameplay wise.

mechanics v. power level

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

that is all i am saying, I want to remove FRP not because it gives unfair advantages. I want to remove FRP because to me, and apparently slightly more than half of the community, CoH2 is about engagements, lull, maneuvering, thinking about cost of hard retreats, soft retreats, being aggressive, being passive - all the things i have mentioned before, which are all basically descriptions of gameplay mechanics. The mechanics that I believe gets negatively influenced due to one WFA+ gameplay mechanic, FRP.

yes, some gameplay mechanics can be so outrageous in its fundamental implementation that they cannot be separated from balance discussion... which seems to be position of many people other than me who are for removing FRP and keeping the FRP. That is why people keep suggesting higher price, make it come later, 60m distance limit whatnot....

---------------------
in conclusion

Some people are saying FRP is too strong, so they are saying nerf it like you are. or any variations of that.

I am saying FRP disrupts the very flow of vCoH2 gameplay that I think that should've stayed intact so remove the shit.

that's it, your word vs. mine, not one really having the clear higher ground, just pure subjective opinions. So please quit your weird obsession with semantics.