FRP's in Fall Balance Patch

Having played several games with the FBP I wanted to ask what people think of the changes to the FRP's. I think the intent was ok but the execution leaves something to be desired. The time limits seem rather drastic/too long. I think that applying a blanket adjustment was the wrong way to go. OKW and Brits FRP are stationary while USF Major is a manuever unit. USF forward retreat point has to be supported with either and ambulance or halftrack to function. I just personally found the times too long overall on all FRP's and with the Major it just seems to detract so much that I stopped using it for FRP.

Agreed, however I have a policy of not bitching about something if I can't suggest a solution to it.

I find canceling it should not have a timer because that makes it too risky to be useful. Increase the time to reinstate frp after it was cancelled might be better.

All this stuff about FRP and Wehrmacht players are still crying, they don't even know what a FRP is.
Maybe an FRP upgrade for the reinforcement bunker. (After tech 2 or 3 ofcourse)

I find canceling it should not have a timer because that makes it too risky to be useful. Increase the time to reinstate frp after it was cancelled might be better.

That's the whole point of the change; adding an actual risk to using FRPs. Otherwise there is no trade-off; a 200-300MP fee is simply too laughably small for what FRPs allow you to save over time.

To get the best out of FRPs in the balance patch:
- Turn them on once
- Never turn the FRP off, ever again
- Don't ever blob infantry units around your FRP (e.g., by blob retreat); they have nowhere else to go
- Don't hard-retreat to your FRP when the enemy is approaching; that's because you don't know how many there are

The only reason why you would ever want to turn off your FRP is if your FRP has been overrun by enemy and retreating to there is a suicide. This is to prevent enemies from holding your FRP hostage to let it act as a death-trap for you.

The cooldown on the FRP is purposely long enough, specifically to prevent you from toggling the retreat points. So leave them on, don't blob, and play wise to avoid the consequences ... or don't use FRPs.

That's the whole point of the change; adding an actual risk to using FRPs.

One could argue that there's already an implied risk of FRPs. For OKW and less-so UKF having your FRP compromised can be a crippling blow. USF as well, especially if the ambulance is at the front with the major. But a mobile, FRP that can retreat and cap does have a lot less risk.

Point is, FRPs actually have risk based on how the players use them. They don't necessarily have to have a risk hardwired into them.

That's the whole point of the change; adding an actual risk to using FRPs.

There's already a risk when using FRPs, you state it below:

The only reason why you would ever want to turn off your FRP is if your FRP has been overrun by enemy and retreating to there is a suicide. This is to prevent enemies from holding your FRP hostage to let it act as a death-trap for you.

This already happens in live. I actually look forward to enemy FRPs so I can force this situation and get free squad kills.

or don't use FRPs

Ah, there we go. There's the agenda.

Just because something has counterplay doesn't mean that it is risky.

It is like saying that building armor is risky because there are AT guns in the game.

Just because something has counterplay doesn't mean that it is risky.

It is like saying that building armor is risky because there are AT guns in the game.

At the same time, investing all your fuel in panzerwerfers or calliopes, etc, may not be a move you want to make if your opponent is making an army of Jacksons or pumas.

Risking counterplay is indeed risk.

Just because something has counterplay doesn't mean that it is risky.

It is like saying that building armor is risky because there are AT guns in the game.

Care to elaborate on that point? What you've said contradicts itself when stated like that.

Investing in armor when the enemy has plenty of AT options is generally a risky move, yes. Just like investing in a FRP when the enemy has plenty of indirect and suppression options. Generally when something "has counterplay" and it is out in the field in abundance then yes, it is quite risky to go with the option you know is going to be countered.

There's already a risk when using FRPs, you state it below:

There is no risk to having FRP. If your FRP is about to become target of artillery you can just cancel it in the live version. It is OPTIONAL. There are NO risks in having one, but it's also not a safe space. Units are prone to artillery and air strikes like on any other part of the map.

Speaking of artillery. The only factions to actually have a non-doctinal counter to those infantry blobs, which usually gather at the FRP, are the Axis and Soviets.

There is no risk to having FRP. If your FRP is about to become target of artillery you can just cancel it in the live version. It is OPTIONAL. There are NO risks in having one, but it's also not a safe space. Units are prone to artillery and air strikes like on any other part of the map.

Speaking of artillery. The only factions to actually have a non-doctinal counter to those infantry blobs, which usually gather at the FRP, are the Axis and Soviets.

Soooo there's no tech or resources tied to FRPs? USF doesn't have pack howie or mortars? UKF doesn't have mortar pit or bofors? Not to mention all the doctrinal options (because after all, you do get to pick one of them during the game).

Every argument against FRPs is so one dimensional. You guys need to get this fantasy scenario out of your head that once a FRP goes up the enemy loses the game.

ok, i haven't played the FBP enough to be really be expert about it but changes are SO MINIMAL my lack of plays won't even matter.

yeah, it comes 5- 10 min later, great. A game won't be lost if you make a mistake and get pushed back as allies and next minute, there will be a okw MEDHQ literally cockblocking you until tanks arrive.

OK, so this cooldown on switching on and off of the retreat points - ok, it will cause more punishment. But I don't know, out of about a thousand games where I had access to FRPs and used them, I needed to use that retreat point on and off button about two dozens to 50 times. Out of about a thousand games where god knows how many tens of minutes I skimmed off my retreat every game.

is FRP in FBP more costly? yea, but only marginally id argue. i thought active resource penalty a good mid way between keeping FRP and getting rid of the cancerous feature that neither the gameplay nor maps can handle well.

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

in terms of blanket implementation, i think its fine.

is FRP in FBP more costly? yea, but only marginally id argue. i thought active resource penalty a good mid way between keeping FRP and getting rid of the cancerous feature that neither the gameplay nor maps can handle well.

We couldn't get relic to accept the resource penalty idea. If you have any other ideas, we would love to try them out.

We couldn't get relic to accept the resource penalty idea. If you have any other ideas, we would love to try them out.

Allow FRP points to work only in sectors adjacent to base sector or around a radius from base sector.

The benefit will be there but it will less significant.

In addition allow all faction to place a retreat banner with in their base sector.

ok, i haven't played the FBP enough to be really be expert about it but changes are SO MINIMAL my lack of plays won't even matter.

yeah, it comes 5- 10 min later, great. A game won't be lost if you make a mistake and get pushed back as allies and next minute, there will be a okw MEDHQ literally cockblocking you until tanks arrive.

Yes okw can't do pressure on large map the whole time vs allies now. The 5-10 min in early is very important!

And when you have now your FRP there can be soon a Katja out as well. If you rush for it. About min 14.

Yes OKW FRP will be earlier out i know. But still better than live version

Allow FRP points to work only in sectors adjacent to base sector or around a radius from base sector.

The benefit will be there but it will less significant.

In addition allow all faction to place a retreat banner with in their base sector.

Hey, I'd love to have some benefit too when I tech to T4 with Soviets.

Care to elaborate on that point? What you've said contradicts itself when stated like that.

Ok, I'll exaggerate it more so you could understand what I mean:
don't play the game because you can lose it.

Investing in armor when the enemy has plenty of AT options is generally a risky move, yes. Just like investing in a FRP when the enemy has plenty of indirect and suppression options. Generally when something "has counterplay" and it is out in the field in abundance then yes, it is quite risky to go with the option you know is going to be countered.

If you can't push his infantry away and get to his indirect fire units while having FRP then you're doing it wrong.

Each mortar is 1 less penal or guard or whatever faction you're facing. You should be able force them off with FRP in 2 attacks max. Then you can cap everything around and repair your FRP safely.

And by indirect I mean mortars because the REAL counters to FRPs like rocket artillery come very late, when the damage is already done.

Try to build your FRP conservatively next time.

Shitty OKW players always pretend like FRP is a penalty, while it is a bonus.

There are NO risks in FRP, unless you're got so used to FRP faceroll on big maps in teamgames that you're building it in the middle of map.


P.S.: I hope they will have guts to remove FRPs compeletely just to see how folks like you will cry on the forums. Oooooh, the Sweet Tears of Unfathomable Sadeness! The game would be so much better in big modes.

Just because something has counterplay doesn't mean that it is risky.

It is like saying that building armor is risky because there are AT guns in the game.

FRP doesn't have cost efficient counterplay ( katyusha, pzerwerfer, mortars, etc ..)

It should have been removed from the game ( i wonder how someone at RELIC could even find that as a good idea ) but this very small nerf isn't going to change much.
Ever give to all faction a forward retreat point or none to everyone because that's the kind of thing you can't just justify by "assymetrical balance", at least in team games.

it promotes the use of blob and give an unfair advantage on retreat time -> so broken that nothing can fix it.

At the same time, investing all your fuel in panzerwerfers or calliopes, etc, may not be a move you want to make if your opponent is making an army of Jacksons or pumas.

Risking counterplay is indeed risk.

Buying werfer and calliope is not counterplay to jackson / puma.

Therefore this is an incorrect argument.

Buying werfer and calliope is not counterplay to jackson / puma.

Therefore this is an incorrect argument.

Well my point was exactly that they would not be the best choices, which does indeed imply that they would not be counterplay.