Profile of nee

I just feel this is a historical game or at least throws a nod that way, faction mixing throws it into fiction to the extent you might as well be playing DOW, its just a pointless implementation and sort of ruins the fun WW2 feel for me, I dont even like the soviet western armies mix, but im never going to get away with that one .. maybe the player base may have been bigger with at least a tick box, my whole clan might have only been 20 players, but faction mixing lost the whole clan in a vote because we came from the game Blitzkrieg and all of them loved the history.

But it's hardly a historical game.
You can always just organize a team together and agree not to play certain factions. Most of the time random people join my lobby and ask if it's OK to play as Ostheer when it's clear the other side are Axis and we're doing Allies. If you have a problem with that then you should just say Allies please.

I doubt the player base would expand if even more constraints are added to the game. That's kind of like saying well if I beat my wife a lot more then maybe she'll like me better.

in my humble opinion you don't help the player base by removing features from the game or implementing bad ones.

And in my humble opinion, not being able to play with Allies as Axis (as was the case in CoH1) was an example of the lack of a feature and the implementation of a bad one.

There are ways to play without faction mixing, in fact I don't find it common enough in this game. Most players I come across tend to prefer being on the "same team" together.

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.

You made this thread and distinctly said it's about gameplay and not balance. It's entirely up to you to define both terms. SHould I honestly ask everyone except you what those two mean in relation to eachother?

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're spending an awful lot of time talking about how people should know the answer, rather than providing the answer. This all sounds like ultimately you don't even know the distinctions between the two in the first place. If that's the case, you should just say it.

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.

I know why now: you expect people to know the answer to a question you know nothing about.
Let's try it simply now: do you know the difference between the two terms?
If yes why aren't you saying it? Are you not then purposing ducking the question?
If not, then why aren't you just saying that either? Perhaps now you understand why I might think you're avoiding it throughout the thread.

It is pretty strongly implied headbutting means the other part of CoH, fighting....

Soooo, is that supposed to mean that you're just too proud to admit it just meant fighting in general? Sheesh that wasn't so hard on your ego, wasn't it? Gameplay meaning mechanics and power level meaning balance, is that what you wanted to mean?

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.

And like I have stated, FRP comes along with many things, and I think people are just looking at FRP as if it's the only reason why unfair advantage exists.
I can also make the exact same argument on removing suppression altogether because since COH2 is all about engagements, lulls, manoeuvres and retreats and that suppression negatively influences it. This can also be use to support keeping blizzards in winter maps.
But then again Relic just had everyone gain access to HMGs instead, so maybe as precedent giving FRP to everyone might be the better idea? Not that I agreed with MG34 being non-doctrinal.

Not that any of this back and forth matters anymore, Relic already stated that they have no intentions implementing the current rendition of the unofficial balance patch at this time.

Sigh don't be too confident on that snippet. Relic has taken up miragefla and other unofficial (are they really?) mods' ideas into live game in the past. I suspect much of the opposition to the mod ideas come from the perception of the group having undue influence on Relic and their decisions on making patches.

There wouldn't be any arguments like these at all if that weren't the case, because we'd know its just going to stay as a mod. But of course we all know what happened before: that mod became live game.

Great news.

Not great at all, we got this message last time there were significant changes taken from community mods. As far as I'm concerned this is just another CYA disclaimer.

End of the day, this is a mod that's being pitched to Relic to implement into live game
There's a very good reason why there is complaining: because we know they've got that influence on Relic and we've seen how that has turned out, just play the live game.

If they have no mention of ever pitching this to Relic, no one would ever be complaining because we all know that those that don't want it won't play it, and those that want it can just subscribe.

The only problem is that it just makes you play like Ostheer, which to be frank, was hardly the reason why I bought OKW faction in the first place.

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).