[WF Factions][All]Forward Retreat Points

#1
2 years ago
SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
edited June 2017 in Balance Feedback

Echoing a sentiment from a thread on coh2.org, I think FRPs are the single dumbest idea Relic has had in this game. Not just in the fact that EFA doesn't have them, but in what they encourage from the WFA. Now it's certainly possible to blob without an FRP (For Mother Russia Blobs are terrifying) but universally I think everyone can agree it at least encourages it far far more.

US and OKW have been the most guilty of blobbing during their time in this game.. If the blob doesn't have to walk as far to travel the whole map, you are punished far less for not spreading your forces as you can mass-retreat and march again without having to start from the base-sector.

Given how important a component of the game the Retreat Mechanism is, FRPs are by far one of the largest balance concerns IMO. It completely devalues the act of forcing off infantry, and turns the "T" key into a brainless reset button. At the very least I think OKWs should come later than T1. Keep on the same building, just require the final tier to get it. Again, I'd rather all 5 factions have to fight without them than have them receive a nerf or be added to the EFA.

«13

Comments

  • #2
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    I too would like to see them axed, at the very least doctrinal.
  • #3
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588

    I would make the FRP doctrinal. It could even increase the value of some currently useless commander.

    The forward HQ-s could be used for reinforcement, healing, or building units, but the FRP would be available only when you choose that certain doctrine.

  • #4
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951

    Agreed, scrap them. If Relic is intent on keeping them, they can at least be doctrinal. The Brits have their Vanguard Glider already, OKW could have it added to Overwatch doctrine and USF could have it in Recon or the Mech M3 and allow Paras to retreat to beacons. Even then I'd say do it like the British Captain in vCoh where only one squad can retreat at a time with a cooldown.

    In compensation:
    -Brit FA could use some health, but I think its fine otherwise, you can still get guns and reinforce + Tommy healing is handy.
    -Have the OKW medic building start with like one medic maybe? Not enough to make skipping the upgrade worthwhile, but it'll give you some minor healing if you really need it.
    -The Major without retreat is an interesting squad. He has recon and arty, but it just makes him a couple useful abilities with popcap and a range restriction. IMO, give him 5 members like the other officers and give him some targeted buffs for allied infantry like a short sprint or a RA/Accuracy buff.

  • #5
    2 years ago
    PastulioPastulio Posts: 2,058

    You know... I agree. It's BS.
    Controll map, spread your forces and retreate to base. Not just place FRP at middle and send blob after blob.

  • #6
    2 years ago
    WunderKatzeWunderKat… Posts: 730

    Whooa. You think soft retreats and halftrack reinforcing might be a thing after that?

  • #7
    2 years ago
    LazarusLazarus Posts: 4,037

    There are several options. I personally am a fan of just gutting forward retreats altogether.

    Barring that, there are a few different approaches to take.

    Approach one: No Medics at forward HQs. This solution presents the largest problem. For OKW it's a simple matter of moving medics back to base, but it would require removing the Tommies upgrade and replacing it with something else and changing the Ambulance. It's also complicated by Volk vet and Sturm boxes. A slightly lighter version of this would be no healing in enemy/frontline territory. This means if you've pushed your enemy back to their FHQ, they can reinforce but will not heal, even if you aren't actively fighting in literally the worst possible place. This is a very minor nerf and personally I don't think it does much to address the issue.

    Approach two: WFA reinforcement price at FHQs cost significantly more. Ostfront infantry is terrible (or rather, is balanced on the sliding scale) and they can't hard retreat to a HT so I'm excluding them. The idea here would be to pay an extra premium for soldiers that reinforce on the front. This means that while you can use the FHQ as a bolstering point for your army for rapid deployment, if you continue to sit under fire in front of it you will break your bank - especially if you use your elite infantry. This will have the added bonus of making mortar wars slightly less feasible. Depending on your method of implementing this will present one or two different problems. If you attach the increased frontline reinforcement cost to the FHQ, in team games you will still be able to hard retreat to your FHQ and then walk over to your allied HT which is parked near by to reinforce at base cost. If you attach the increased cost as a stat to each unit that they pay when not in the HQ sector, this will mean Ostfront infantry will be able to stand in front of Brit/US/OKW HQs and do the majority of the fighting - though again they won't be able to hard retreat.

    Approach three: Having a FHQ active is a toggle switch has a decent (2 min?) cooldown and a MP drain for the duration of the ability + cooldown. This, like approach two, attempts to add a MP cost to FHQ blobbing so as to break your bank if you lean on it too hard, while still keeping it available. The problem with this option is it will only stop hard retreat blobs, and only if you can force them to retreat frequently.

    I'll reiterate I think FHQs should just flat out go, but these are a few alternatives that we can mix/match if Relic insists that the team can't touch FHQs.

  • #8
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited June 2017

    Pretty much ditto to everything that's been said. Like your ideas @Laz especially the increased reinforcement cost for FRP reinforcement, but yeah I'd love to see them gone altogether.

    I swear you would literally see all sorts of commanders coming out of the attic if FRPs went away. Think about the dominant commanders for US and Brits. Everyone loves those LMs and Callis. Why? Because every other game there's a horde of volks sprinting backward to a forward target, ripe for volleying.

    It's the lazy answer to blobbing, but blobbing is a lazy strategy, and if you remove FRPs, far fewer allies will be spamming the rocket arty to cope with OKW. Not that they aren't any good against OST, but those units are especially capable of busting volks blobs at battlegroups.

  • #9
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948
    edited June 2017

    I love FRP, it's one of the things that make certain factions stand out.

    Take away FRP and Major and T2 lose a lot of relevance. But of course, not all FRPs are designed the same, yet we're making a sweeping argument on them.
    What makes UKF, USF and OKW FRP the same? Nothing except the mere existence of FRP. If you can prove that this causes blobbing to be more detrimental than it should be, you haven't proven it, just said "it encourages blobbing more", which I don't believe, anyways.

    And them coming back in doctrines? lol I thought people were sick of DLC milking...>

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    I think FRPs are the single dumbest idea Relic has had in this game. Not just in the fact that EFA doesn't have them, but in what they encourage from the WFA. Now it's certainly possible to blob without an FRP (For Mother Russia Blobs are terrifying) but universally I think everyone can agree it at least encourages it far far more.

    It encourages blobbing but it also makes the destroying blobs much easier to achieve. You cannot control where and when units return to FRP so any barrage, off-map or other attacks on that position will greatly exacerbate a retreat.
    A player that relies on blobbing will have greater difficulty countering these tactics. Otherwise they're not actually blobbing, and in which case the problem is not that it makes blobbing worse at all...

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    US and OKW have been the most guilty of blobbing during their time in this game.. If the blob doesn't have to walk as far to travel the whole map, you are punished far less for not spreading your forces as you can mass-retreat and march again without having to start from the base-sector.

    Like I said, the benefits of a FRP has it's own drawbacks. Of course it'll look terrible if you ignore them all. FRP ain't free for anyone.
    Shorter travel distance also means shorter travel distance for enemy units to attack you.

    @SkysTheLimit said:

    Given how important a component of the game the Retreat Mechanism is, FRPs are by far one of the largest balance concerns IMO. It completely devalues the act of forcing off infantry, and turns the "T" key into a brainless reset button. At the very least I think OKWs should come later than T1. Keep on the same building, just require the final tier to get it. Again, I'd rather all 5 factions have to fight without them than have them receive a nerf or be added to the EFA.

    Get an HMG, Fear Propaganda Artillery, mortar, and vehicle attacking the position and it also devalues forward retreat altogether.
    OKW's FRP might come at T1 but their situation is much different than the others who actually have it easier.
    It's clear this is really just OKW rant since no thought has been made on the two Allied factions that have it, and more flexible.

  • #10
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268
    edited June 2017

    @comrade_daelin said:
    I love FRP, it's one of the things that make certain factions stand out.

    Take away FRP and Major and T2 lose a lot of relevance.

    Major provides recon, artillery (not bad anymore), and handy fake flares. The recon is really solid, its cheap (50 muni) and vet 1 doubles its coverage. Battlegroup will still provide healing, and a possible forward reinforcement point.

    Plenty of things besides FRPs make the factions standout. FRPs make western infantry dominate their eastern counterparts too much.

  • #11
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948
    edited June 2017

    That's not a problem of FRP, that's a problem of general faction design where WFA's balance focus is the other WFA more than vanilla factions.
    That's the real problem; take away FRP and they lose relevance; add it to EFA and it makes their gameplay radically different.
    This isn't some simple balance problem. It's a fundamental design flaw that goes far beyond FRP. But of course people just get frustrated that they point to one thing and act like it'll solve everything due to satisfaction.
    Another thing about Major is that he's got passive lockdown on vet3, but only when FRP is toggled.
    You remove FRP you are force to consider a LOT of non-related things that either needs to also go, or needs to be adjusted. Simply removing FRP won't work, three factions were designed around the mechanic.

  • #12
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948
    edited June 2017

    @RiCE said:
    I would make the FRP doctrinal. It could even increase the value of some currently useless commander.

    The forward HQ-s could be used for reinforcement, healing, or building units, but the FRP would be available only when you choose that certain doctrine.

    This presumes entirley on the idea that some commanders are useless; WFA factions have less commanders than vanilla factions.
    In any case assuming the problem of blobbing is so bad that FRPs make it worse, having commanders have it just pushes the problem into doctrinal choice, which is worse in so many ways such as predictable commanders and doctrinal strategy, plus of course the fact that the problem isn't solved at all.

    Aqua said:
    Agreed, scrap them. If Relic is intent on keeping them, they can at least be doctrinal. The Brits have their Vanguard Glider already, OKW could have it added to Overwatch doctrine and USF could have it in Recon or the Mech M3 and allow Paras to retreat to beacons. Even then I'd say do it like the British Captain in vCoh where only one squad can retreat at a time with a cooldown.

    In compensation:
    -Brit FA could use some health, but I think its fine otherwise, you can still get guns and reinforce + Tommy healing is handy.
    -Have the OKW medic building start with like one medic maybe? Not enough to make skipping the upgrade worthwhile, but it'll give you some minor healing if you really need it.
    -The Major without retreat is an interesting squad. He has recon and arty, but it just makes him a couple useful abilities with popcap and a range restriction. IMO, give him 5 members like the other officers and give him some targeted buffs for allied infantry like a short sprint or a RA/Accuracy buff.

    You just make Overwatch and Recon doctrines the blob doctrines....assuming FRP is the cause and exacerbation point of it all.
    Your ideas also demonstrate the problem of "take away this ability and give it that instead", it makes for much more balance considerations just to keep the former sources of FRP relevant. The fact is that FRP is the MAIN reason for using these units, and these units aren't cheap, or even come early.

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    I swear you would literally see all sorts of commanders coming out of the attic if FRPs went away. Think about the dominant commanders for US and Brits. Everyone loves those LMs and Callis. Why? Because every other game there's a horde of volks sprinting backward to a forward target, ripe for volleying.

    It's the lazy answer to blobbing, but blobbing is a lazy strategy, and if you remove FRPs, far fewer allies will be spamming the rocket arty to cope with OKW. Not that they aren't any good against OST, but those units are especially capable of busting volks blobs at battlegroups.

    You would see all sorts of commanders being used for the wrong reasons.
    You can argue the same way that LMG and Calliopes can rip that forward retreat position easier because it's also closer to the front. If its in a safe spot lie deep in enemy territory, well it's not as short a distance unless it's giant 4v4 map, is it? Then it's really a map problem. OKW can't secure a position in middle of map with HMGs and defend that truck arriving, deploying, AND upgrading to FRP, not unless you suck at game and/or the opponent is lucky or very good with micro....but then that's not a blobbing issue.

    I suspect there's a lot more to people complaining about FRPs than blobbing...or maybe a lot less. Travel time may be shortened, but blobs take time to reinforce and time to walk back. TO be a blob you need multiple squads sticking together, and even saying against vAI once they know where you blob's run to an arty strike can easily get rid of the survivors. USF doesn't have it much easier because Major+ Ambulance combo is fragile and slow to reposition.

    And of course that leas back to the fact that the problems of FRP aren't the same with every faction. No one will talk about UKF's forward assembly, which can be built multiple times. Even with emphasis on emplacements and higher infantry costs, they do have it easier thanks to durable mortar pit and bofors, but ironically will be worse affected by lack of FRP than WFA factions.

    On the subject of vanilla factions getting FRP, I once tried a mod that lets Ostheer bunker upgrade to it; a bit OP given that it was T0 access (all you needed was bunker and 60 munitions) and you can build multiple bunkers for same ability- it was also independent of other upgrades so you could also upgrade it to HQ, medic, or HMG. I would have preferred it be a fourth one so you'd be force to build more bunkers to do other roles.
    Another mod used the Artillery Officer like a Major, and it was obviously limited to certain commanders, unfortunately most commander with this unit are pretty good or otherwise popularly used, it'll make Osttrupen Doctrine even more spammable.

  • #13
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588

    @comrade_daelin said:
    This presumes entirley on the idea that some commanders are useless; WFA factions have less commanders than vanilla factions.
    In any case assuming the problem of blobbing is so bad that FRPs make it worse, having commanders have it just pushes the problem into doctrinal choice, which is worse in so many ways such as predictable commanders and doctrinal strategy, plus of course the fact that the problem isn't solved at all.

    It's not about blobbing. FRP encourage bad gameplay. You can carelessly run into MGs, and sacrifice more infantry, because you know you can hit retreat, reinforce/heal fast and get back to the frontlines fast. Yes, if you put these abilities into commander doctrines, the players have to lock themself to that certain doctrine in order to get this advantage. That is strategy. Right now FRP is a no-brainer. So i think pushing these to docrines would solve the issue, because it transforms a no-brainer ability into a tactical decision, instead of simply erasing it completely.

  • #14
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    I agree with @rice
    Atm no matter what WFA devolves into blobs, not necessarily intentionally, but its what i see. And when one team blobs the ONLY option is to counterblob or use some super wipe unit (bonus points for the calliope doctrine for containing the tools to not only bust blobs, but also make their own EXTRA strong) this is why i play with demos and ALWAYS go sturm tiger.

    For doctrinal options, it FHQ for soviet seems the ideal placment, lose its constant aura in exchange for maybe a timed ability with a retreat debuff to keep it unique or scrap the buff entirely and let it recruit cons?
    Ost could swing it as arty officer or a bunker upgrade that knocks off a less useful ability.

    Anyways my point is ALWAYS having the FRP unintentionally devolves the game and downplays strategic depth. ESPECIALLY because of wfa powerful infantry, something like constant waves of live cons wouldnt be an issue, but volks and rifles and 5 man tommies all brandishing no consideration, straight buff, auto click upgrades..... Its all a bit much
  • #15
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948
    edited June 2017

    @RiCE said:
    It's not about blobbing. FRP encourage bad gameplay. You can carelessly run into MGs, and sacrifice more infantry, because you know you can hit retreat, reinforce/heal fast and get back to the frontlines fast. Yes, if you put these abilities into commander doctrines, the players have to lock themself to that certain doctrine in order to get this advantage. That is strategy. Right now FRP is a no-brainer. So i think pushing these to docrines would solve the issue, because it transforms a no-brainer ability into a tactical decision, instead of simply erasing it completely.

    I don't agree: bad gameplay has it's own drawbacks that time to retreat doesn't affect. You don't spend less resources or do less micromanagement just because you happen to have a different point of the map designed to where infantry retreat to. Time to reinforce, manpower to reinforce remain the same; if anything your time t reinforce and resources spent on replenishing squads will be much faster thanks to carelessly fighting and retreating, in addition to the risk of losing a squad that needs to be retrained from scratch. As a proliferate user of FRP, I can say that even with mods like 2x income you can run out of manpower fast if you're not careful. You cannot blob and A-move infantry and still have resources to tech up or train new units when constantly retreating to reinforce. This is magnified in larger team games where you'll need to rely on other players to cover flanks, once the enemy gets a squad or any support weapon within rage you're in real trouble because T2 truck can't move, Major needs to retreat to avoid wipe, and for all factions a depleted squad is at risk of destruction. Bad gameplay results in bad consequences.
    If it was a no-brainer like you say it is, then it's easy to establish a FRP very close to the fight with no resistance and ease in time and tactics to fortify.
    Which is false, a,d even if not it's a no-brainer only because it's the opponent with no brain at all.

    If I push Regimental HQ truck outside of HQ sector, I have to ensure the area is under control and protect the truck travelling and deploying. It is only once it's actually finished deploying, AND finished upgrading to FRP, can I actually begin using forward retreat. In the meantime, that investment can be destroyed with a wrong placement and failure to properly protect; remember OKW has no HMGs until the first truck out is finished deploying, so requires more units than usual to lock down an area, preferably with buildings, a map design issue.
    And mind you, this applies to ALL HQ trucks, not simply T2; like all buildings in the game, they are useless until finished construction.
    If that's a no-brainer then frankly that's only because you outplayed opponent or the distance advantage is exaggerated, ie the FRP is quite far away from the fight.
    But again, this is a map issue, because on large maps like Steppes, Lorsch or Sittard, it is far more useful to establish FRP somewhere in the middle than in tiny 1v1 maps where even being adjacent to HQ sector is a large difference relative to travel time. The difference in applying the same tactics (yes it is a tactical decision, not a no-brainer like you're trying to portray) in a large or small map is very significant.

    USF however has no such issues because their FRP comes much later, but also more mobile, and also more fragile, in the form of a 3-man squad (only non-doc 3-man squad in-game aside from medics). And unlike the other factions, Major also doesn't require an upgrade before it can unlock FRP, you just need 120 fuel (which you'll need for tanks anyways so it's frankly a given), plus the lockdown passive requires risking the Major in being in midst of firefights, at a time where tanks will be around.

    UKF probably has it the best, they rely on powerful emplacements, multiple FRPs can be built, Forward Assemblies allows all nearby emplacements a buff normally locked to garrisoning, reinforcement, and weapon racks....all without FRP. They got it best since they can actually micromanage multiple paths of retreat.

    How is that bad gameplay? You run into HMGs and retreat, you lose out on resources and provide veterancy to the enemy; how does FRP diminish that drawback? You only get to spend manpower and feed the enemy faster. Any smart player will at very least retreat to preserve that 1-man squad left, and FRPs are not immune to suppression or barrages. Once you know where they are going, you know where to to save munitions for off-maps. If there's only one bad gameplay decision it's deploying FRP within easy range of artillery like mortar pit that will just pound it to no end.

    And if you want to press for doctrinal FRP you need to prove it will not only allow the faction to still work, but these useless commanders to have relevance without becoming either too powerful nor useless. Don't be the type that says "it'll work this way" and not even explain. The manipulative type relies on this tactic.

  • #16
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    Time is an often overlooked resourse in coh. Thats what FRP buy. Thats what FRP buy. Even if you set your FRP just outside your base mgs thats a moment closer to the fight. When you push off their squad in the middle of the map and retreat at the same time YOU have the luxury of being able to chose your positioning next skirmish there because you saved 10 seconds getting to base and back. And even if you DIDNT use the FRP portion you have extended your reinforcement radius so you can still mobilise sooner.

    The fact of the matter is that EFA are punished not only in mp for taking loses but also pressure and map control that WFA simply are not.

    Team games for the okw are ESPECIALLY bad for this because volks reinforce so fast and heal themselves passively

    Its the same issue that wfa repair speeds have brought to the game: trading shots with a p4 and a cromwell ends poorly for the p4 as the cromwell will be back much sooner than the p4, despite already being more cost efficient.

    Once players were punished for taking damage/losses by losing ground. EVERYTHING WFA is designed to get around that tactical depth.
  • #17
    2 years ago
    _Aqua__Aqua_ Posts: 1,951
    edited June 2017

    @comrade_daelin said:
    You just make Overwatch and Recon doctrines the blob doctrines....assuming FRP is the cause and exacerbation point of it all.

    No, you don't. I specifically said to make it like the vCoH captain, one squad can retreat at a time with a global cooldown so you can't just use it to blob.

    The fact is that FRP is the MAIN reason for using these units, and these units aren't cheap, or even come early.

    The main reason for using the FA and OKW truck is field presence. While the FRP obviously ties into that, it does so in a lazy way. The FRPs should be something you soft retreat to so you can get into the field faster or a force multiplier to hold ground more easily, not the "oh shit" button it currently is. With more health or the OKW medic, you can still build them in the field without them turning into a liability since you can't mass retreat to them anymore.

  • #18
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948
    edited June 2017

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    Time is an often overlooked resourse in coh. Thats what FRP buy. Thats what FRP buy. Even if you set your FRP just outside your base mgs thats a moment closer to the fight. When you push off their squad in the middle of the map and retreat at the same time YOU have the luxury of being able to chose your positioning next skirmish there because you saved 10 seconds getting to base and back. And even if you DIDNT use the FRP portion you have extended your reinforcement radius so you can still mobilise sooner.

    The fact of the matter is that EFA are punished not only in mp for taking loses but also pressure and map control that WFA simply are not.

    Team games for the okw are ESPECIALLY bad for this because volks reinforce so fast and heal themselves passively

    Its the same issue that wfa repair speeds have brought to the game: trading shots with a p4 and a cromwell ends poorly for the p4 as the cromwell will be back much sooner than the p4, despite already being more cost efficient.

    Once players were punished for taking damage/losses by losing ground. EVERYTHING WFA is designed to get around that tactical depth.

    This is just arguing the other side of the same coin, because while EFA factions retreat longer they have halftracks to allow them to fight while reinforcing, and transportation. Your argument would work if WFA factions also had halftracks, but they don't; instead, they have FRPs to compensate, that's why they are designed around the tactical depth- they lack the regular means to accomplish the same goal.
    And yes I know about M3 halftrack, it makes USF' FRP a larger problem than the others, along with their pack howitzer to threaten OKW FRPs.
    So if you want WFA factions to work just like vanilla factions (because that's precisely what you are asking for), then they will actually have to be much more like them than just not having FRP, such as getting non-doctrinal halftracks. But then they become even more closer to just being vanilla clones.

    Aqua said:

    @comrade_daelin said:
    You just make Overwatch and Recon doctrines the blob doctrines....assuming FRP is the cause and exacerbation point of it all.

    No, you don't. I specifically said to make it like the vCoH captain, one squad can retreat at a time with a global cooldown so you can't just use it to blob.

    The fact is that FRP is the MAIN reason for using these units, and these units aren't cheap, or even come early.

    The main reason for using the FA and OKW truck is field presence. While the FRP obviously ties into that, it does so in a lazy way. The FRPs should be something you soft retreat to so you can get into the field faster or a force multiplier to hold ground more easily, not the "oh shit" button it currently is. With more health or the OKW medic, you can still build them in the field without them turning into a liability since you can't mass retreat to them anymore.

    I recall the Captain's Retreat just had a cooldown, and wasn't limited to one unit at a time. I also tried Googling this but have not found any text supporting this claim, and I can't say I want to reinstall the game just to see if you're misinformed or otherwise not telling the truth.
    As for buffing the FRP sources, that's just feature creep where you take away a primary feature and try to compensate by adding a lot more than it was designed for.
    You're also being selective with FRP sources, but that's typical given the way all three sources are designed. As for lazy, it has it's drawbacks so I don't see it as a valid argument since it can be easily be applied to anything like being next to halftracks.

    Having said that, I do think changing FRPs to act like Captain's retreat (that is, a cooldown upon use), would solve the problem of rinse and retreat; as it is on cooldown the ability cannot be used and any player that wishes to preserve units are forced to retreat to HQ sector instead. While this might not seem to discourage blobbing every other retreat, it does mean people are less likely to commit unless they're standing around being defensive around FRP sources, which means they are all the more vulnerable to attack.

  • #19
    2 years ago
    QuesocitoQuesocito Posts: 128
    edited June 2017

    i feel that WFA are the easier factions to play with due to FRP's

    as WFA if you get ambushed, press T. get suppressed, press T. get bombarded, press T. spread troops out and get mass attacked in one area, press T. retreating removes a degree of thought. and of course FRP's just make the decision even easier. theres a reason they never implemented retreat in DOW3. although i like retreating, i dont think it should be as much of a no brainier as it is for WFA

    i feel that EFA needs to think a lot more about where/when/how to move troops aggressively, because if they get suppressed they cant just retreat to a point 50m behind them, same as for holding ground, they cant just retreat to a point just behind them, they need to run all the way back to base. you have half tracks which is something that can get killed in the battle, as well as another thing to micro. compared to the FRP of UK and OKW which require no micro and no upkeep.

    how often do you see EFA blobs? compared to WFA. besides the mechanics of the armies, the FRP allows a player to be a lot more careless with unit movement (ie blobbing) since they can just press T when things are going south and it wont cost them as much map control as an EFA retreating all their units in one go.

    even the current penal blobbing is hardly implemented as lazily as the US blobs and old volks blobs, since its so much more costly(time-wise) retreating as SOV

    as others pointed out, time is a very important resource in the game.. being able to replenish on the move (EFA) is not the same as being able to run from combat and be back again in a fraction of the time of the opposition..

    and WFA being able to heal so easily (and cheaply) in the field further exacerbates the differences between WFA and EFA

    i would rather not have FRP's and think of the many other things that need to be changed in order to balance the sides and force more careful aggressive play for WFA.. but i dont think the removal of FRP's from COH2 will happen.. if anything they wont be in COH3.. its quite evident from DOW3 that relic isnt so big on retreat as it is...

  • #20
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    @comrade_daelin you are misunderstanding me. I have no issue with forward reinforcement/healing that you need to soft retreat to. The issue is that if you get into trouble you get a durability buff and speed buff to go a short distance and reset. I would be fine with forward assembly and med truck existing if they didnt also give the powerful benifit of retreat without the intended drawback of retreat (lost ground and time) especially since both these things offer other benifits like healing (additional cost, granted) and artillery support/weapons depot/fortified cancer aura.
  • #21
    2 years ago
    Farra13Farra13 Posts: 647

    I would say scrap FRP all together, its an awful mechanic that destroys an entire part of the games original strategic depth. The vanilla game was much better balanced without the aura healing/fast vehicle repair/frp gameplay. It slowed down the game, made players more cautious and encouraged them to really consider engagements.

    You had to think closely whether fully pulling out or moving into a soft retreat was the better option, make careful use of armour as repair times meant bad vehicle play was punishing as it takes alot longer before you can use them to re-engage. Keeping units spread out to avoid off-maps, aoe supression and indirect barrages, as retreating to avoid them meant infantry were out of the fight indefintely for a couple minutes.

    Foward positions for medics, reinforcing and even repair teams are fine. In fact tuning up some of those mechanics like adjusting OST bunker costs by moving some of the mp cost of the standard bunker over to the upgrades, and giving SOV a form of foward healing would do alot to bridge the gulf that currently seperates the WFA factions from them in terms of advantageous gameplay mechanics.

  • #22
    2 years ago
    QuesocitoQuesocito Posts: 128

    @Farra13 said:
    You had to think closely whether fully pulling out or moving into a soft retreat was the better option, make careful use of armour as repair times meant bad vehicle play was punishing as it takes alot longer before you can use them to re-engage. Keeping units spread out to avoid off-maps, aoe supression and indirect barrages, as retreating to avoid them meant infantry were out of the fight indefintely for a couple minutes.

    totally

  • #23
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268

    @comrade_daelin said:
    This is just arguing the other side of the same coin, because while EFA factions retreat longer they have halftracks to allow them to fight while reinforcing, and transportation.

    One of those is the side of a quarter and the other a dime. FRPs are waaaaayyyy less micro-intensive than soft-retreat methods like HTs, only further showing the entire point: FRP supported infantry-play requires far less micro and tactics to gain the same ends that non-FRP supported infantry-play does, and those are only available to some factions.

    It's assymetrical balance that tweaks TOO directly with the basic squad mechanics of this game. Yes the factions should have flavor, but not at the expense of the core design of the game.

  • #24
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    @SkysTheLimit said:
    FRPs are waaaaayyyy less micro-intensive than soft-retreat methods like HTs, only further showing the entire point: FRP supported infantry-play requires far less micro and tactics to gain the same ends that non-FRP supported infantry-play does, and those are only available to some factions.

    It's assymetrical balance that tweaks TOO directly with the basic squad mechanics of this game. Yes the factions should have flavor, but not at the expense of the core design of the game.

    And in my years of playing with WFA it has its own drawbacks.

    If anything WFA factions should revolve around FRP even more, but since it plays between both (the benefits of FRP and not having much penalty with retreating back to base) we have the problem of WFA factions being more effective- their units are not more reliant on FRP than they should, though it differs according to faction- OKW losing T2 or otherwise not being a tenable position to retreat to is a very big blow, whereas USF's major can actually soft retreat to a safer position and re-toggle; with a vehicle nearby they can even run away faster.

    I don't agree with your argument that they are "waaayyy" less micro-intensive, because it is different among the three factions that have it. OKW and UKF don't have flexibility of halftracks, but USF does with their general design. Arguing from such a ambiguous standpoint is useless because it is much like racism where you paint everyone with a single brush, when you shouldn't. FRP works differently between them all, and naturally they need to be looked at on their own basis. No one's actually doing that for, well, ever. They just want OKW to be Ostheer and USF to be Russians. UKf is usually never addressed at all.

    If there's a problem with FRP I'd say it's WFA factions themselves aren't different enough to revolve around it, when it should be. OKW reflects this the most being a faction with higher resource cost for units. But since that would require better stats this means greater difficulty in balancing the game.

    The last thing we need is for three factions to operate like the other two.

  • #25
    2 years ago
    SkysTheLimitSkysTheLi… Posts: 2,268

    @comrade_daelin said:
    I don't agree with your argument that they are "waaayyy" less micro-intensive, because it is different among the three factions that have it.

    An immobile point that can be retreated too will always be less micro intensive than trying to reinforce squads next to a fragile vehicle. I love using the soviet halftrack to reinforce, don't get me wrong, but it can be useless after a point when late-game units are on the field. The HT gets easily taken out at that point.

    Of course they are different between the 3 factions that have them. By default it is far better than having HTs, and the major is just as mobile while offering other great bonuses.

  • #26
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    The FRP help exaggerate the strengths of WFA infantry. Thats the problem. You are allowed to keep up pressure with extremely potent infantry. You push off some rifles or volks at the end of a fight and they will likely be back before the units you retreated at the start of the skirmish.

    Because retreat bestows such formidable buffs there is no reason not to retreat vs retreating being a tactical, last ditch tactic for EFA
  • #27
    2 years ago
    QuesocitoQuesocito Posts: 128

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    The FRP help exaggerate the strengths of WFA infantry. Thats the problem. You are allowed to keep up pressure with extremely potent infantry. You push off some rifles or volks at the end of a fight and they will likely be back before the units you retreated at the start of the skirmish.

    Because retreat bestows such formidable buffs there is no reason not to retreat vs retreating being a tactical, last ditch tactic for EFA

    totally. so while the weaker sides lack FRP's the stronger sides are even further aided by FRP's

    @comrade_daelin said:
    I don't agree with your argument that they are "waaayyy" less micro-intensive, because it is different among the three factions that have it. OKW and UKF don't have flexibility of halftracks, but USF does with their general design. Arguing from such a ambiguous standpoint is useless because it is much like racism where you paint everyone with a single brush, when you shouldn't. FRP works differently between them all, and naturally they need to be looked at on their own basis. No one's actually doing that for, well, ever. They just want OKW to be Ostheer and USF to be Russians. UKf is usually never addressed at all.

    If there's a problem with FRP I'd say it's WFA factions themselves aren't different enough to revolve around it, when it should be. OKW reflects this the most being a faction with higher resource cost for units. But since that would require better stats this means greater difficulty in balancing the game.

    The last thing we need is for three factions to operate like the other two.

    of course FRP's are way less micro intensive, FFS how often do you move an FRP? how much micro is involved in "controlling" an FRP? compared to moving the half track all the time, moving infantry back and forth to the half track, using abilities/bunkers to heal infantry..??? how can EVERYTHING you say be right and EVERYTHING everyone else says be wrong? no one said the sides need to be exactly the same.. why even use that as a rebuttal?

    so you are complaining we are painting everything in the same coat while you are doing the exact same thing to anyone that says FRP's should change or be removed... interesting

    comrade is at it again.. straight out of superiority school "i am right, you are wrong" "i can contradict myself and it is still right"

  • #28
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948

    @thedarkarmadillo said:
    The FRP help exaggerate the strengths of WFA infantry. Thats the problem. You are allowed to keep up pressure with extremely potent infantry. You push off some rifles or volks at the end of a fight and they will likely be back before the units you retreated at the start of the skirmish.

    Because retreat bestows such formidable buffs there is no reason not to retreat vs retreating being a tactical, last ditch tactic for EFA

    See that's sort of the point I raised earlier: since WFA infantry are very much like vanilla (in fact I'd say better), it makes forward retreat quite a problem because not only can they retreat sooner and come back earlier, but comparing with vanilla squads they are much more durable- Penals are about the closest to Riflemen and Volks, but they require T1 built instead of support weapons.

    If things were the other way around however- for example Ostheer had FRP for their smaller Grenadiers, things might be more balanced, because FRP coupled with small fragile squads is far more capable of power parity with against factions without FRP but make up with larger squad sizes and/or halftracks. Instead it's the other way around and lopsided.
    FRP won't provide such a formidable buff if it was instead found in factions that are harder to blob.

    In summary: Vanilla factions would benefit more from FRP while WFA infantry might be better off with halftracks.

    @Quesocito said:

    how much micro is involved in "controlling" an FRP? compared to moving the half track all the time, moving infantry back and forth to the half track, using abilities/bunkers to heal infantry..??? how can EVERYTHING you say be right and EVERYTHING everyone else says be wrong? no one said the sides need to be exactly the same.. why even use that as a rebuttal?

    A lot, because you need to move Major (and preferably ambulance) while not controlling other units, and unlike other units they cannot fight back. No one wants to rely on FRP Major and suddenly find their units retreating to base instead because Major wasn't toggled back, retreated along with your units, or was destroyed. USF's FRP situation is much different than OKW's.

    I didn't say everything I said was right and everyone else is wrong. Stop being a drama queen.

  • #29
    2 years ago
    thedarkarmadillothedarkar… Posts: 5,822
    @comrade_daelin were on the same page then i think. FRP isnt inherently bad, but its current iteration is. Infantry that are too hard to push off for vanilla come back far too quickly and en masse because WFA are good at all ranges and have no brainer upgrades that make them even better..
  • #30
    2 years ago
    comrade_daelincomrade_d… Posts: 2,948
    edited June 2017

    Not so much current iteration IMO, but rather who gets it, which is the better infantry blobbing faction in the first place. If things went my way I'd have added FRP to Soviets and Ostheer only, in preparation for WFA factions that won't but make up with larger and more versatile squads.

  • #31
    2 years ago
    RiCERiCE Posts: 1,588

    @comrade_daelin said:
    In summary: Vanilla factions would benefit more from FRP while WFA infantry might be better off with halftracks.

    Thats true, but it is because mainline infantries for vanilla factions are garbage. Conscripts are pure garbage, and Grens are... meeeh.

Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

  • © SEGA. SEGA, the SEGA logo, Relic Entertainment, the Relic Entertainment logo, Company of Heroes and the Company of Heroes logo are either trademarks or registered trademarks of SEGA Holdings Co., Ltd. or its affiliates. All rights reserved. SEGA is registered in the US Patent and Trademark Office. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners.