2. it works because i have done it. ive seen replays that had people in them doing it. use your mouse and troll through the net yourself.
I'll take that as "no I won't prove it go prove it yourself"
3. i dont know how to reply to it because the logic is not compatible with mine.
You should focus on thinking over replies rather than trying to find a rebuttal.
Another thing to consider:
Without choosing doctrines, OKW, USF and UKF do not have halftracks. FRPs are a form of immobile sources of reinforcement. Are we to suggest that OKW also get 251 halftracks, and USF/ UKF swap their doctrinal halftracks with another core unit? All to make the game much more symmetrical?
There is also the tactical disadvantages to having FRPs in the first place. If you set up an FRP in the middle of, say, Red Ball Express, you need to send men in all directions from the FRP source if the enemy took over sectors near your base. OKW can branch out from their FRP source yes, that's kind of the point, but lack of emplacements outside of doctrinal choices means they need to move units around to take back points, or send men to reinforce a position.
End of the day, there are plenty of disadvantages to utilizing forward retreat points. Arguing entirely on the side of time needed for running from base vs FRP, and trying to advocate FRP's removel from only that perspective is, to say the least, idiotic.
No dude, it's not the map. It's FRP. Without FRP times are similar.
I just showed times between retreat and getting back to the same point for both side but when one side has FRP.
The factions that have no FRP- Ostheer and Soviets- have something called Halfracks. Not only are they mobile sources of reinforcement, and also means to transport troops, but can reasonably hold their own and support nearby squads.
So really, time it takes to walk back and forth from base versus a faction that has FRP is unfair, as non-FRP factions has methods to move faster, and not just from base after a retreat, too.