There is nothing wrong with forward retreat points, no matter what map you are playing. It involves strategic decisions and come also with disadvantages. This game isn't and should not be all about micro. It should involve brains also. If a player succeed to beat the other just because he made better decisions despite his inferior micro, we should value that.
Such are all the complaints related to different "exploits" like blobbing or placing the OKW T4 or whatever. If your opponent blobbed the shit out of you and you had enough amo to place let's say, several demo charges on his path but you didn't, you have no right to complain that he is a noob and beated you because he is a gardening spammer. If you are complaining that your opponent built shermans to fast and killed your volks blobs that could not handle them with their schrecks, but you didn't chose the fortifications doctrine (PAK 43) though you had it in your loadout, you have no right to complain that you didn't have fuel to build enough vehicles to counter your opponent. And the list can continue. Sometimes good decisions are more valuable than micro. And a well placed retreat point is a good decision, though risky. Because forward retreat points can be shelled like hell with ballistics that will do alot of damage. You knew that, I suppose.
This still does not justify forward retreat points for the new armies. The post above you is absolutely right, certain maps gives the new army advantage (large maps) while vanilla factions take forever. This simple mechanic can make difference between capping the entire map with ease while vanillas take longer time. Micro, Sherman and Blobs have nothing to do with this, these actions are dependent on tech speed and tactical play.