• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Need more close combat urban maps

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
#41
worluk said:
actually, RO once was way more like that, before a handful of people started to enjoy 5 minute drives on maps and blowing the horn for that with every chance they get.
Click to expand...
True, honest words.

Koitos1944 used to be one of the most popular maps, along with warshaw! And the other maps we had didn't allow for super long engagement ranges either. That map in Berlin, Kaukasus, Krasny, Kessel, Danzig, Jucha, the one in the Russian city during summer time I think, the combined arms map where you had to get through that Russian city, etc.
Not to mention old maps like that U-bahn map we used to have back in the mod days (sorry, but it's been so long I forgot most of the names).
Really big and open maps were mostly used as playgrounds for tanks and little more. Barashka!?

Now we had to go down that pretentious "oh, we play a simulation" path with 50 player servers and huge empty maps. The problem is, that people use that 50 man server opportunity to increase the carnage in maps that were heavy on the action anyway (Danzig, Krasny, Kessel), not to make huge empty maps playable like it was intended - most likely.

I prefer a good match on a relatively small infantry map like Krasny, Kaukasus, etc. with no more than 20 players over huge tank maps that tend to get boring or 50 man infantry maps that tend to drown in chaos any day.

Back to the roots so to speak. I'm glad there are servers, intentionally or not, that don't allow for more than 24 players and its those I chose whenever I play.


I wouldn't say RO is the wrong game for me if that's the playing style I like. In fact RO is the only game that does what it does with that intensity.
I would rather say that its you, who want 100km
 
Upvote 0
#42
finally, I thought I was the only one who remember how RO was meant to be played back in the day

other nice maps were Kopalnia, Spartakovka, Road to Berlin, Donets (well, the last 2 are open, but they were very small so it didnt matter that much) I also miss Moscow Highway and the old Hedgehog

RO always had pixel hunting, but it wasnt all about pixel hunting like it is now

I remember how devs described RO when it was a mod, It was something like "perfect balance between realism and fun, or... if its easy in RL it should be easy in game", but the comunity got some kind of virus and seems that everyone is trying to push RO to become a 100% realism simulation like ArmA or OpFp

and no, I can't influence the creativity of the mappers, because only other maps influence the mappers, if there are almost no official maps like the old ones, very few mappers are going to be influenced by that style, they got the "wrong" new concept of the game... as for me, believe me, I would make them if I could
 
Upvote 0
#43
As i prefer infantry above vehicles my maps are focussed on infantry. In Lazur you could fight only indoor iff you want. It's a small run to the next building. But i understand even Zhitomir 1941 and the Snowy version are to open for you i suggest you make a copy of the Medal of Honor Stalingrad map. Now that is Close Quarter Combat for sure. And finally the Americans are out of that map....

stalingrad.jpg
 
Upvote 0
#44
What RO "does/could/did" best is subjective. Some say it does small CQC best, others will argue that it does medium size CA maps best, and finally some will cheer it for doing great big maps for tanks best. One guy's opinion is no more wrong than the next.

Badgering mappers for making what they want is not going to help anything. It would seem that the majority of mappers make combined arms maps. These maps are generally large to huge in size. Because THAT is what the guy wants to make. And these get a lot of play. There are many examples from small to huge, Smolensk Stalemate to Orel. Telling anyone that their style or vision is wrong is no more a right choice than saying that people liking tiny CQC maps are equal to CoD2 loving-FPS playing-mental midgets.

The game has changed because THE game changed. It offers more options to level design, virutally unlimited if you have enough time and talent to figure out how to squeeze more out of the engine/code.

In cases like this you either adapt and tolerate or move on if you no longer enjoy the product, whatever it may be. In my case, if RO2 came out without vehicles, I would find a team to work with to add vehicles to the game and keep making those medium to large CA maps. On the other hand, you would have a guy like Drecks who would be thrilled and could come up with several great CQC infantry maps. To each his own but no one has the "right" idea for everyone else.
 
  • Like
Reactions: [TW]schneidzekk
Upvote 0
#45
Now, you can lead anything ad absurdum. Odessa is a nice map too, as is Zhitomir. I never said all I want is small maze maps with 2-5 meters engagement ranges. That's ridiculous. All I said was that RO works great in smaller maps.
What makes RO work so great in these maps is the free-aim and the time it takes to bring up the sights (plus the general movement).
It makes SMGs better in really tight areas like buildings because they can spray and pray and it makes people in defensive positions very strong as they already have their sights up.

There is an awesome interweapon balance going on that surpasses everything that you could possibly tweak with rate of fire, damage and accuracy like so many other games tried before.

A bullet is a bullet and if it hits you you die. A weapon shoots where its pointed at and it has the same rate of fire as its real counterpart.

Now, if everything is longrange pixelhunting it takes away a great deal of what makes RO so great in the first place. Who cares about the bigass free-aim zone on huge maps, really? The only way to hit someone is with iron sights anyway. There is no thrill whether you should take the time and aim or challenge your luck with a hip-shot or even charge in with your bayo, because you don't have the options anyway. All you can do is to bring up your sights, try to hit that pixel and move on. Those situations where you had to decide between iron sights, hip-shot or bajo were and are the most intense combat situations you can get in in RO!

SMGS are a joke to use one huge maps. Another "subjective fact" that makes them inferior in my eyes. Not only are they junk on longer ranges, but their current recoil makes them very difficult to use too.
That's just one example of where the devs listened to the community when they shouldn't have! "Oh noes! SMGers kill me with hip-shots! RAMBOS! UNREALISTIC!" What is this nonsense? SMGs are built to do that. Avoid it by better positioning! It worked exceptionally well in the mod - and there the SMGs had even far less recoil!

Of course you can get some great teamplay going on those huge maps if you have the right people (or enough), but you can have the same amount of teamwork and more (due to the "extrapolation" of the inter-weapon-balance) on smaller maps too!

Forget that trend that everything close quarters is arcadey CoD stuff and only huge empty maps are realistic. That's nonsense. A great deal of fights took place in urban environments, some more open, some less. It is those fights that made RO because RO portrayed them in a rather realistic way. Those fights were once what RO was all about.

I'm not saying huge maps should be banned or anything. I love HedgeHog for example, and that's rather open too. As I said, with the right people (which is a requirement for smaller maps too, one that was more often met in public play during the mod days than it is now, but that's another story) huge maps can be a lot of fun too.

I just don't like the notion that seems to have gotten hold of the RO community that close quarters maps are something for a kiddycrowd of CoD spoiled brats with short attention spans.

I'm glad these maps are still being made and played and I support the proposal of the first post that we need more of them!
 
Upvote 0
#47
Koitos- thats the name I was looking for - maze type thing.
And there was another one called konigsberg i think- had warehouses- actually they were a bit crude phaps but i enjoyed them at the time.
However Kharkov (albeit CA) , the aforementioned warsaw and the one that ended in a cathedral in particular were excellent.
Also there was a beautiful village map on a slope with a church- so these tight maps don't always have to be urban.

The point of mentioning these old maps is that it's how I on the whole first remember the game to be, and is a type that seems to be a little neglected now.
I've been suggesting a few new maps like this would be great for the game a fair while, so was glad to see someone else felt strongly enough to start this thread, and that a few ppl agree to some extent.

When berezina came it was something special, as it showcased a new epic approach to Ro mapping- before most maps were smaller, faster and generally with 3/4caps.
It was deservedly popular, and held in high regard but it seems to an extent to have greatly influenced mappers efforts with regards scale since then.
Obviously this has lead some great maps since, but there appears to be a much larger accepted minimum size to maps, even an excellent inf custom like zhito is a fair size.
Playing out a best of 3 on bere is one of Ro's best experiences, but I found i would have to be in the mood for it as it could be a draining effort sometimes especially if on foot.

Sometimes I just wanna come on for half an hour and frankly shoot a lot.
I never particularly liked danzig so a similar alternative to the much played kessel/krasny would be welcome.
I guess thats why i rated tchekassy so much. That newish bocklin(?) map is great too, it's a bit of a kessel re-shuffle i guess - (sorry!) - but the idea is spot on and it's enjoyable to play - whether intentional or not it's a nod to maps rarely played or long gone.

I'm not saying more of this style of map will or would have nessesarily kept more ppl playing the game, as it's impossible to tell- but i suspect increasing the options at each end of the scale might help
And I wont say this style suits Ro better than Bere/Tractor/krieg etc., cos i dont actualy think it does, but i know it works well ( look at kessel- best map there is IMO), is just as valid, and certainly under-represented.

Of course I appreciate the only person you can force to make the maps as you want is yourself, but there's no harm in players suggesting what they'd like to see.
 
Upvote 0
#48
Fedorov said:
ok I'll kick myself out of this thread in your style

"ok Fedorov you are just an asshole and a troll, nobody likes CQC maps anymore, so nobody is gonna make them, so just go away and play something else just like every other RO:CA dinosaur did"
Click to expand...

To start you had so many responses that I wanted to comment on but I don't want to take the time.

CQC is combat that normally takes place within 100 meters. Most of the maps that people mentioned are CQC because the majority of the combat takes place within 100 meters. You said they weren't in your opinion since some had long roads or were snowy or industrial... Those points don't make a map non CQC. CQC can take place in urban/industrial/trenches. The weather doesn't affect whether it is CQC either.

Just because a map has an open courtyard or a long road or two doesn't mean it isn't CQC. What it sounds like is you are looking for more deathmatch like maps. There are maps out there like that but a majority of people tend to want to play maps that aren't so boxed in and that are more life like.

Since CQC is combat that takes place, (for the majority) within 100 meters, RO has lots of those. Because your idea of CQC is different than what most people think, including the military, you will need to pick and choose what fits your needs and make some that fit your needs (this point is why so many people were putting you down in the thread). Then you can buy a server and everyone else that likes that will play. I'm not saying your taste in gameplay is wrong, just that it is different than what a majority of people in RO like on a regular basis. Me personnaly, if I want those small map games, I'll play COD or any number of fps. I play RO for the more life like scenarios.
 
Upvote 0
#49
Murphy said:
Forget that trend that everything close quarters is arcadey CoD stuff and only huge empty maps are realistic. That's nonsense. A great deal of fights took place in urban environments, some more open, some less. It is those fights that made RO because RO portrayed them in a rather realistic way. Those fights were once what RO was all about.


I just don't like the notion that seems to have gotten hold of the RO community that close quarters maps are something for a kiddycrowd of CoD spoiled brats with short attention spans.
Click to expand...

No one said urban maps are arcady and kiddy. They mentioned urban CQC maps and he said they weren't CQC urban maps. So his idea of urban combat is a bit off from the norm/standard. RO still has plenty of up-close fighting. Since player amount per server went up, then map size needed to expand some. Kessel is a small map for 50 people if that is too big then something smaller will be very cramped. As it is, there are several urban/cqc maps and several open maps.

COD has far less players per server as well as MOH and other similar fps. Therefor they have smaller maps. Counter Strike for instance has small maps that are very close. Only 32 player max. If you want to feel those close fights then you need less people. Otherwise people will be getting in each others way all the time. I enjoy CS and COD4. They serve their purpose, but because of the cramped style, they feel less lifelike. Whatever RO started as, it has gone in this direction and if you don't like it, start up a server hosting the gameplay you like. I'm sure there are others out there that will want to play. I'd even play on it from time to time, but the majority of my time would be on the style that RO has now.
 
Upvote 0
#50
Hmmm, I'm really with dogbadger and Murphy on this one. I see where they're going with that, I was a big Jucha fan back in the day as well as Moscow Highway(even though that one tended to end in axis spawnrape at the last red spawn if anyone else recalls that), and personally I would love to see Jucha again, but I highly doubt that anything else will be added, unless it is 3rd party like Kriegstadt. One map I really like in particular that really illustrates the increase in players = increase in map size done right with what is being discussed, i dont remember the name, but it is the one with the two apartment blocks and a church, all i remember is one of the caps is called Krasniya Apartments, and the other was Komsomol Apartments.

As for RO going in the wrong direction, RO is always gonna go in the direction that RO is going to go, and I don't think its possible to fight it. Me personally, I'm also not a big fan of the 100km^2 maps and pixelhunting, I understand what you guys are talking about and I've actually found myself playing Insurgency(the HL2 mod for those that don't know) an awful lot lately, I mean sure it ain't WWII but it is a lot like RO and keeps me interested, suggest those that can try it out to do so.
 
Upvote 0
#51
DaedalusAI1 said:
No one said urban maps are arcady and kiddy. They mentioned urban CQC maps and he said they weren't CQC urban maps. So his idea of urban combat is a bit off from the norm/standard.
Click to expand...
What is CQC and what isn't kind of has to be defined per game. The <100m rule the army is supposed to use to define it might apply to RO, but it certainly doesn't apply to, say, Counterstrike. In CS 100m would be long range already I'd say, and even in RO 100m is medium range in my opinion.
So, what is the "norm/standard"?

As for him denying so-called urban CQC maps their urban CQC status:
I think what he meant when he said Krasny wasn't an urban CQC map he was talking about its setting, rather than its size. Krasny is set in an industrial complex. True, its in a city, true there are buildings, but still, its a world of its own - like most industrial facilities. The only part of the map that is really "urban" (as what I think he meant by "urban") is the central yard at the beginning of the map. I don't have to agree with it to see his point.
For Odessa I have to admit that, while its certainly urban, it is rather open. Not too open for my tastes and I wouldn't argue against it if someone would qualify it as CQC, but I wouldn't add the modifier "CQC" when describing it, to be honest.

He wasn't that far off though, because he posted this:
sorry, it wasnt really directed at you, it was at the general response I'm getting from everywhere, my problem is not the game, Danzig and Krasny for example gives me more or less the feeling of the old RO:CA, but thats it, only 2 maps, how long can someone play 2 maps without getting sick of them
Click to expand...
So Krasny DOES feature the gameplay he likes and Danzig does it too.

Back to this:
DaedalusAI1 said:
No one said urban maps are arcady and kiddy.
Click to expand...
No. No one put it like that, yet the general tendency is there.
Example:
Oh yeah, trolling a guy who is calling for more "run-n-gun and nade spam" hey... btw that game [RO:CA - the mod version] doesn't exist anymore.
Click to expand...
Kind of an extreme quote there, but numerous suggestions to try CoD instead say the same just friendlier, right?
Someone should make a map for this guy.

A 40 x 40 room with Russians and Germans spawning face to face on both sides. SMG for everyone and unlimited grenades.

FUN!
Click to expand...
Or that stupid quote above, that kinda sprang out of nowhere. He never said that that's what he wants. He even said Lyes was too much on-rails (he agreed its close quarters, but he said the setting was open! Some folks mistook him there, I guess).

To make a long story short:

He was NOT out for stupid cramped 50 men deathmatch corridor maps, but he wanted more urban close quarters maps in the style of Koitos, Warshaw, Danzig, etc.

I can only agree with that.:)

"Go make your own maps" is a nice suggestion but not one that is easily followed. Not everyone can map, not everyone has the time to learn the technic, not everyone has the creativity that's needed for the task, and not everyone has the time to map even if he was able to do it.

This is a suggestions board after all and suggestions can be made to the devs or to modders. Excluding the fact that I agree with his general idea though not with all of his posts, I can't see anything wrong with that particular suggestion (except the tone maybe).
 
Upvote 0
#53
http://www.redorchestragame.com/forum/member.php?u=227 I'm not saying the maps he wants aren't CQC, I'm saying that CQC is what the name implies Close Quarter Combat. That's combat taking place within 100m on the most part. CQC isn't only urban, it can be industrial as well. Yes CQC is normally considered to be urban since urban fighting is pretty close. I know I liked Warsaw and their are other maps of similar size I like. Just not with full 50 players.

I know what urban means and yes Krasny isn't urban but it is CQC just as all the other maps are CQC that were listed. So krasny I can understand him not being that into because it isn't urban. There are maps out there that are urban and the size of warsaw however most servers don't play them because they want more epic battles or more players to play. He wants urban CQC and a majority of the maps listed are CQC and urban therefore I posted my original. And CQC isn't defined per game. It is or it isn't. Berezina for example isn't CQC. The farm buildings have some CQC as well as the trenches but a majority of it is long range. 100m in CS may be big for that game but it still is CQC. Most other FPS games have smaller maps that emphisize on CQC. RO is one of the few games that lets you move around and I think that's what makes RO stand out. Rainbow6 games and Ghost Recon games have smaller enclosed areas with realistic damage (not Rainbow6 Vegas). Not saying don't play RO, just try those out and see what you think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Close_quarter_battle read the third paragraph, first sentence. It says CQC isn't synonymous with urban combat. Meaning it doesn't have to be urban to be CQC. That's why they have different definitions of the type of CQC for urban environments. Most CQC does take place in an urban environment however due to the nature of city streets and buildings. If you think 100m in long then you haven't fired many weapons before. The army qualifies up to 300 yards and in the Marines we Qualified up to 500 yards with the M-16. 100 yards/meters is nothing and is considered close quarters.

P.S. I'd like to play those maps that he wants also, just not with full 50 player servers. They are fun also.
 
Upvote 0
#56
I never said CQC would automatically have to be urban too. No one else did either.
Federov just posted "urban CQC" maps, so that's what this topic is about.

And CQC HAS to be defined per game. Military definitions aren't worth jack in any environment that isn't the military. In CS 100m aren't CQC anymore because you can only really hit something with sniper rifles at that range. Maybe with some of the rifles if you get lucky.

It doesn't matter anyway. So what - someone used a military term in the "wrong" context...

He explained what he wants, which is maps like Danzig, Warshaw, Koitos, so why don't we ditch the other junk and concentrate on that?
 
Upvote 0
#57
Even if I'm beating a dead horse here: Maps like Koitos simply turn me off in RO. The map was limited fun because it was some kind of dynamic chess game, was arguably well balanced and you never had to wait more than a few seconds to get into the action. However it got old really, really fast. Same goes for Warsaw, the mother of nade spam.

I think everybody knows and agrees that not all combat took place at 200-300m ranges, however I got the impression people are misjudging distances in the game big time. Even on "open" urban maps like Odessa the average combat distance to me feels like 50 meters at most. Some might take place on 100m or even 150m, but that's about it. Koitos and Warsaw didn't ever feel like believable cities to me, they feel like a sandbox. Like they was scaled down by a factor of 2 or so.

I live in a pretty urban part of a relatively large German city. And even here there are tons of places where the next wall is more than 50 meters away. If I look from my window across the street the distances feel a lot more like Odessa than like Warsaw. The "big square" in Warsaw looks more like a typical backyard. Cramped places like Koitos portrays are simply very rare. Moreover, due to the objectives layout it played like a cat-and-mouse game. There's people who like that and that's fine (I heard it was popular with clan games), but is that what RO is about?

RO does have some very close combat maps where it suits the scenario, the Stalingrad maps to be specific. That is about as "close" as I think is good for RO.
 
Upvote 0
#59
people tend to mis-use the CQC and combat range, in ww2 german assault rifles were developed because they realised that 80% of the combat happened at ranges between 100 and 200m. so the basic rifles were too powerfull and slow, and the smg's not powerfull enough in 80% of the cases.

so if WW2 CQC would have been like koitos, then the stg44 would never had been needed to be invented, and evrybody would have developed super ppsh's.

my point is that this thread is not about more CQC maps, since to ww2 standards pretty much 95% of the actual maps(official and non official) are CQC maps in RO.

what this thread IS about, is more "carentan"-style maps. they are fun yes, but not suited for RO.
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu