Do you miss this?

[rancenstein]

agreed

also im wondering if twi hired ppl to downvote all the ro2 criticism in here.

[...]

The criticism you were talking about is nearly not present. There are just very few thread actually with criticism that make sense, see the MKb42h/Avt40 thread (66/66 People like that) the rest is just senseless bashing or things that have been discussed to death.

 

[Yarden]

I gotta release some of my frustation for not enjoying RO2 and being fooled by TWI (for the last time) into buying it.

Some of you should just realize that RO1 is superior at being Red Orchestra compared to RO2. End of discussion. RO1 is better, and RO2 is only pretenting to be something it isn't, when it in reality is a dumbed down version of RO1. Anyone that consider consider arcade-like features as positive in a RO game shouldn't be taken seriously and shouldn't be listened to at all.

go troll somewhere else.

RO1 is better?

some of the epic uber realism feautres of RO1:getting shot makes you stumble upon an invisble wall, SMG's have the recoil of a bazooka and the only thing you can hit with them are birds,panzerfausts are thrown on the ground everywhere(reality at its best..) which makes tanks so easy to kill, alot of BAD maps where one team just die with no chance of actually doing anything and there are other stuff i cant remember now.

RO2 a dumbed down version of RO1? RO2 is a better game in gameplay,reality,graphics,maps and everything else you can think of.

 

[Mike 78]

As others have said, using the bridge from Berlin and Omaha are terrible examples of a firefight. Both maps were, indeed, terrible. I never want to have to deal with anything like those again. Especially since a RO2 Berlin map would be impossible to win as the Russians. They had IS', T34-85s, KVs and the such in reality. In RO2, we would have to do street fights against the PIV in a T34-76.



Now this I wouldn't mind. Leningrad was a good map, IMO. It didn't have insane choke points, but defending was as fun as attacking. It would have tank issues similar to a RO2 Berlin though, unless we could get the KV, PIII, and PIV Ausf. Ds.



I have to disagree entirely. To be blunt, it seemed like most of the DH maps were made by Nazi fanboys. I don't think there was a single map were the Germans didn't have some insane advantage that nearly trumped anything the Americans or Commonwealth had. Hell, was there ever a map where the only tanks Germany had were PIV Ausf. Hs and Tigers, while the Americans or Commonwealth had a few Sherman 76s or maybe a Firefly?

Oh come on, you sound like the kind of guy that thinks that if you don't like the maps than they must be crappy. Btw, that is the Dog Green map, not Omaha and there's a big difference between those.

Berlin and Dog Green maps were the kind of maps that you either hate or love. I happen to love those kind of maps and I wasn't alone because they were played on plenty of servers by many people who voted for it.

I dislike maps like Lutremange where you just run from point to point and there are just shoot outs between individual players or tanks, much like RO2 most of the time.
I love the maps where the opposing forces are clashing in a medium sized area with little choice but to fight your way through the other team and tactics apply to the entire team. You go either left right or through the middle and lone wolving gets punished. Spartanova has a bit of this style and there for I l disike that map the least.

Many of the maps for DH were like this and they were intenser than any of the maps that came with RO initially. Of course modders made great maps for RO as well like Leningrad and much more.

The RO maps were usually more spread out and there for the action was spread over a larger area but also more random. I like frontline style battles, squads sticking together, forming a frontline that is being pushed forward by the effort of the entire team. Koningsplats was actually the only map I really liked from the out of the box RO maps because it's a bit like that.

The RO maps were easier to use for relative run n gun/camping tactics imo where the DH maps would focus a bit more on teamplay and had more intense clashes that required cooperation. Though both RO and DH maps where much more fun to play then the current RO2 maps imo.

 

[Mike 78]

go troll somewhere else.

RO1 is better?

some of the epic uber realism feautres of RO1:getting shot makes you stumble upon an invisble wall, SMG's have the recoil of a bazooka and the only thing you can hit with them are birds,panzerfausts are thrown on the ground everywhere(reality at its best..) which makes tanks so easy to kill, alot of BAD maps where one team just die with no chance of actually doing anything and there are other stuff i cant remember now.

RO2 a dumbed down version of RO1? RO2 is a better game in gameplay,reality,graphics,maps and everything else you can think of.

Not really, no. Wait....no not at all. If you disliked RO1 you don't get to judge people who did like RO1. I don't even see your logics in calling RO1 uber realistic.

"Stumbeling over invisible wall", "SMG's have the recoil of a bazooka", "panzerfausts make it easy to kill tanks".

You sound like an arcade fanboy, the kind of people who TW wanted to attract to this game. Those who don't care about realism at all but only about their own ego and K/D ratio. We should all be glad that the real army filters people like you out. Mr. I only like it if I can do it without putting any effort in it.

There's plenty of games allready out there that give in to your kind of gameplay. CS, COD, DOD and so on. Why don't you go force your standards on those forums instead of talking down people who actually like the classic RO gameplay?

 

[Josef Nader]

Miss it? Not in the least. I've actually been practicing and experimenting these last few weeks, trying new things and figuring out new tactics and strategies, and I'm starting to get into more and more protracted gun battles. It just requires a different set of tactics than RO1, where you'd be protected by weapon sway and blind soldiers. You can have excellent firefights in RO2, but you have to play smart. You can't be predictable and count on the enemy missing you to draw the firefight out.

 

[Poerisija]

Not really, no. Wait....no not at all. If you disliked RO1 you don't get to judge people who did like RO1. I don't even see your logics in calling RO1 uber realistic.

"Stumbeling over invisible wall", "SMG's have the recoil of a bazooka", "panzerfausts make it easy to kill tanks".

You sound like an arcade fanboy, the kind of people who TW wanted to attract to this game. Those who don't care about realism at all but only about their own ego and K/D ratio. We should all be glad that the real army filters people like you out. Mr. I only like it if I can do it without putting any effort in it.

There's plenty of games allready out there that give in to your kind of gameplay. CS, COD, DOD and so on. Why don't you go force your standards on those forums instead of talking down people who actually like the classic RO gameplay?

RO2 is more realistic than RO1 in nearly all aspects. It is also a better game. I don't get why people want RO1 back.

RO1 is not realistic, it is DIFFICULT to play due to difficulty of movement and aiming. RO2 made it all easier because it's NOT THAT HARD in real life. I agree there are some issues and inconsistencies, but calling it better than RO1?

Only if you want to play something that's made more difficult by adding artificial difficulty into the game. If you want a somewhat good representation of what combat might be in reality - play RO2.

 

[Unorthadox]

Oh come on, you sound like the kind of guy that thinks that if you don't like the maps than they must be crappy. Btw, that is the Dog Green map, not Omaha and there's a big difference between those.

Nope, I'm just that kind of guy that believes in mutual importance. I don't care which D-Day map it is, all of them are bad. Dog Green is a meatgrinder all the way through, and Omaha is impossible to win.

Berlin and Dog Green maps were the kind of maps that you either hate or love. I happen to love those kind of maps and I wasn't alone because they were played on plenty of servers by many people who voted for it.

I like Berlin until it gets to the Hotel, that is when it starts to get old. Btw, did you ever consider that the people who vote for those maps only vote for them because of how easy it is for the German team to win? Anytime I'm in a server where one of those is actually voted for, almost the exact number of people who voted for it go German.

I dislike maps like Lutremange where you just run from point to point and there are just shoot outs between individual players or tanks, much like RO2 most of the time.
I love the maps where the opposing forces are clashing in a medium sized area with little choice but to fight your way through the other team and tactics apply to the entire team. You go either left right or through the middle and lone wolving gets punished. Spartanova has a bit of this style and there for I l disike that map the least.

This is ironic, because one of my favorite maps is Lutremange. Neither side has a clear advantage (Aside from Germany getting two Jagdpanzers and a Panther vs two Wolverines, one 76, and 75s) and everyone is important and has a job to do. Meanwhile, in Berlin, everyone relies on the tankers and officers to throw smoke down a narrow street, thinking it makes them invincible or something, and people expecting the rifleman to throw tickets away so the Thompsons and BARs can clear out the buildings from the pistol wielding Axis Rifleman.

I enjoy maps where everyone has some sort of importance, which creates more teamwork than everyone being forced to rely on the officer or tankers to do everything for them.

The RO maps were usually more spread out and there for the action was spread over a larger area but also more random. I like frontline style battles, squads sticking together, forming a frontline that is being pushed forward by the effort of the entire team. Koningsplats was actually the only map I really liked from the out of the box RO maps because it's a bit like that.

The frontline in DH was almost never moved because of the entire team. It normally only moved when a tank showed up or artillery is called down. Stavelot is a great example of that. The German team would get instantly stuck whenever their Panther would get knocked out, and the Americans were always forced to move back if their 76 got knocked out and they didn't have a choke point to defend from. Christ, Stavelot was almost like Konigsplats in a way.

The RO maps were easier to use for relative run n gun tactics imo where the DH maps would focus a bit more on teamplay and had more intense clashes that required cooperation. Though both RO and DH maps where much more fun to play then the current RO2 maps imo.

RO maps were far less biased (Except for Arad) than DH maps though.

 

[Forssen]

Yes, Darkest Hour is pretty amazing Red Orchestra modification: Darkest Hour gameplay video - YouTube

 

[CuriousOrange]

I think people are getting caught up in accuracy and things when the issue is about map design. RO1 had bigger ranges and many chokepoints. I miss those maps, but they don't make much sense in the context of Stalingrad where the front lines weren't particularly straight forward.

 

[hockeywarrior]

Do you see all the bullet impacts that actually don't hit anybody? You don't see that in RO2. There are no sustained firefights in RO2, suppression isn't being used as such in RO2, suppression is just a mere gimick in RO2, not really functional like it was in RO when you hit the deck instantly when you heard bullets wizzing by you and got the chance to either take cover or return fire or both. RO2 will just leave you waiting in a respawn list wondering how the hell you could get hit 5 seconds after your last respawn.

He IS right about this. One of the most thrilling aspects of RO1 was being a part of these epic infantry battles with bullets literally flying everywhere, pinging all around you all the time. You always felt like you were 6" away from death all the time.

As Winston Churchill once said (yes, I'm quoting him), "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result." I think this actually applies really well to RO1 vs RO2. In RO2, as soon as I see an enemy and we engage one another, its a completely black and white relationship. I either live or die. There is a very very rare chance that both of us will miss, mainly because both of us have stellar accuracy and almost perfect aim if we are both somewhat practiced with the game. Even more of the time, you don't see your attacker before being instantly taken down, which certainly happened in RO1, but much less frequently. Often in RO1 your death resulted from a hail of bullets being thrown down range and simply being unlucky enough to be killed by one of them.

Everything just happens too damn precisely in RO2, and it kills the tension of combat. There are no prolonged engagements -- its either you aimed at your enemy and pulled the trigger first, or he did the same to you. It's like a two-way game of whack-a-mole. The thrill in RO1 mostly came not from killing other players, but simply from surviving the chaos of war going on around you. I don't get that feel at all in RO2, and its this lack of firefights that really turns me off the gameplay. It wouldn't take much for RO2 to have more dynamic firefights, but it would require some significant gameplay changes to zoom, ironsight sway, and suppression.

 

[Mike 78]

RO2 is more realistic than RO1 in nearly all aspects. It is also a better game. I don't get why people want RO1 back.

RO1 is not realistic, it is DIFFICULT to play due to difficulty of movement and aiming. RO2 made it all easier because it's NOT THAT HARD in real life. I agree there are some issues and inconsistencies, but calling it better than RO1?

Only if you want to play something that's made more difficult by adding artificial difficulty into the game. If you want a somewhat good representation of what combat might be in reality - play RO2.

All I want is the RO1ish shooting mechanics. That's not artificial at all. The mechanics have proven their succes because many players like me stuck with the game for years.

Not being able to properly set up a mg in a window or bombcrater is something that's making it more difficult by adding artificial difficulty.
Not being able to go prone when you rly need to or turn in all directions when you are prone is adding artificial difficulty into the game.
You act like RO1 was all broken and RO2 is all smooth and easy to play but RO2 has many artificial difficulty that will cost you lives over and over again. Maybe even more than RO1. Stop twisting the facts and the history of RO.

 

[Yarden]

Not really, no. Wait....no not at all. If you disliked RO1 you don't get to judge people who did like RO1. I don't even see your logics in calling RO1 uber realistic.

"Stumbeling over invisible wall", "SMG's have the recoil of a bazooka", "panzerfausts make it easy to kill tanks".

You sound like an arcade fanboy, the kind of people who TW wanted to attract to this game. Those who don't care about realism at all but only about their own ego and K/D ratio. We should all be glad that the real army filters people like you out. Mr. I only like it if I can do it without putting any effort in it.

There's plenty of games allready out there that give in to your kind of gameplay. CS, COD, DOD and so on. Why don't you go force your standards on those forums instead of talking down people who actually like the classic RO gameplay?

allthough it had alot of flaws i actually loved RO1. and how the hell am i a "arcade fanboy" if im pointing out the things that werent realistic in RO1 and claiming that they are flaws?..

BTW i'm from israel and served in the army for 3 years. so i guess your'e the one who got filtered.

and please dont claim that RO1 is realistic, youre making a joke out of yourself.

 

[catfish@rock]

^
All those realistic unmuzzled, less moderated sound make me feel like in a real battlefield.

Whizzing bullets, dreadful MG cracking, Heavy suppression effect ( in real battefield I dust, debris blocking the vision)

Ro2's weak muzzled sound....too clean battle (not enough dust, debris ; suppression effect )
I am sure modders can get it right just as they did with RO1.

Also seeing the statistics that only small percentile of fired bullets actually killed the opfor, RO2 is really gamish, and arcadically accurate in this regards.

RO2 really makes me feel like playing slightly different arcade game, while RO2, DH have realistic less accurate bullets flying everywhere making me feel like I am really in the battlefield, just a step away from instant death, unlike arcady RO2.

There really something off about RO2. Compared to arma 2 project reality, red orchestra1, insurgency mod.
Compared to those games, ro2 is downright arcady in some sense.

Maybe the easiest shooting mechanic of all the serious tactical shooters (rainbow six 1, rogue spear, rainbow six 3, rainbow six vegas 2, ghost recon advanced warfighter 1,2 pc mp) I played, RO2 has lightest, EASIEST...shooting mechanic.

RO2 shooting is really easy, the easiest shooting, and best accurate shots possible most of the time compared to RS1, rogue spear, RS Vegas2 , GRAW1, 2 pc.

 

[Fisher]

I think releasing much larger maps is key. Also reducing accuracy and increasing sway.

Anyone here played the Project Reality mod for Battlefield 2? That game had some awesome fire fights! Me and 9 other guys were patrolling when an mg covering a bridge saw us and opened fire. I think I saw about 7 other Spectnaz inside the building. We lost about 3 guys. After the 16 minuet long fire fight and numerous motor strikes, we searched the building. We had killed two, the others were believed to have retreated to a fall back point.

 

[Mike 78]

Nope, I'm just that kind of guy that believes in mutual importance. I don't care which D-Day map it is, all of them are bad. Dog Green is a meatgrinder all the way through, and Omaha is impossible to win.

I like Berlin until it gets to the Hotel, that is when it starts to get old. Btw, did you ever consider that the people who vote for those maps only vote for them because of how easy it is for the German team to win? Anytime I'm in a server where one of those is actually voted for, almost the exact number of people who voted for it go German.

This is ironic, because one of my favorite maps is Lutremange. Neither side has a clear advantage (Aside from Germany getting two Jagdpanzers and a Panther vs two Wolverines, one 76, and 75s) and everyone is important and has a job to do. Meanwhile, in Berlin, everyone relies on the tankers and officers to throw smoke down a narrow street, thinking it makes them invincible or something, and people expecting the rifleman to throw tickets away so the Thompsons and BARs can clear out the buildings from the pistol wielding Axis Rifleman.

I enjoy maps where everyone has some sort of importance, which creates more teamwork than everyone being forced to rely on the officer or tankers to do everything for them.

The frontline in DH was almost never moved because of the entire team. It normally only moved when a tank showed up or artillery is called down. Stavelot is a great example of that. The German team would get instantly stuck whenever their Panther would get knocked out, and the Americans were always forced to move back if their 76 got knocked out and they didn't have a choke point to defend from. Christ, Stavelot was almost like Konigsplats in a way.

RO maps were far less biased (Except for Arad) than DH maps though.

We obviously like different styles of maps but my point was that if you don't like a map it doesn't have to be a bad map. The fact that some maps like Berlin, Hill 400, Hurtgen forrest, Dog Green are more difficult to win for 1 side makes it the more challenging for te experienced players to win the map against the odds just like the odds weren't always even irl. For example the Americans do take the bridge in the end of the 1st clip I posted because they used combined arms and smoke. They were probably the team with the mosy experienced players.

 

[Mike 78]

allthough it had alot of flaws i actually loved RO1. and how the hell am i a "arcade fanboy" if im pointing out the things that werent realistic in RO1 and claiming that they are flaws?..

BTW i'm from israel and served in the army for 3 years. so i guess your'e the one who got filtered.

and please dont claim that RO1 is realistic, youre making a joke out of yourself.

Well I only used it as a figure of speach, I know every numbnuts can get in the army. I just don't understand how you would explain that RO2 is more realistic by removing the slow down when hit in the leg feature. It's not that you would walk far if you got shot in most places in the leg with a rifle round irl. In RO2, you shoot a guy in the leg 3 times and he still makes it over to you to bayonet your ***. How's that more realistic? And you and I both having shot a rifle know that the kick on an smg WW2 style steal & wood weapon must have had more recoil then is depicted in RO2.

 

[dweeb]

This is what you call a firefight? Look at those kill messages literally scrolling past the screen, it is just a bunch of people running into a meatgrinder. While it looks awesome from a vantage point, from a player perspective this is several times worse than running around getting killed all the time in RO2.

I've never seen a multiplayer game with firefights in them. You can't have a firefight if most participants are more intent on killing the enemy than preserving their own lives.

Two gamers aiming at eachother = one of them dies
One gamer aims at another = one of them dies
One gamer can't see anything = He has nothing to shoot at, but may get shot any moment
Two gamers can't see anyhing = One of them gets careless and makes himself seen and killed

Whatever situation you can come up with, it always ends with a quick death for either party, as it would in real life. Gamers have nothing to fear so there is no point in being careful, and so there is always someone to shoot and kill. Real life firefights don't happen because of poor accuracy, they happen because people are not fearless and uncaring gamers, they try and survive and won't stick their face anywhere near impacting bullets and they certaitainly don't run across the street to look for the enemy without knowing what's out there. A gamer can do that because what does it matter if you get killed? You can respawn and now you know where the enemy is so you can go kill him before he sees you!

Accusing RO2 of not having firefights is a misleading argument because it is not a staple feature in any shooter before it, not even RO1. That's like turning down an apartment offer because it doesn't have a solid gold toilet seat.

Totally agree with this. If you had a battle in real life where both sides had no fear of death, you'd end up with the same fast paced total bloodbaths that you see in games. Play a match of ro2 where every time you die you lose 1000 bucks and I'm pretty sure the game pace would slow WAY down.

The reason that in real wars a million bullets get fired for every casualty has nothing to with accuracy and lots to do with tons of soldiers just spraying bullets in the general direction of the enemy. Unless you are firing an ancient musket, guns do not just randomly fire off bullets at different angles. For example the kill rate per bullet was actually much HIGHER in late 19th century wars than during ww2 - is that proof that 19th century rifles were more accurate? Of course not. It's because the tactics at that time forced people to fire directly at one another.

 

[catfish@rock]

Lacking firefight = too accurate guns all the time

Remember that according to the statistics, only small percentile of fired bullets actually hit and killed the target in real wars.

RO2's guns are just too accurate all the time.

 

[Gudenrath]

I do not miss the BerlinBeta or Doggreen maps from DH. Probably my least favorite maps in that mod. There is however a lot of maps that I do miss. Stoumont not least, and I should think it would be a nice map to port to RO2.

 

[Cyper]

someone that claims he got "fooled into buying" something talking about being taken seriously

i lold

Well, actually, RO2 is very diffrent than RO1 in my opinion. The whole game mechanics feels diffrent. Since it was called red orchestra 2 I expected it to be more or less like the orginal RO which it wasn't. It's more focused on fast paced gameplay, less tactics, and in overall a little bit too simplified. I simply bought the game because of it's title and previous experience with RO. Unfortunately, I can't enjoy RO2 even if I try to which is a shame, because It's a bloody great game and it's core.