My beef and my concern.

[Grogsky]

So I finally got to take a look at Heroes of Stalingrad and I can't begin to say how much I think that this is going to be a godsend to the Red Orchestra Franchise. That said I have my doubts about it's direction.

Is realism and simulation going to be something that comes after action elements? I can see that the game is more focused on urban "Rattenkreig" but I get this sinking feeling watching the gameplay demos on youtube.

Regardless of how much value you place on teamwork and taking orders from a leader who (one would hope) knows what he's doing there is ALWAYS going to be the sizable population of people who are just there to shoot people randomly with little or no regard to objectives and game play mechanics. Look at Brothers in Arms Hells Highway. I thought that this was going to be a really smart multiplayer where people were maneuvering to flank enemies orders were being issued by someone who had some idea about what was supposed to be going on. Instead I found a game where the whole idea was to run around not taking cover and gunning down people haphazardly. This happens if Gears of War and any other game that utilizes some form of a cover system.

If action is being put at the forefront of what the game is about I fear that this game will not be a Red Orchestra but just another Call of Duty clone or as I like to call the series "Call of Going Prone: Modern Pronfare and Prone at War". I say this because Call of Duty isn't about anything other than mindlessly running around guns blazing and going prone faster than the other guy can bunny hoping all the way.

I fear one Heroes of Stalingrad game type than any other that I've heard of: Skirmish. If it's about elimination of enemies on a map the objective is no longer about working as a squad. The Objective now is to kill more guys than anyone else! The commands will just be arbitrary HUD points and the Leader will just be some guy who has a special ability to do something no one cares about.

I LOVED Red Orchestra for so many reasons and I've yet to find games that can deliver simulation quality in a package like it can. I wanted to some day find some way that I could help with making this game better and add more content. But I'm scared that Ostfront 41-45's successor is little more than a remark made about it by a Red Orchestra player "A Money Ploy".

 

[LemoN]

time will tell
untill then dont freak out

 

[213]

skirmish mode is coop terrorist hunt...basically a fun mode.

i wouldn't judge the game based on just that one game mode.

 

[Sgt. Lag]

That's what groups and clans are there for I guess

 

[Lucan946]

I doubt there will be all that many arcadey elements- don't think of it as a CoD. The Relaxed Realism is a visual help it looks like, it doesn't seem to change the game into DoD:S/CoD.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

Is realism and simulation going to be something that comes after action elements?

That is a trend that already started with Ostfront. It is most prominent and IMHO a really glaring realism problem, and to me, a true gameplay downer in the map linearity.

Back in the Mod days, my favourite maps were Berlin and Kaukasus, because they were an open environment where all the cap points were avialable for all the time. This meant it gave the teams great tactical flexibility, and even more importantly, it made tactics to be more decisive than individual skill.

Now already with Ostfront, many maps became linear, as in objectives had to be unlocked and capped in a predetermined order. And HoS seems to make this even worse with it's lockdown mechanic which basically means that at each time, only two cap points are contested.

The key word here is player channeling. The TW devs seem to think that it's a good idea, and I do think I can guess why: It generates lot's of action on the player screen, with all players basically going the same way to the same goal. And it might make a game appear to be a larger battle than it actually is because of that.
BUT it actually restricts the viable routes and tactics to a very large extent, by a very very gamey mechanic that is laid on top of it. It makes small teams obsolete who try to sneak behind the enemy lines to capture far off points. "Why can't we capture the Courtyard? Oh, because the Warehouse is still in enemy hands!"
With the cap indicators, especially if they come in those readily available huge blobs hovering in the gameworld itself, such tactics of course would be futile anyway, as it completely frees the defenders from having to overwatch all their points themselves.

I for one found much more thrill in sneaking through buildings to get to the Northern Apartements while my team captured the Southern Apartements than running head on into the defense on the last objective on Odessa.
But sadly, that's not a thrill TW wants to deliver. It rather choses the already pretty shallow and often seen thrill of facing incoming fire...

 

[Zetsumei]

what rattus states is my major concern as well lineairty in maps, and telling information for the team automatically throwing away for the need to tell certain information themselves.

Like where to go, what is the enemy doing, how to go there, how to divide our forces.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

For me, the map would have to be properly designed to allow for the "all objectives available at once." If not, you just end up with some silly (and annoying in my opinion) Domination style gameplay.

Sure teamwork and flanking are great, but if should probably imagine that on the edge of a map, where much flanking is going on, that there would/could be another off map combat area where enemy troops are that could be firing on players sneaking/flanking to rear objectives; in other words, they could be guarding the flanks. To me, this makes the likelyhood of real troops advancing to the rear (in the scope of RO map sizes), possibly just to get themselves cut off, a little out of the ordinary.

Now, I am not saying it isn't a wise tactic in some cases to flank or infiltrate, or with a properly designed map, that it couldn't be non-linear, just that in most cases a linear map may be more realistic given the circumstances.

Quite honestly, I would like to see both types, but only if properly done. I don't want to see groups of players going around in circles on a map because it is set up "domination" style. To me, that just smacks of COD ( )

And for the record, I did not get a chance to play the RO Mod, so I didn't get to experience the maps mentioned above.

 

[Zetsumei]

both can be fine. You can go against linearity while still locking down some capzones till others are capped.

Of lineair maps parizerplatz and kriegstadt are a good example as they offer truly different paths you can not overlook from one persons perspective. So you still have freedom in how to come to the capzone and stop the enemy. You can still suprise enemies.

The fun of all objectives open comes forth mostly in competetive gameplay as then people decide to leave people to defend a place. Rather than running around in circles, although a different capture system would change the running around in circles synrome as well. With open maps both teams have a complete sandbox to play in where they can pick how to obtain the objectives.

But what i mean more is that maps generally seem to go more meatgrinder style, as in you see every enemy going to the cap nearly tunneling them through one path. And its a form on head on fighting, without an ability to run around and flank.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

both can be fine. You can go against linearity while still locking down some capzones till others are capped.

Of lineair maps parizerplatz and kriegstadt are a good example as they offer truly different paths you can not overlook from one persons perspective. So you still have freedom in how to come to the capzone and stop the enemy. You can still suprise enemies.

But what i mean more is that maps generally seem to go more meatgrinder style, as in you see every enemy going to the cap nearly tunneling them through one path. And its a form on head on fighting, without an ability to run around and flank.

That I can agree with. Parizerplatz and Kriegstadt are great examples of mostly linear maps that offer good options for tactics, and should be played more often. There are others that take the meatgrinder route and they are usually only fun once in awhile because they leave little option but to charge up the middle.

 

[Xendance]

rattus, RO-Berlin had like two objectives active at the same time max. Iirc, Reichstag became available after SA or NA was capped.

 

[[-project.rattus-]]

hmm. You could be right Xen. Still, it was far more open than Odessa or Rakovice...

 

[Psycho_Sam]

Regardless of how much value you place on teamwork and taking orders from a leader who (one would hope) knows what he's doing there is ALWAYS going to be the sizable population of people who are just there to shoot people randomly with little or no regard to objectives and game play mechanics. Look at Brothers in Arms Hells Highway. I thought that this was going to be a really smart multiplayer where people were maneuvering to flank enemies orders were being issued by someone who had some idea about what was supposed to be going on. Instead I found a game where the whole idea was to run around not taking cover and gunning down people haphazardly. This happens if Gears of War and any other game that utilizes some form of a cover system.

If action is being put at the forefront of what the game is about I fear that this game will not be a Red Orchestra but just another Call of Duty clone or as I like to call the series "Call of Going Prone: Modern Pronfare and Prone at War". I say this because Call of Duty isn't about anything other than mindlessly running around guns blazing and going prone faster than the other guy can bunny hoping all the way.

You could say the same about any game and public play. You could play the most arcade game in a realisitc fashion if you wanted, same works in reverse with a realistic game. Really it all comes down to who you play with and how you play with them. Hopefully enough players/admins out there will be able to encourage players to play how the game was intended. I have seen enough new players to RO come from "arcade" shooters and become engrossed in the tactical/realistic world of RO, it seems to have a positive effect on people.

 

[MrHat]

hmm. You could be right Xen. Still, it was far more open than Odessa or Rakovice...

You have three objectives open to choose from on Rakowice...

 

[[TW]Ramm-Jaeger]

I have to ask, what Ostfront map EVER funnelled all the players through one small area? Rattus, the maps you listed as being "fully open" like Berlin weren't actually fully open, and the maps you list as being linear "Such as Odessa" have multiple paths and objectives open at almost all times, and have TONS of open paths and flanking areas. Seriously, from a gameplay perspective Odessa and Berlin are very similar maps, both bombed out cities with a couple of objectives open at a time, with lots of flanking paths and paths through buildings.

Different people like different types of gameplay. Some prefer more open maps, some prefer more focused maps. Ostfront had a good mix of both, as will ROHOS. ROHOS will be an evolution of the RO franchise just like Ostfront was. Some people seem to have a very limited set of things that they liked about RO the mod, or RO:Ostfront, and every person seems to have a DIFFERENT thing they liked about them. Even hardcore realism guys have a broad range of what they like in a map. But we can't as a game studio focus down and make a game that will only appeal to just 1 individual's favorite type of map for every map we make.

 

[Zetsumei]

What i mean with funneling is not in the sense of a spartakovka nade alley , its more like attacking from a clear side without much allowance to walk around and pick where to attack from. The exact side, method and order in which to play is predetermined for you.

Players their spawns are placed so relatively close to a capzone, with generally short respawns, and more players per map, that the the exact fronts of the battlefield havent got a lot freedom in forming.

What i mean is the change say between ponyri and basovka.
or krivoirog vs a map like orel.

What i mean with funneling basically is how much a map feels forced in how you must play it and how indifferent it feels when replayed.

I can live with different types of maps for different types of players, my issue though is that a lot of maps i loved were changed to maps that in my opinion took away more and more the need for teamplay over individualistic skill.

 

[Yoshiro]

And you use Berlin as an example of "not this"? Berlin was a nade spam fest, even going so far as to be a nade spam fest into spawns.

 

[Xendance]

The thing is, in real life you aren't given multiple objectives. You have one objective on platoon level (usually) and if that's what you have to do then that's what you must do.

I don't care if there's only one active objective (in fact I like it that way).

 

[Zetsumei]

And you use Berlin as an example of "not this"? Berlin was a nade spam fest, even going so far as to be a nade spam fest into spawns.

I didnt use berlin as an example, but it can be used so.

But what berlin had going for itself was primarily the major splitting of capzones. So when playing it really did matter what way you would attack, wether to attack 1 capzone all together or keep splitting up.

There is hardly any rubble on the streets as well allowing you to fire from one end of a street to the other unobstructed. While smgs can move through smaller paths in the buildings.

So people had to think what way to attack depending on what weapon they had, things truly played different in multiple rounds. The final attack often for the reichstag could happen from anyside of it. For smgs to be able to cross the street rifleman needed to try and clear it out.

Berlin was played with 24 people as well so it wasnt overly cluttered getting naded wherever you exit. The spawnexit of berlin atleast for the allies was as wide as an entire street.

I wouldnt mind maps with 1 main objective, where say a squad leader could give you subobjectives (like capture building X to position snipers or whatever) or decide where to blow up a wall.

What i want is tactical freedom for the entire team together so that you win if you work as a team. Although for a 1 objective system to work well you need a (capture and command) system that can make people actually and do things correctly.

 

[Xendance]

So in a larger sense you'd prefer maps like these:

instead of these:

Right?