So whats the next ideea for a red orchestra update?

[titsmcgee852]

Whilst I'd love to see a Stug, etc. in the game, it would need appropriate CA maps to play on. And I'm not talking about big CA maps Stalingrad outskirts, Yakalevo, etc. whilst they are excellent maps, they're also server killers like Arad and Gumrak. We need CA maps like Bridges, Myskova and Demyansk if we ever were to have more tanks in the game. They are short-medium range maps that generally have something for everyone.

Though, perhaps it would be more fruitful to work on other things that would aid the game such as implementing 3D VOIP and improving map balances. This would include cover and terrain adjustments, not just adjusting time and tickets (the standard TWI method). I'm also all for the +20 for destroying a tank for the reasons that were stated.

But most of all, PLEASE work on 3D VOIP. It would help the gameplay so, so much. The game plays so much better with teamwork and one of the sole components of teamwork in a game like this is being able to talk to the people around you and direct them. Please consider it, I don't think anyone would deny that it could only be a good thing. It's been done before, there's no reason why it can't be done again.

 

[Raven1986]

Bridges has a big problem to be frank: Houses that can't be entered. I really hate how you can camp off all the attackers as there only a few designated routes they can come along. I know that interiors take a lot extra work as you can't just cut the rooms and leave them empty. Yet for gameplay it's really bad to have all these concrete blocks just standing there.

I was always thinking about Apartments needing more rooms and I even started out. But I will do that for HoW now after my exams as they need good maps more than RO does.


Tanking as I mentioned before is bugged, it's lots of fun when it works to get on TS and wreck havoc on all those single tank drivers.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

We need CA maps like Bridges, Myskova and Demyansk if we ever were to have more tanks in the game. They are short-medium range maps that generally have something for everyone.

No, in general those are what I would call infantry maps with a sprinkling of tanks. Not what I would consider combined arms maps.

As I said previously, most of those players that would have loved tanking and larger combined arms maps left RO2 (for a number of reasons), long ago.

PS: And I have seen Bridges pop up on so many servers, I personally wish it were wiped off the earth and erased from everyone's memory.

 

[PsychoPigeon]

So a map is only considered combined arms if infantry take a back seat and have to walk miles

 

[titsmcgee852]

^ my thoughts exactly

Bridges is an easy fix. There's an updated version by Harley floating around on the Aus/NZ that fixes most of the problems associated with the stock version and is far more balanced, but as far as I know TWI have no intentions of picking it up. I've emailed Yoshiro about it twice, no reply. I wish you could tag the developers on this forum so they would actually see and acknowledge things like this. They shoot themselves in the feet when they don't take on board community solutions to their own problems (vehicle mod for lack of vehicles is another example). It really makes me loose faith in TWI.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

So a map is only considered combined arms if infantry take a back seat and have to walk miles

No of course not, and if you can actually read, I said "I consider..." I did not say it was a fact written in stone anywhere and that my definition trumps everyone elses.

To some people having just a tank or two is not much of a combined arms map experience. Arad, Barashka, Little Saturn, Yakovlevo CA etc those many people would consider to be better examples of combined arms maps, with more than a sprinkling of tanks and transports (so players don't have to walk miles and miles as you exaggerate) Or many of the maps from ROOST or the DH mod, good examples of true CA maps.

 

[PsychoPigeon]

Why are they true combined arms maps? Other than Little Saturn and Barashka which are small in RO standards, the rest are maps that put infantry after tanks. I would have thought a 'true' combined arms map would try and meet in the middle and try not to alienate either one. Darkest Hour was a bit better at this by having teleports otherwise you're screwed sitting around base hoping the next guy who takes the half track doesn't just drive off as what happens in ROOST and RO2, so I spawn run through teleport and I'm back at the objective. Even so, the objectives cannot be detailed enough due to performance and pop in issues to give infantry impressive objectives to assault. So in your true combined arms maps you're having to make people playing infantry walk long distances, attack less detailed objectives, play in a less detailed environment due to the expanse of empty space, get sniped by tanks on the other half of the map. Not seeing much of a benefit to playing as infantry to earn the title true combined arms experience.

 

[Cwivey]

Commissars House is a nice CA map, avenues for the tanks and spots the infantry can be without getting blown up constantly.

And the tanks can give fire-support etc when needed. It's not a massive slog of five minutes walking for the infantry either.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

So a map is not worth playing because (you think) players have to walk a little further despite having transportation , or that there might be a little less map detail? Also, if players are getting sniped by tanks across the map, then the mapper didn't do enough to vary the terrain or the players are just dumb and running on the crest of hills in plain sight all the time.

We obviously have a difference in what we like to play most of the time. And I stress again, my definition of a true combined arms map is my own (and perhaps some others). I AM NOT telling you that should be yours or anyone else definition like you seem to think I'm trying to do.

At least with a larger map like that, those dreaded Red Zones of Death are less likely to be a nuisance and the players will decide the map outcome instead of the zones pushing players out

 

[ZzDe0]

Can we please bring back getting in and out of your tank? Who didn't like that? And WASD turret control and throttle control. It felt more realistic.

 

[Lt. Heinz Becker]

How about a BT-7, Panzer II or a Sturmgeshutz III from RO1? PPD-40 and MP41 SMG's as well.

 

[aaz777]

you didnt post anything for 6 years? wow.

 

[titsmcgee852]

Regardless of whatever the definition of a CA map is, the point is that we need less maps like Arad, and more maps like Myshkova and Demyansk for future updates.

 

[Yarnu]

Always been a nutter for cosmetics.... at times I feel RO2 is lacking given the amounts of variation seen from both Russians/Germans.

Side skirts for Panzer IVs, Tank Kill Markings for Tank Veterancy and 1943 > Paints & Camos.

Work with the Modding Community to release custom skins & models.

Great Coats!!

Reversable Parka's (Jackets) - Field Painted Helms

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

Regardless of whatever the definition of a CA map is, the point is that we need less maps like Arad, and more maps like Myshkova and Demyansk for future updates.

Because we want to bore the remaining tankers/CA fans into leaving the game entirely? Seriously, not meant as a joke.

And what after some future update all that are left are German/Axis fans and a few 'noobs' who just play the Russian side for awhile and then leave. Do we just listen to the majority Axis fans because they are mostly all that is left for the game? I mean, I have seen all the topics about the German fans 'ruining' the game for many. Just like the game has lost many tanker/CA fans and mostly infantry players are left to say make smaller maps, what happens when only German fans are left to say make more German weapons and maps only interesting for German players?

 

[titsmcgee852]

Because we want to bore the remaining tankers/CA fans into leaving the game entirely? Seriously, not meant as a joke.

And what after some future update all that are left are German/Axis fans and a few 'noobs' who just play the Russian side for awhile and then leave. Do we just listen to the majority Axis fans because they are mostly all that is left for the game? I mean, I have seen all the topics about the German fans 'ruining' the game for many. Just like the game has lost many tanker/CA fans and mostly infantry players are left to say make smaller maps, what happens when only German fans are left to say make more German weapons and maps only interesting for German players?

As much as it might distress you I'd say that it's pretty clear that the majority of the player base doesn't like open CA maps like Arad considering they empty out full servers. It wouldn't make sense for TWI to make maps that will only be actively played by <5% of the playerbase. I personally like Arad, Gumrak, etc, but they are not what this game needs more of.

Your spiel about axis fans being the only ones left is pretty unfounded tbh. Yarnu is saying that there needs to be variation in both axis and allies not just axis, though he only presented axis examples. There will be people that like playing Russians and people that like playing Germans regardless, just as in Darkest Hour where there are people who prefer playing allies and there are people who prefer axis.

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

As much as it might distress you I'd say that it's pretty clear that the majority of the REMAINING player base doesn't like open CA maps like Arad considering they empty out full servers. It wouldn't make sense for TWI to make maps that will only be actively played by <5% of the playerbase. I personally like Arad, Gumrak, etc, but they are not what this game needs more of.

I had to add that word in there, because it is very important. Game design decisions led to a good portion of the player base leaving. I personally don't think there will be much in the way of new maps coming unless they are small/medium at best. The exception to that would be unless TWI chooses to do an RO2 expansion like Rising Storm in the future. Then I have no clue what it would bring.

At the same time, if certain players don't care much for the map rotation on specific servers, tell those server admins and I'm sure at some point those particular maps might be removed and alleviate any stress it causes unsuspecting players

Your spiel about axis fans being the only ones left is pretty unfounded tbh. Yarnu is saying that there needs to be variation in both axis and allies not just axis, though he only presented axis examples. There will be people that like playing Russians and people that like playing Germans regardless, just as in Darkest Hour where there are people who prefer playing allies and there are people who prefer axis.

Reading comprehension, it was hypothetical. I thought that saying "What If" would make that clear. So, to be clear, the "What If" mirrors many tankers/CA players leaving and only mostly infantry players left - / - Many Russian players leaving and leaving mostly German fans left

 

[LugNut]

So, having given it some thought, here's my latest take on the CA discussion.

As of now, CA is not popular with the player base. They want mostly infantry fighting and mostly CQB. A tank or two is fine. Unlike a year ago, people now groan when Winterwald, Rackowitz, Bridges come on, they prefer smaller maps it seems. Arad = half the players leaving. There's some pretty decent CA maps out there, but I say that with an asterisk as I've never played any with more than a handful of humans at best.

As Moe has said, the Armor fans are long gone and what we have is too little, too late to draw them back. Plus, there are still fundamental issues with tanks and maps that continue to annoy. It's unlikely that anything short of an overhaul and full Armor worthy expansion would change much with RO2. The community is a different one than has been in the past.

However, just like happened with RO2, a NEW title attracts the attention of people outside the current community. If TWI wanted to create a true CA FPS with RO3, they could. If done well, it could attract old players and also new ones. As with any change, most of the current community would stay, some would leave. Net gain or loss is open to conjecture.

 

[Jean_Luc_Picard]

what happens when only German fans are left to say make more German weapons and maps only interesting for German players?

It makes you wonder if that isn't already the case. The game started out with the Mkb42(H) in the game as fan service to add the STG in the game, even though it was never at Stalingrad. And when enough people wanted it, they added the MG-42, even though there wasn't a considerable amount of them at Stalingrad.

For Rising Storm enough Allied players complained about the slow running Flamethrower operator that he now runs faster than a rifleman. And enough complained about the knee mortar that the explosions are so tiny that I can kill someone 8 or 9 meters away with one and not get even wounded. Though, to be fair, all of the explosions are whimpy in this game. They may have done that also because of all the accidental TKs with grenades, but still, that's a problem with the TK system.

 

[titsmcgee852]

I had to add that word in there, because it is very important. Game design decisions led to a good portion of the player base leaving. I personally don't think there will be much in the way of new maps coming unless they are small/medium at best. The exception to that would be unless TWI chooses to do an RO2 expansion like Rising Storm in the future. Then I have no clue what it would bring.

You say 'remaining' as if RO2/RS didn't draw thousands of new people in. 'Remaining playerbase' or not, it's still the playerbase and they still don't prefer open CA maps, though I understand what you're saying about game design decisions.