Now, it's quite obvious what the ideal area for a long range unit would be: Just a flat area without any obstacles. Conversely, CQC units should be happy in a heavily build up area (like a city), right?
Well, I think it's not as simple, and my feeling is that certain layouts are frustrating for both sides...
Here are a couple of sketches, how a build up area could look like:

The blue boxes could indicate buildings or other sight and shot blockers.
Example a) has a lot of shotblockers, but obviously is not a good map for CQC units because there lanes without any flanking routes, so a CQC unit would be spotted and shot at from a distance already.
Now, example b) has lots of flanking routes (this looks much like the original Stalingrad). Is it the ideal CQC map? I'd say no, because a unit parked on a corner of one intersection will still have long sight axes. Every unit trying to creep up has a high chance of being spotted. So, parking a long range unit at suitable corner would still make it hard to flank it without the other player noticing. However, as soon as the long range unit starts to move around, there is a chance of encountering a CQC unit around the next corner.
So, I'd say this kind of layout is actually quite frustrating regardless of what type of unit your are using. It's bad for long range units as they have to fear being demolished as soon as they move around the corner, but short range units have problems closing in to long range units undetected. So in effect both types of units would be parked somewhere, the CQC unit around a corner for an ambush, the long range unit at an intersection. Doesn't sound like a lot of fun, eh?
Now, c) with a staggered pattern in one direction: Ok, somewhat better, assuming that the bases are left and right. I varied the lengths of the blockers to not create new diagonal lines of vision. Still, the there are long lines in N-S direction, so getting from left to right without being seen anywhere will be tricky. So while maybe a bit more CQC-unit friendly than a), the problem is still there for both types of units when moving E-W.
In d) I tried to create a pattern that has no long lines of vision while still retaining at least three paths to get from left to right. To me this seems like a CQC unit heaven where long range units have little business of being around.
A positive side effect: d) is much closer to what European cities look like

Makes sense, or complete nonsense, what do you think?
Edit:
My hypothesis is merely that a layout like b) and some extend c) isn't as great for CQC units as one might think and in fact awkward to move around in for all sorts of units and therefore probably should be avoided.
If you you want to include a CQC part in a map, I'd say it should more look like d).