Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

[terminator]

So did anybody make it to Berlin yet?

The maximum I can do is one mission a day, sometimes I have to start some missions again because of an early defeat

[bebro]

No rush, was just curious

[robertahyuk]

I finished Red Storm yesterday after the battles in Manchuria. Finally a game you can play all the way through with just some minor glitches but no bugs to stop a scenario.
Battle of Berlin wasn't quite what I expected after playing another Berlin scenario here, but it was good.
Beyond a doubt, this was the finest of the trilogy. Great job guys!!!!

[bebro]

Thanks for the feedback, and great to hear you like it.

[bebro]

All that talk about the SU-76 made me curious. With the changes to the SU-122 and no new additions to the mechanized AT units, the Soviets really have to depend on the captured Marder-III or the SU-100 for AT-support? Nothing stronger against the German heavy tanks? The Germans have the StuG and Jagdpanther/-tiger et al. as dedicated AT-class units.

Not counting the Su-76/76M, for me it's towed AT > Su-85 > Su-100 (time/upgrade)

Su-85/100 are better in AT than the 76er, but don't have arty switches like the 76er types have.

[prestidigitation]

All that talk about the SU-76 made me curious. With the changes to the SU-122 and no new additions to the mechanized AT units, the Soviets really have to depend on the captured Marder-III or the SU-100 for AT-support? Nothing stronger against the German heavy tanks? The Germans have the StuG and Jagdpanther/-tiger et al. as dedicated AT-class units.

Pretty much. It hasn't been an issue because I bring a lot of artillery and some strike to clear out their armor blobs but it boggles the mind that the ISU-122 isn't a dedicated high end tank destroyer given that was literally its role.

[kondi754]

All that talk about the SU-76 made me curious. With the changes to the SU-122 and no new additions to the mechanized AT units, the Soviets really have to depend on the captured Marder-III or the SU-100 for AT-support? Nothing stronger against the German heavy tanks? The Germans have the StuG and Jagdpanther/-tiger et al. as dedicated AT-class units.

Pretty much. It hasn't been an issue because I bring a lot of artillery and some strike to clear out their armor blobs but it boggles the mind that the ISU-122 isn't a dedicated high end tank destroyer given that was literally its role.

Re: ISU-122
Ok. This vehicle hasn't AT support fire trait like other tank destroyers but it works pretty decently against German heavy armored vehicles in direct fire mode

[prestidigitation]

All that talk about the SU-76 made me curious. With the changes to the SU-122 and no new additions to the mechanized AT units, the Soviets really have to depend on the captured Marder-III or the SU-100 for AT-support? Nothing stronger against the German heavy tanks? The Germans have the StuG and Jagdpanther/-tiger et al. as dedicated AT-class units.

Pretty much. It hasn't been an issue because I bring a lot of artillery and some strike to clear out their armor blobs but it boggles the mind that the ISU-122 isn't a dedicated high end tank destroyer given that was literally its role.

Re: ISU-122
Ok. This vehicle hasn't AT support fire trait like other tank destroyers but it works pretty decently against German heavy armored vehicles in direct fire mode

Yeah but no reaction fire and the IS-2 already has heavy treading (for the Deep Operations trait which is frankly a call as deep operations were built around the light cavalry mission not the heavy cavalry mission and relied on long range exploitation not the short distance breakthrough mission you'd want heavy tanks for ) and 22 mech defense vs the 20 mech defense of the ISU-122. They both have the same mech attack but the ISU-122 also has worse infantry, bombing and naval defense. The advantage is artillery switch, but you get M-30 performance rather than the ML-20 performance of the ISU-152.

I just realized I unlocked the SU-100, and it has worse anti tank performance than the T-34/85. I suspect this is a reaction fire balance choice but obviously this isn't realistic

[kondi754]

Ok, but ISU-122 is good option for additional arty support and sometimes for use in strictly armored fights as reserve in later phase of battle
(when your T-34/85 or IS-2 units are so depleted that you have to replenish them this turn, you can throw on also weakened German Panzers and Jagdpanzers fresh ISU-122 from the second wave of the army and they are doing brilliant job then)

EDIT. One more thing, very important IMO: IS-2 heavy tank cost is 320 RPs/7 slots while cost of ISU-122 sp gun is 210 RPs/6 slots
EDIT 2. SU-100 has AT support fire trait, it's stats are ahistorical of course but you won't be able to support your tanks or infantry with T-34/85 behind.

[prestidigitation]

Ok, but ISU-122 is good option for additional arty support and sometimes for use in strictly armored fights as reserve in later phase of battle
(when your T-34/85 or IS-2 units are so depleted that you have to replenish them this turn, you can throw on also weakened German Panzers and Jagdpanzers fresh ISU-122 from the second wave of the army and they are doing brilliant job then)

EDIT. One more thing, very important IMO: IS-2 heavy tank cost is 320 RPs/7 slots while cost of ISU-122 sp gun is 210 RPs/6 slots
EDIT 2. SU-100 has AT support fire trait, it's stats are ahistorical of course but you won't be able to support your tanks or infantry with T-34/85 behind.

Yeah but I have SU-76M to support the tanks. OTOH swapping IS-2 for ISU-122 is starting to seem appealing, you're right that the costing is absurd and the CP cost isn't much better. Plus I have been wanting more arty for my armor... screw it let's do it.

[prestidigitation]

Friendship ended with IS-2, now ISU-122 is my friend!

I'm now using it with mech group (alongside a boatload of leaders of course). This new config seems to be working MUCH better than the old IS-2 config which just goes to show how useless expensive heavy tanks are in an AT heavy environment I guess. The result is a force with slightly lighter armor but slightly more than twice as much artillery punch which is obviously a big improvement in 99% of combats. I had been trying a double SU-76M config but ran into the issue that I was losing part of my arty park anytime I needed AT support, which obviously lowered fighting power against enemy tanks. Not so much anymore.


Mech Corps Loadout

• ISU-122 (arty or heavy tank depending on need)
• 2x T-34/85
• SU-100 (mobile AT)
• SU-76M (mobile arty)
• mot engineer
• mot airborne
• mot heavy
• M17 AA

[kondi754]

THE COMMANDER is the most important in OoB, an excellent move IMHO

EDIT. We have to remember there were only 15-21 IS-2 tanks in each Soviet armored corps before the start of a deep operation
Besides, the IS-2 was a breakthrough tank, it was not intended to be used in enemy operational space

[prestidigitation]

Figured I'd keep my AAR going, this time on imgur so that I'm not constantly worrying if the forum eats my post!

https://imgur.com/a/nIa5QSo

Turns out my initial plan had some flaws. While the battle of Warsaw could be made much easier by redirecting the 1st Polish Army south to attack it, this made it almost impossible to advance into Plonsk on schedule. I ended up switching my TO&E for 9th Mekh pretty heavily to reflect the superiority of the ISU-122 to the IS-2 as noted above, along with replacing the 2x T-34/85 and 1x SU-76M of 5th Mekh I'd initially deployed with 2x Morskaya Pekhota (foot), an ISU-152 and an engineer (foot).

The further I go in this campaign the more I'm ditching every AFV that isn't an ISU. By the end I'll probably have dropped the T-34s because they really don't offer anything except a slight mobility advantage. Seriously, the 122 has better stats and the same CP cost for a loss of 2 movement and a 210 price tag to the T-34/85 200. It's getting pretty silly and really has reinforced that medium tanks need a substantial price and CP reduction. I admit I completely underestimated these things, but when I'm rolling through Germany with a herd of ISU-152 or 122 backed by SU-100 and not a single T-34 I know something isn't right!

[terminator]

No rush, was just curious

No rush for Berlin ?

rfobpc00b.jpg (27.18 KiB) Viewed 2985 times

RUSH for BERLIN was a game released in 2009 by the creators of Codename Panzers: Stormregion; this real-time strategy title will once more take you onto the European battlefields of the Second World War. 1944–1945: In a race for the German capital Berlin, you take command of American, British, French and Soviet Red Army forces.

1471562535-2856174044.jpg (610.65 KiB) Viewed 2990 times

PS: you can still find this game on Steam at a low price

[StuccoFresco]

Since the missions are getting bigger and longer I thought it'd be interesting to do a more formal AAR post with pictures of my unit comps and operational plan.



One change since posting this picture was swapping out the 5th Mekh engineer for a Morskaya Pekhota as I felt I needed a mobile infantry unit that could ignore terrain disruption given the state of the map. I also moved the 5th Mekh elements to the south of Warsaw to support the Polish 1st Army's hook around Warsaw's rear.




I typically name all units in line with their formation and maintain them as a coherent operating unit throughout the mission and campaign. I find this A) reduces the cognitive load of mission setup and force management and B) allows me to establish "doctrinal" methods of handling different enemy attack types for these formations. The chief distinction between mech and rifle units is motorization vs heavy artillery.

In my armor formations everything has to be motorized or mechanized and I typically target vet 4+ for the infantry along with using more elite types. No foot mobile assets. The goal is a force that can rapidly achieve operational objectives and can push enemies off of target hexes with minimal prep. I almost always assign them ground and air recon as well as priority for air assets.

In the rifle units motorization is non-existent and I rarely if ever bother to include elite infantry (vet 3 is the target) BUT they have much better access to heavy artillery. The mission for these formations is usually much closer to the LOD and generally involves breaking through heavily fortified areas and fighting through large cities.

As is probably obvious I tend not to bring a lot of armor. It is extremely expensive and has limited utility.

I do pretty similar stuff with air where I'll have a standard air package that coordinates with a particular formation (usually fighter bomber + tac with a recon plane for fast moving armor units) while also having floating air assets (usually fighters, strats) that can be allocated on an as needed basis. Obviously with air the fluidity of the operating environment means things are different

Here is the overall operational picture as I see it. I expect there to be a good bit of artillery clustered around the airfield. The well equipped Polish infantry will be routed along the south of Warsaw along with elements of 5th Mekh once the enemy has committed their forces against my main attack to allow me to hit them in the rear. Similarly I will probably have the 78th Guards attack from the south of their second major objective rather than crossing through the marshlands for an attack from the east as those marshes are a serious PITA and provide no value to me while the forests give me an edge. I am also hoping to have the 78th link up with the 9th for a join attack on the location where I expect the enemy armor to be at. I suspect I will be able to execute a fixing attack with the infantry through the small town just over the river and between the woods allowing the armor to charge into the enemy rear. All of this is speculative but like Eisenhower said "plans are worthless, planning is essential".

I absolutely adore this kind of posts.

[kondi754]

Me too

Post by prestidigitation » 26 Sep 2020 03:11

Figured I'd keep my AAR going, this time on imgur so that I'm not constantly worrying if the forum eats my post!

https://imgur.com/a/nIa5QSo

Turns out my initial plan had some flaws. While the battle of Warsaw could be made much easier by redirecting the 1st Polish Army south to attack it, this made it almost impossible to advance into Plonsk on schedule. I ended up switching my TO&E for 9th Mekh pretty heavily to reflect the superiority of the ISU-122 to the IS-2 as noted above, along with replacing the 2x T-34/85 and 1x SU-76M of 5th Mekh I'd initially deployed with 2x Morskaya Pekhota (foot), an ISU-152 and an engineer (foot).

The further I go in this campaign the more I'm ditching every AFV that isn't an ISU. By the end I'll probably have dropped the T-34s because they really don't offer anything except a slight mobility advantage. Seriously, the 122 has better stats and the same CP cost for a loss of 2 movement and a 210 price tag to the T-34/85 200. It's getting pretty silly and really has reinforced that medium tanks need a substantial price and CP reduction. I admit I completely underestimated these things, but when I'm rolling through Germany with a herd of ISU-152 or 122 backed by SU-100 and not a single T-34 I know something isn't right!
Top

I have 2 vehicles of each type in my core (except for the T-34/85):
2x IS-2, 1x T-34/85, 2x SU-100, 2x ISU-152, 2x ISU-122, 1x SU-76M on battlefield (second in reserve), 2x Katyushas
As you can see, I didn't give up the IS-2 completely, although now I would rather try 3x T-34/85 whithout Iosef Stalin in core
All this, unfortunately, at the expense of inf units and their transport, I usually have only 2-3 motorized inf units to accompany armored troops
I gave up the mobile lend-lease AA halftracks (4 slots) in favor of 37mm Bofors (2 slots) whithout trucks to save my CPs for infantry.
The limited number of inf troops has historical justification IMO. Even the Red Army suffered from a shortage of infantry units towards the end of the war, not to mention the British who even had to disband one infantry division in Western Europe to replenish other units with its troops (early 1945)
In the 2nd Polish Corps in Italy, a battalion of Polish commandos was assigned to support the tanks in the armored brigade in the summer of 1944, and fought as regular infantry until the end of the war.

[prestidigitation]

Wow that is an extremely armored force! I find my infantry often does better than the armor (by 1944) in battles against armor and obviously reinforces for way less, so I tend to prefer them. Plus, uh, I can like have a bunch of them which allows me to completely envelop the AI armored pushes. So a Panther will come raring in to fight my infantry, do like 3-4 damage, get shelled to bits and then get surrounded by the rest of the infantry and wiped out. Total cost of engagement is minimal. I usually anchor my line on terrain features when I suspect a counterattack is imminent and it only gets worse for the AI when I do that.

Biggest threat is obviously the self propelled guns, the AA and any infantry that might help the Panther reach the rear areas.

[prestidigitation]

BTW I found a bug! The Sturmpanzer 4 in artillery mode seems to have flexible movement which allows it to double move and then fire a shot. This seems unfair!

[terminator]

BTW I found a bug! The Sturmpanzer 4 in artillery mode seems to have flexible movement which allows it to double move and then fire a shot. This seems unfair!

Of course but are you sure ?

grande-vadrouille.jpg (38.18 KiB) Viewed 2913 times

What is your username ?

[bebro]

From what I see the unit file has step = 1 for both StuPz IV switches, so that's fine. Gfx laggy?