Page 7 of 8

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 7:13 pm
by prestidigitation
viewtopic.php?f=373&t=101585&sid=d9d388 ... 217246e18f

Posting a link to my Seelow AAR here. Not done yet, but probably will be pretty soon unless a counterattack pops out of nowhere. All three of my corps are converging on the final objective and I’ve also knocked out the airstrip the AI was using (and will nab the airfield next just to be sure with elements of 9MC). So in the words of the immortal bard, “nowhere to run to baby, nowhere to hide”

I’m honestly finding this mission super easy on difficulty 4, and I kinda expected it to be more of a grind. The AI has a lot of tools for fighting tanks but seems to struggle against my infantry centric approach as they lack elite infantry and heavy artillery. I killed some big dumb German Heavy Tank Destroyer blob in the middle with the 78GRC with minimal losses by cycling infantry through in a buffering position for the ZiS-3 while my B4 and ISU-152 hammered it at long range. Pretty low tech but super CP efficient, and the AI didn’t have any SPGs to punish my field gun. There’s plenty of heavy cover on the map for infantry to sit in while they make googly eyes at the tanks so I’ve been doing that for at most 5dmg to the infantry. For elite repair that’s not bad, especially compared to what my fighters can cost me!

Almost all the ambushes I’ve spotted were set up for tanks, usually an ATG sitting fully fortified in a wooded bit of road (something I’ve long since learned to check before moving through). Not many infantry ambushes, and mines only on the initial road.

The worst beating was at the southern objective where I probably should have prioritized air support more rapidly as we got chewed up on the approach trying to crack the ridge west of the town in part because the marsh and open terrain on the approach allowed their artillery to light my infantry up good, in part because I didn’t have a spotter plane giving me vision on their artillery, and in part because I had to protect my wide open right flank (which an errant SPAT charged into at one point and hurt my mounted B4 pretty bad before I knocked it out. Keep in mind that this is the zone where the enemy has a bunch of infantry, a couple bunkers, some ART/AT/AA and barely any armor.

I’ve probably taken like 700CP in losses total, but mostly because my air got chewed up during the mandatory rail gun strike that forced me to attack into heavy AA cover while the jet fighter went after me. If not for that I’d probably have no more than 200CP in losses. Once I got my air back to my own lines I baited the AI jet fighter over my AA and bam, rekt.

It’s not super important either way because I had a 2k+ bank at the start of the mission and expect to make a good profit.

It’s especially striking to me how little actual armor I have on the map and how little I feel the lack. My sole armor is 2x T34/85! I have a bunch of SPGs for artillery support and one SU-100 for protecting the tanks, but that’s it. Everything else is infantry, artillery or AA.

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Thu Oct 01, 2020 11:23 pm
by prestidigitation
I really wish I could skip Berlin and go straight to Manchuria :lol:

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:17 am
by StuccoFresco
Eh, usually in this kind of games the player finds tanks excessively effective so as the campaign goes on the armor % goes up. I'm VERY happy that in OOB there is a way to progress without resorting to an all-armored force.

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Fri Oct 02, 2020 8:40 am
by terminator
Bagration:

The main challenge in this scenario is resource management.
If at first we have a lot of resources, the stock of resources melts like snow in the sun because of the significant losses to compensate. Resource management must be done sparingly. I lost by playing a first time at difficulty level IV because at the beginning I had made expensive elite repairs for some units. I played again a second time doing only normal repairs and I managed to win in the end but the units have lost much or almost all of the experience they have gained so far :(
About the bonus unit, difficult if not impossible to get it in time :(

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 8:47 pm
by terminator
Debrecen

Same problem encountered with the Air Offensive specialization as during the Baltic offensive, unable to deploy the additional air support at the beginning of the scenario :(
I’m gonna have to wait until I capture an airport and raise the red flag...to deploy the additional air support :(

Debrecen(5).jpg
Debrecen(5).jpg (853.61 KiB) Viewed 722 times

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Sun Oct 04, 2020 10:58 pm
by cutydt02
Review about new units of this dlc, the first thing i wanna check after end a scenario.
Inf: nothing special, upgrade per year, guard inf is good but still weak to other elite infs.
Tank: just T-34-85 and IS-2, nothings come after. I’ve waited for Is-3, T-44 or something at the battle of berlins. Im insterested in having some captured units as core unit too, like in grand camps in pc1. Tiger or panther looks cool.
Tank destroyer: Su-100 is good, su-76M too, but its good to see isu-122 as td. i dont use AT much as i did in german campaigns coz enemy rarely go for major counter attack, mostly dug in defensive positions. So just use old su-76M is better.
Arty: my core arty still A-19 and 203mm, its ok as i used K-17 throughout all scens. BM-31 is good tho, ISU series too but as i mentioned before, better make them AT role not regular tank at direct fire mode.
Anti-air, fighter, closed air strike and bomber: completely obsolete compares to germans. About AA i still use a pair of 2-moves towed AA from 1st dlc as mobile one is totally useless. ILs as good as stuka (no attacker-fighter as me410) and fighters is far more inferior than jet (but luckily, i have many good generals). Still ok when germans no more owning the sky. Bomber is decent but the best bomber is b-25 from previous dlcs no more accessible.
Lend-lease is still not good as i though (ofc except for b-25), the us trucks stand for what when they are same as soviet ones ? Tanks are not that good too when soviet always have better, aircraft is dedent but mostly more expensive. Why not bring more version of hurricane, spitfire or p-47 ?
Otherwise, the camo is pretty, hey its the best part for series, please make more.
The only bug i see is the missing move when unit cant fullfill its movement as highlighted.
And cant i ask about next dlc ? Dual-faction (us/uk) as afrika korps is excited too play

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:39 am
by bebro
terminator wrote:
Sun Oct 04, 2020 8:47 pm
Same problem encountered with the Air Offensive specialization as during the Baltic offensive, unable to deploy the additional air support at the beginning of the scenario :(
I’m gonna have to wait until I capture an airport and raise the red flag...to deploy the additional air support :(
It's WAD, that is why you get a secondary objective to do it early.

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:25 pm
by prestidigitation
I gotta say I was surprised with how bad the lend lease focus was, the only thing of value I got was halftracks in 44. The tanks were mostly not up to par with the T-34 and beyond a couple objectives there wasn't much reason to use them.

The P-39 in particular was ill treated given that it had excellent performance in the USSR and received several upgrades over the course of the war that made it an incredible low/mid altitude fighter and bomber hunter and a better plane than the La-7 (especially in 44 when the Q came out with comparable or better stats + an all metal body + armored plates behind the pilot and an armored windscreen, far better instrumentation and pilot comfort and excellent weaponry)

The Soviets had 4k P-39s of mostly the later types (the extremely effective N and Q variants) while only having 1k La-7.

The only real complaint about the P-39 in Soviet service is the low ammo capacity for the 37mm, 30 rounds. I've used it in sims and I agree, that's a serious PITA in any extended dogfight against an opponent using any sort of air combat maneuvers. But the 50s are still pretty darn good against enemy fighters, have a reasonable ammo load and did just fine as the primary weapon for the P-47 and P-51 so that's not a serious issue.

Similarly the Valentine was treated very poorly and without reason. The Valentine III should be a 4CP medium with near T-34 armor, poor performance against infantry but good performance against armor and a low speed. The Valentine IX Lend Lease should still have near T-34 armor and Cromwell tier performance on the attack. The Soviets created an HE shell for the British 6lbr using the one for the SU-57 (in US service the T48, a lend lease vehicle with a 57mm gun) and supplied it to Valentine IX equipped units. BTW I have the Soviet documentation to prove it, but haven't gotten around to updating the Valentine wiki yet. The Valentine III was primarily used in mixed formations with the T-70 (due to the lack of a viable HE shell for the 2lbr the Soviets felt those units needed something that could direct fire HE, hence the mixed units) and the smoke mortar was repurposed to fire HE shells on a routine basis, so it wouldn't be odd to give it a heavy infantry style mortar swap either btw. The Valentine IX served primarily in Cavalry or Razveda formations in sole type units and was well liked with excellent automotive reliability despite the slow speed. It took a while to get where you were going but you didn't break down and if you did it was usually a quick fix so it all worked pretty well. The Soviets received absolutely enormous numbers of them from 41 to 45 and used them throughout.

Meanwhile the Matilda retains absolutely absurd stats given how terrible it was (discontinued from service after its first engagement, no HE shell, poor automotive reliability).

And of course there's the M4A2 Sherman and M4A2 76mm Sherman both of which have always had awful stats in this game for no explicable reason (and a bizarre armor switch mode) given how well loved they were by every army that used them (including the Germans).

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:57 pm
by Oleksandr
Got to Estonia mission and can't see the sixth primary objective to take in Estonia; on the map there are only 5 cities to take, marked with gold stars

EDIT Maybe Riga is counted as well?

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:07 pm
by kondi754
Oleksandr wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:57 pm
Got to Estonia mission and can't see the sixth primary objective; on the map there are only 5 cities to take, marked with gold stars
It's ok, capture them and you'll accomplish this task

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:11 pm
by Oleksandr
kondi754 wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 7:07 pm
Oleksandr wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 6:57 pm
Got to Estonia mission and can't see the sixth primary objective; on the map there are only 5 cities to take, marked with gold stars
It's ok, capture them and you'll accomplish this task
Thanks!

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:02 pm
by Mascarenhas
bebro wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:42 am
Hm, that's a good point. Should maybe be greyed out for partisans (over other hexes).
I'd like to know what means "unassign commanders" in this mission. Should I disband a core unit currently attached to, say a 4-star infantry or tanK? I really didn't get what is one suppose to do to fulfill this task and, if what really is expected is an action like that, I'd rather nuke it out of my way and proceed.

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:45 am
by fuzzayd
Mascarenhas wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:02 pm
bebro wrote:
Wed Sep 30, 2020 7:42 am
Hm, that's a good point. Should maybe be greyed out for partisans (over other hexes).
I'd like to know what means "unassign commanders" in this mission. Should I disband a core unit currently attached to, say a 4-star infantry or tanK? I really didn't get what is one suppose to do to fulfill this task and, if what really is expected is an action like that, I'd rather nuke it out of my way and proceed.
This one took me a bit, too. If you click on the circle (i) in the lower right of the unit/general portrait, it opens the detail page. From there, click the red x at the upper right corner of their portrait.

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 1:46 am
by fuzzayd
Also, just wanted to say I have been really, really enjoying this DLC. I'm at Seelow now, but already it feels like the best of the trilogy. Thanks, devs.

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 4:18 am
by terminator
Baltic Offensive

Primary Objectives :

sov3_09_Baltic44(16).jpg
sov3_09_Baltic44(16).jpg (110.49 KiB) Viewed 563 times

Take all primary objectives in Estonia :
- Tallinn
- Haapsalu
- Pärnu
- Jogeva
- Rakvere
:arrow: There are 5 primary objectives with a golden flag in Estonia but the counter indicates 6 :shock:

Besiege Riga :
- Incukalns
- Ogar
:arrow: 2 objectives with a silver flag.

Take Riga (or not):
Riga has a golden flag but it is OPTIONAL to capture Riga. This is why the counter indicates 6 objectives in the first objective :!: Riga is the capital of LATVIA.
:arrow: Riga should have a SILVER flag and there would be no more counter problem in the first objective :idea:

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 10:57 am
by bebro
Mascarenhas wrote:
Tue Oct 06, 2020 10:02 pm
I'd like to know what means "unassign commanders" in this mission. Should I disband a core unit currently attached to, say a 4-star infantry or tanK? I really didn't get what is one suppose to do to fulfill this task and, if what really is expected is an action like that, I'd rather nuke it out of my way and proceed.
Like the other posters explained, but you can also read the specific manual section devoted to the handling of commanders.

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Wed Oct 07, 2020 11:46 am
by kondi754
prestidigitation wrote:
Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:25 pm
I gotta say I was surprised with how bad the lend lease focus was, the only thing of value I got was halftracks in 44. The tanks were mostly not up to par with the T-34 and beyond a couple objectives there wasn't much reason to use them.

The P-39 in particular was ill treated given that it had excellent performance in the USSR and received several upgrades over the course of the war that made it an incredible low/mid altitude fighter and bomber hunter and a better plane than the La-7 (especially in 44 when the Q came out with comparable or better stats + an all metal body + armored plates behind the pilot and an armored windscreen, far better instrumentation and pilot comfort and excellent weaponry)

The Soviets had 4k P-39s of mostly the later types (the extremely effective N and Q variants) while only having 1k La-7.

The only real complaint about the P-39 in Soviet service is the low ammo capacity for the 37mm, 30 rounds. I've used it in sims and I agree, that's a serious PITA in any extended dogfight against an opponent using any sort of air combat maneuvers. But the 50s are still pretty darn good against enemy fighters, have a reasonable ammo load and did just fine as the primary weapon for the P-47 and P-51 so that's not a serious issue.

Similarly the Valentine was treated very poorly and without reason. The Valentine III should be a 4CP medium with near T-34 armor, poor performance against infantry but good performance against armor and a low speed. The Valentine IX Lend Lease should still have near T-34 armor and Cromwell tier performance on the attack. The Soviets created an HE shell for the British 6lbr using the one for the SU-57 (in US service the T48, a lend lease vehicle with a 57mm gun) and supplied it to Valentine IX equipped units. BTW I have the Soviet documentation to prove it, but haven't gotten around to updating the Valentine wiki yet. The Valentine III was primarily used in mixed formations with the T-70 (due to the lack of a viable HE shell for the 2lbr the Soviets felt those units needed something that could direct fire HE, hence the mixed units) and the smoke mortar was repurposed to fire HE shells on a routine basis, so it wouldn't be odd to give it a heavy infantry style mortar swap either btw. The Valentine IX served primarily in Cavalry or Razveda formations in sole type units and was well liked with excellent automotive reliability despite the slow speed. It took a while to get where you were going but you didn't break down and if you did it was usually a quick fix so it all worked pretty well. The Soviets received absolutely enormous numbers of them from 41 to 45 and used them throughout.

Meanwhile the Matilda retains absolutely absurd stats given how terrible it was (discontinued from service after its first engagement, no HE shell, poor automotive reliability).

And of course there's the M4A2 Sherman and M4A2 76mm Sherman both of which have always had awful stats in this game for no explicable reason (and a bizarre armor switch mode) given how well loved they were by every army that used them (including the Germans).
1. Aircobra +1 It must be remembered that La-7 behaved better at altitudes above 6000 m, when the P-39 engine was basically designed to operate at altitudes up to 5,000-6,000 m AND most of the air fights on the Eastern Front took place at an altitude of up to 4000 m above the ground
2. If the Devs don't want to improve Sherman's stats then at least it should be cheaper in RPs and CPs

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:25 pm
by kondi754
RE: Shermans

I think it wasn't used that the Sherman worked great with the infantry, hence they were the equipment of the mechanized corps, where there were more motorized infantry compared to the 'pure' armored corps of the Red Army. Perhaps a good solution would be to create a specialization for Shermans that can support all adjacent infantry units with fire?

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:30 pm
by GabeKnight
kondi754 wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:25 pm
Perhaps a good solution would be to create a specialization for Shermans that can support all adjacent infantry units with fire?
Cool, I like the idea. And the general mechanic's already in place with "Panzerkeil".

Re: Stormy Battles: Red Storm Review and Discuss

Posted: Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:39 pm
by kondi754
GabeKnight wrote:
Tue Oct 20, 2020 3:30 pm
kondi754 wrote:
Fri Oct 16, 2020 8:25 pm
Perhaps a good solution would be to create a specialization for Shermans that can support all adjacent infantry units with fire?
Cool, I like the idea. And the general mechanic's already in place with "Panzerkeil".
Cool, I like you liked this idea :D

I think this can be implemented in 2 ways:
1. like Panzerkeil (infantry gain a defensive bonus from adjacent Sherman when attacking)
or
2. simply as +1 increase to all attack and defense factors for such infantry unit (if possible)