× ATTENTION! New campaign Firestorm: Stripes has launched! Sign up @ firestormstripes.warconsole.com

Firestorm: Red Thunder

The Team Yankee Global Campaign


Warsaw Pact
Ilya Semionov
VS West German
Yevgeniy Lutai

We played a big 300+ points Total War battle in Saint Petersburg, and changed some rules to match it to the campaign. As we played 3 on 3, we decided to count it as three battles for the campaign, so divided the report into 3 parts.

That is the second part of the Battle Report.

Please find the first part here: https://firestorm.warconsole.com/battles/ilya-semionov-vs-konstantin-vasilyev-1505830476#publish

The Mi-24s attacked the Abrams tanks, which were supported by VADs and used every .50 cal to stop the Soviet helicopters
Five Mi-24s out of 10 were destroyed, but the other five killed two Abrams tanks and bailed another one, and the American tankers were so frustrated they fled the field of battle!
The second Abrams platoon engaged the T-55AM2s and together with M109 arty destroyed and bailed a bunch of them.
Leo-2s and light British armour advanced to engage multiple Soviet AT missile platoons.
Several AT missiles were destroyed, the NATO helicopters also destroyed a pair of Soviet T-72s
As for the Soviet right flank, the British were advancing in their characteristical manner, getting closer to their table edge.
SU-25s supported the East German attack, killing another Abrams and bailing one.
Leo-2s started to suffer losses due to the Soviet AT missiles fire, the British light tanks were annihilated in no time, as the Soviet infantry fired its AT assets at them.
The Soviets scored the first hit at the Chieftains, killing one with a T-72.
Americans needed help to hold against the countless T-55AM2s, and the West Germans rushed to the rescue with one platoon of Leo-2s and another of Marders. The feared A-10s entered the battlefield, damaging and destroying East German panzers.
T-55AM2s enterd close range under constant American artillery fire, but the sturdy Soviet design provided quite high protection from capitalist artillery shells!
The British returned fire, destroying several T-72s on the Soviet right flank.
More and more NATO forces were engaged against the East German onslaught!
T-55AM2s suffered medium losses.
Abrams tanks were concentrated at killing T-55AM2s in front of them, but another pack got'em from the rear!
One Abrams tank was destroyed by T-55AM2s flanking fire, the rest decided to fall back to a safer position.
One by one, Leo-2s were getting aflame as the Soviet and East German missiles found their weaker spots. The panzer crews got nervous and failed to cross a simple obstacle!
While their allies were in the heat of battle, the British tankers stuck to their methodical advance doctrine, hunting one T-72 after another.

Comrade! Be aware of the fact, that the video above is NATO-biased! It's better for you if you don't speak Russian, as in this case you won't understand the capitalist propaganda!

The battle was at it's peak, the main directions of advance were already chosen, but it was still a lot of fighting ahead! The Soviet infantry was either behind the thick walls of a town in the central part of their positions or in the comfortable BMPs far behind the endless tank hordes. They'll show their strength in the final part of the epic struggle!

That was the second part of the Battle Report, please find the last one here: https://firestorm.warconsole.com/battles/ilya-semionov-vs-alexandr-shamilov-1505941160

Army Lists Used In This Battle

Register or Login to see the Army Lists

Battle Report Average Rating

Log in to rate this battle.

Recommend Commander For Commendation

8 People Recommended Ilya Semionov for commendation

Share this battle with friends

Warsaw Pact
Ilya Semionov


  • Fill says:

    Move video at bottom of report please, it overlay photo.

  • Scholinger says:

    Thanks for that great report Ilya. I don’t know whats the problem with this reports i understand whats the idea behind them.
    There is no difference between one game where a both sides could generate max 3 points or three single games where they can generate 1 point per game.

  • Nikolai Zhukuv says:

    Ilya! It is a very good report and I enjoyed to read it. Beautifull painted armies and terrain! As I dont want to offend any of our NATO players here, but I think this discussion is not fair. Why not to rate this 300 points as 3 battles… everybody in this game had the same chances! So what is the matter that this should not count? I thank you for all the hard work you invested in this report! Great job!!!

  • Ilya Semionov says:

    Thank you for understanding!

  • Jagdpanzer says:

    Thats fine IIya, I understand. Not meaning to be critical of you, more the advice you were given, I understand the huge amount of work it must be to translate all this and then go and write up multiple reports. Well done! And thanks for your hard work in doing it all. It was a very nice battle with beautiful terrain and figures!

  • Ilya Semionov says:

    We play the first organized play event in Russia actually, that covers several cities, and there is no tradition of making BatReps, not to speak about English ones. So I actually translated pair of BatReps for the guys from Vladimir, and their posted them. As for the St. Petersburg group, they were not ready to make reports in English and having only a week until the end of the campaign to post them. So I had to post the reports myself.

    I’d like to mention also, that I played a red on red game and won it for NATO but had to ask the other guy to post it from the WarPac side, as the site gives no possibility to post it correctly.

    So again I’d like to ask you for understanding, my goal was to make the Firestorm campaign happen in Russia, so I needed to give each of the participants of the Total War the possibility to win a pin and made the report(s) according to that idea.

  • Jagdpanzer says:

    oh no, I don’t think it was malicious on the report writer or unfair, NATO could have won, but it would have been very tough. Its a fantastic table and everyone has beautifully painted armies, and im sure the result is true. But i think it should of just been reported as one battle. That is all.

  • K. Alexander says:

    I personally wouldn’t mind if each player wrote up their own side of the game and reported it that way, but three wins on the score card going to a single player for one large game isn’t how I would’ve done it myself.

    That said, I don’t believe there was any malicious intent, and the report(s) have plenty of decent content, so we shouldn’t be too hard on the guy.

  • Ilya Semionov says:

    NATO could hold both of their objectives, capture the WaePac one and win 3 to 0. It was a fair battle!

  • Jagdpanzer says:

    Well i think that was a crap idea on the WARPAC forum, and as it affects the outcome x 3, they should have asked us. Either way best NATO can do it 1-2. I think its a great Idea, and you used the scoring for your own campaign, but it should have been reported as one battle. Nice of WARPAC forum to tell us this was how we were doing battles like this?? Did they tell BF too?

  • Ilya Semionov says:

    I am quite new on this site, so before playing the game I asked how to report a 3vs3 game (with each player wanting a victory pin) on the WarPac forum. The answer was you can post 3 reports. So we played the game with that in mind. I never thought it would be a problem.

    As a result, I think you’ll understand the situation I got into and let me finish the third part of the report. And yes, it ended up 3 wins for WarPac as all three NATO lists got fully destroyed. You can check the NATO video to see the NATO players were understanding the mission as I described (you need to know Russian though).

    My apologies for any inconvenience due to these reports!

  • Storm Caller says:

    Is the third report a NATO win? Or is it another WP for a total of three?

    Still trying to figure out

    Still good reports

  • Storm Caller says:

    Hi Gentlemen,

    First great report! but I have no clue have to rate?

    I have to agree with M. Nisbet! To Quote one of the top three WARSAW PAC commanders from five weeks ago ref “Points and Battles” ,

    “One battle is one battle and the points don’t matter”. This was said in response to our question about all the 50 point “wins” WARSAW PAC was getting vs NATO’s 100 point game.

    Now you want to change this Bayankhan?

    If so 100 points game get two times the value vs lower then 100?

    Do you really want to go there? I know who lose that score! It’s no NATO!

    Still having fun



  • bayankhan says:

    Personally don’t see it as a problem since this could have ended up 3-0, 2-1, 1-2, 0-3. considering they didn’t have to fess up to this and I don’t have the time to fly to St Petersburg and interrogate the other players, I suggest we all get a life and move on.

  • Ilya Semionov says:

    As I wrote in the first part of the report:
    We played a big 300+ points Total War battle in Saint Petersburg, and changed some rules to match it to the campaign. As we played 3 on 3, we decided to count it as three battles for the campaign, and also used the following rules:

    We got three pairs of players. The armies were of different size, but in total they had same points value.

    The two biggest armies from both sides played “against each other” for the sake of determining attacker/defender. The same was used for the middle-pointed armies and low-pointed armies.

    The WarPac player in each pair rolled for attacker according to the local campaign conditions (it was two 3+ rolls and one 4+ roll, as these were games from 9 to 11. We got 2 WarPac players attacking and one defending.

    Each attacking player placed an objective in the defender’s deployment area (not closer than 12″ from the table center line). After that the defender in the highest point level armies pair deployed his army, followed by the attacker in that pair, next the same thing for the middle-sized forces and the smallest ones.

    We played a whole-day Total War, the objectives were to be scored at the end of the day only. So the NATO players needed to hold 2 objectives, and the WarPac ones defended one of their own.

    As you can see from the victory conditions, if WarPac players don’t capture any NATO objectives at the end of the game, and hold theirs against the NATO attack, that would be 2 wins for NATO and 1 for WarPac. If WarPac captures one of the NATO objectives and holds its against the NATO attack, it would be 2 wins for WarPac and 1 for NATO.

    We also determined the local campaign outcome according to each objective hold/captured. So, having held his objective against the NATO attack, the Soviet player rolled for capturing the territory NATO attacked from on the local campaign map.

    Hope it helps!

  • fingolfen says:

    Ilya – could you explain a little more how this could have ended up 2 wins / 1 loss (or other combination of wins and losses) for the final outcome? I think that will help everyone understand how this should be reported better.

  • Jagdpanzer says:

    Yeah I agree, this will triple a value for a warpac win. This battle should not count

  • Ilya Semionov says:

    As the game included 3 players from each side and was played both for the local campaign and the global one, it was agreed between us before the game started that the game would cont as three (also for the sake of victory pins each of the players wanted to win). There was no “three wins for the game” thing. We got 3 objectives, and control of each of them gave one VP to the side. So it was a possibility of a 2 wins and 1 loss, for example. I divided the report into three parts to reflect this. Hope for understanding.

  • M. Nisbet says:

    I’d like to register my disagreement with this battle being uploaded in three parts. Head Office have been going Total War games and uploading them in a single report, whilst uploading this in three parts scores you three times the points.
    Whilst the reports are very interesting and creative, I’d still say it’s not in the spirit of the campaign to do this.
    And I’d reinforce that i would be saying this even if it were a NATO win.