 |
|
Old Bolt stuff - Printable Version +- Forums (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards) +-- Forum: The Firing Line (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=1) +--- Forum: Tiller Operational Campaigns (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=11) +---- Forum: TOC Mod Scenario List (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=107) +----- Forum: Danube Front '85 Mods (https://www.theblitz.club/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=174) +----- Thread: Old Bolt stuff (/showthread.php?tid=52839) |
RE: Bolt out of the Blue 4.6 (Soon) - anton dolf - 02-04-2010 I miss 2 important german Luftwaffe-Units. Flugkörpergeschwader 1 and 2 with 36 Pershing 1 each. Based at Landsberg/Lech (1.) and Geilenkirchen (2.). Each German Jäger and PanzergrenadierBn in the TerritorialArmy/ Heimatschutzbrigaden has a Tank-Hunter Platoon with 7 M48A2GA2 Tanks. The same Platoon are in HSRgt HQ-Co´s. Many HSRgt used the M48A2C with 90mm Gun. Each Heimatschutzregiment hase a Mortar-companie with 18 120mm Tampella Mortar and no AT-Companie and no Pioneer-Co. German Fallschirmjägerbataillone with End-Nummer 1,2,3 has 2 AT-companies with TOW on Kraka, plus 2 normal Parahute Co. BN´s with endnummer 4 is reserve and has 3 Parachute Co´s. Each german Corps has as Reserve-Units 2 AA-Bn´s with 3 Batteries of 8 40mm L/70 Bofors AAGuns each. (Nummered 130,140, 230, 240, 330, 340) Heeresfliegerregiment 6 (6.PzGenDiv) has 3 Squadrons: 1. with 14 Bo-105 VBH, 2. with 21 Bo-105P (PAH-1) 3.with 24 UH-1D (ev. 1 JägerBn of the 6.Div Airmobile for the Game?) RE: Bolt out of the Blue 4.6 (Soon) - anton dolf - 02-04-2010 Each Fallschirmjäger was organized as follows: HQ Company: -2 Para Companies, each: 3 Infantry platoons, each with 1 Kraka w/Milan, plus 1 Kraka w/Milan at the company level -2 AT Companies, each: 2 platoons, each with 5 Kraka w/TOW; 1 platoon with 6 Kraka w/20mm RH202 The reserve Fallschirmjäger battalions had 3 para companies and no AT companies Panzer Auflklarungs Battalions (divisional recon) were organized as follows: 2nd Co: 13 Leopard 1, 9 Fuch w/ground surveillance radar 3rd Co: 13 Leopard 1 4th Co: 8 Leopard 1, 8 Spahpanzer Luchs 5th Co: 9 Fuchs w/recon teams Organization of the Jäger battalions of the 5 and 6 series Jäger battalions a) Staff and HQ Company: 180 men, 1 M88 ARV, 3 M113 ambulances, plus communications, liason, and recon platoons with light vehicles b) 3 Jäger Kompanies, each with: staff platoon, 3 infantry Zugs. Each inf platoon had 1 Milan, 3 LMG, and 3 Pzf44, plus II. & III. Platoons had 1 Karl Gustav 84mm c) Schwere Kompanie: AT platoon with 7 M48s and a Mortar platoon with 6 M113/120mm mortars and 2 M113 forward observers. The light Jäger battalions were truck mounted, the heavy Jäger battalions were in M113s. Total heavy equipment was 7 M48A2G2, 9 Milan ATGM, Note 2: Organization of Heimatschutz Regiments: a) Staff and Supply Company: HQ, supply elements, plus 7 M48A2G2 in an anti-tank platoon b) Mortar Company: 18 120mm towed mortars c) Three Jägerbataillon, each: 1. HQ Company, including recon platoon 2. Maschinenkanonenzug: 7 RH202 Guns 3. 3 Kompanies, each: 4 rifle platoons with 40 rifles, 3 MG, 4 Pzfaust44, 4 Grenade pistols each, US-Army Each mech InfantryBn with M-2 Bradley have a Anti-Tank Co with 12 M901A1. (Structure 86)This Co was disbandet after Operation Desert Storm (Army of Excellece). The Recce Platoon in M1 and M2 Unit has 6 M3 Gen Devers RecceTanks, after Desert Storm with Hummer. Each Div AA-Bn has 3 Firing Batteries with 9 Vulcan each plus 2 Batteries with 12 Chapperal Systems each (+72 stinger in the complete Unit)) Please split the Helicopter-Bataillons of Cav-Units in Companies. In the ACR please in 3 Companies with 6 OH-58 and 4 AH-1F, and 2 Attack-Co´s with 6 AH-1F and 4 OH-58. This is better for fighting in the tactic of the ACR´s. The same in Div-Recce Units. Please split the Helicopters of the Div RecceBn into 2 Companies with 6 Oh-58 ans 4 AH-1F. RE: Bolt out of the Blue 4.6 (Soon) - Aaron - 02-05-2010 (02-04-2010, 09:46 PM)anton dolf Wrote: Each Fallschirmjäger was organized as follows: Yes thanks for the info but i already know it all, tell you the truth theres probably very little if anything at all you can tell me that i dont already know, if its set up different in the game its by design for one reason or another, some because the game engine wont handle it correctly and others for ease of play, cant have a bunch of small units running around. Take the Fallschirmjäger for example, the game engine doesn't allow for vehicle mounted TOWs that can move by helo, it just turns them into ATT Helos plus these units wouldnt have been off by themselves, those 63 men from each AT company is added into the total of a Fallschirmjäger company and the values adjusted to show the TOWs and 20mm. Thanks for the heads up but ive been at this for awhile and if its different its for a good reason. Thank You Aaron Edit: wanted to comment on the helos, they WONT be split, helos have always been an issue in the MC series and making twice or even three times as many as there is now is definitely not the way to go, believe me. Its taken HPS a bunch of different ideas to get them under control and me many tweaks to get them under control, you dont want more RE: Bolt out of the Blue 4.6 (Soon) - P.Ako - 02-09-2010 Now that i have learnt a pair of things about making game models... i think that i can show you this and hope that it's not too late to enter into 4.6 version... RE: Bolt out of the Blue 4.6 (Soon) - Aaron - 02-12-2010 (02-09-2010, 08:05 AM)P.Ako Wrote: Now that i have learnt a pair of things about making game models... i think that i can show you this and hope that it's not too late to enter into 4.6 version... Actually this icon was made along time ago by someone and i improved upon it so therefore its been in my folders all along. aaron RE: Bolt out of the Blue 4.6 (Soon) - P.Ako - 02-12-2010 (02-12-2010, 05:47 AM)tazaaron Wrote:(02-09-2010, 08:05 AM)P.Ako Wrote: Now that i have learnt a pair of things about making game models... i think that i can show you this and hope that it's not too late to enter into 4.6 version... Doh! :bang: You could have told me earlier! RE: Bolt out of the Blue 4.6 (Soon) - Aaron - 02-12-2010 (02-04-2010, 06:17 PM)anton dolf Wrote: I miss 2 important german Luftwaffe-Units. I have trouble letting the West Germans nuke their own territory, i can see some off map targets, this is why they were left out. Quote:Each German Jäger and PanzergrenadierBn in the TerritorialArmy/ Heimatschutzbrigaden has a Tank-Hunter Platoon with 7 M48A2GA2 Tanks. The same Platoon are in HSRgt HQ-Co´s. Many HSRgt used the M48A2C with 90mm Gun. Each Heimatschutzregiment hase a Mortar-companie with 18 120mm Tampella Mortar and no AT-Companie and no Pioneer-Co. Yes and no, i do have the Hunter Platoons represented, look at Bde/rgt level you will see Kanones in multiples of 7, that is them. This is something thats been being worked on by the MAN and he should be done anytime now, we do know not all were equip with 7 M48a2g2, some didnt have the platoon at all and some had Leo1a1s, theirs a very good possibility some of the Rgts were using the Kanone still, have actually found no evidence of the 90mm version of the M-48 being used, i talked to the MAN today about the territorial units because it doesn't all add up but we will get it straight. EDIT: He hasnt finished his OOB/TOE of the territorial units yet (its 250 pages right now) but hes sent me an unfinished doc and all the Rgts have Kanones, theres a couple extra Bdes with Leo1s and the rest M-48A2G2, the numbers all add up but double checking on the number of M-48s converted to G2 standard in the 80s. Aaron (02-12-2010, 07:06 AM)P.Ako Wrote:(02-12-2010, 05:47 AM)tazaaron Wrote:(02-09-2010, 08:05 AM)P.Ako Wrote: Now that i have learnt a pair of things about making game models... i think that i can show you this and hope that it's not too late to enter into 4.6 version... Then you wouldnt have learned anything, its good practice and practice makes perfect. 
RE: Bolt out of the Blue 4.6 (Soon) - P.Ako - 02-13-2010 tazaaron Wrote:Then you wouldnt have learned anything, its good practice and practice makes perfect. Thank you Sensei. Now if you could tell me how to mod the files unitbox.bmp and 2Dsymbolslg.bmp in order to make a nation to look different from the others... RE: Bolt out of the Blue 4.6 (Soon) - Elxaime - 02-14-2010 Greetings Taz - Wonderful you are continuing to perfect your masterpiece. I have four comments/suggestions for this coming version: 1. The West German 6th PzGren. Division around Hamburg needs to be made attachable, since one of the early NATO decisions with that division is whether to stage a fighting withdrawal north towards the Danish border or to fall back to defend Hamburg itself in urban combat. At present, it is stuck with attachment to LANDJUT, which means if they choose to fall back into Hamburg (or are cut off and forced to do so) they will end up cut off from their main source of C&C. In a situation where they are defending Hamburg, it would make more sense to allow them to be attached to another corps (likely FRG I Korps or the Dutch). 2. Currently the SSM units of both sides are able to fire artillery mines hundreds of hexes into enemy territory. This has happened in a PBEM I am currently in, with Warsaw Pact artillery mines covering the roads west of the Weser. Frankly, I didn't mind all that much since NATO has plenty of engineers, is bogged down already somewhat by Spetznaz operations (clearing the mines gives the engineers something to do) and in any case I always felt NATO movement to the front might even be slower than the game shows due to traffic accidents, fuel problems and people getting lost. Not sure how you accomplish this in the game mechanics, but something to think about. I don't know if this tactic has been heavily used, but I don't think NATO or Soviet SSM have the capability to deposit artillery mines. If they do, I stand corrected! :) 3. I am wondering if the morale of West German Heimatschutze should be sent up a notch. Granted, they were territorial units. But they are fighting on their home turf against an invader. It seems strange they would have the same staying power as (likely very unwilling) Czech and Polish conscripts sent into an invasion by their Moscow masters, particularly in the circa 1989 political environment. Some of the same considerations would apply to Danish or Austrian home defense units (to the extent any of their regular forces qualify as such). I know this is ultimately a judgement call - in WW2 it was not uncommon for the armies of small countries to surrender in days if they were being overwhelmed. But something about seeing the West German units with D ratings strikes me wrong...since the premise of the scenario is an unprovoked Warsaw Pact invasion I have to think this is the best case for a united German political position to defend their country. 4. I read with interest the comments above on the bridge destruction capabilities of heliborne engineers. I think your solution of thickening the rear area Pact security units, perhaps even upping their AAA and SAM capability, or even creating special "bridge defense" static units attached to GSFG at key bridges, may work. HOWEVER, you don't want to go too far and I would stay away from solutions that "gimp" these special NATO units. I have played Warsaw Pact more than NATO, so my view here is not fan boy NATO favoritism. But for Pact players who are complaining about needing to hunt down rear area bridge blowers, we should realize Bolt From the Blue is already taking extreme positions in a number of areas to favor the Pact, e.g.: - the assumption of near complete surprise - the relative political reliability of Pact allied forces in an invasion of the west (IRL in 1989 this would have thrown the Pact allied nations, particularly Poland, into turmoil that would have affected the armies) - the basket case Soviet economies RL inability to maintain/train at the level to carry out something like this - the Elbe bridges would have been target #1 for NATO SSM and air So, ultimately, assuming you thicken some of the Pact security forces, I would leave alone the ratings and capabilities of the NATO airborne engineers; no sense gimping their other usefulness to head off an outlier tactic that can be countered with your other changes; there aren't too many of these heliborne engineers and the Pact in any case SHOULD have to worry about garrisoning at least some of its key rear bridges as it advances (and pay a penalty for failing to do so). Remember, Pact players, NATO can't bomb these bridges down like they could IRL - the Pact is already getting off easy here! My two cents. RE: Bolt out of the Blue 4.6 (Soon) - Aaron - 02-14-2010 Quote:1. The West German 6th PzGren. Division around Hamburg needs to be made attachable, since one of the early NATO decisions with that division is whether to stage a fighting withdrawal north towards the Danish border or to fall back to defend Hamburg itself in urban combat. At present, it is stuck with attachment to LANDJUT, which means if they choose to fall back into Hamburg (or are cut off and forced to do so) they will end up cut off from their main source of C&C. In a situation where they are defending Hamburg, it would make more sense to allow them to be attached to another corps (likely FRG I Korps or the Dutch). Already got your wish, went threw the oob and made alot more units attach/detachable and Landjut as a whole is one of them. Ive also got something for you players who like to pull the 6th back to Stalinburg, surprise surprise. Quote:2. Currently the SSM units of both sides are able to fire artillery mines hundreds of hexes into enemy territory. This has happened in a PBEM I am currently in, with Warsaw Pact artillery mines covering the roads west of the Weser. Frankly, I didn't mind all that much since NATO has plenty of engineers, is bogged down already somewhat by Spetznaz operations (clearing the mines gives the engineers something to do) and in any case I always felt NATO movement to the front might even be slower than the game shows due to traffic accidents, fuel problems and people getting lost. Not sure how you accomplish this in the game mechanics, but something to think about. I don't know if this tactic has been heavily used, but I don't think NATO or Soviet SSM have the capability to deposit artillery mines. If they do, I stand corrected! :) No, first ive heard of this and yes they arnt capable,might have to delete them all. As far as having trouble getting to the front some have said its to hard and some say it should be harder so if i look in the middle of those 2 it must be perfect :) I did double the congestion value Quote:3. I am wondering if the morale of West German Heimatschutze should be sent up a notch. Granted, they were territorial units. But they are fighting on their home turf against an invader. It seems strange they would have the same staying power as (likely very unwilling) Czech and Polish conscripts sent into an invasion by their Moscow masters, particularly in the circa 1989 political environment. Some of the same considerations would apply to Danish or Austrian home defense units (to the extent any of their regular forces qualify as such). I know this is ultimately a judgement call - in WW2 it was not uncommon for the armies of small countries to surrender in days if they were being overwhelmed. But something about seeing the West German units with D ratings strikes me wrong...since the premise of the scenario is an unprovoked Warsaw Pact invasion I have to think this is the best case for a united German political position to defend their country. You have to remember these guys for the most part were only in the military for only 18 months and now they could be 30/40 something years old, i think they are up a level higher than they should be especially in the Rgts. If you look at half of the Czech/Polish divisions they have the same morale as the Heimatschutze Rgts and alot of them were regular soldiers but for the reason that your saying they are taken down a notch. Also read in alot of cases not for the Heimatschutze Bdes but the Heimatschutze Rgts would have used civilian vehicles for transportation. These Rgts were suppose to be for rear area also and i doubt most people use them for that, i thought about attaching them at Corp/Front level to make it harder to put near the front but i dont like to take to much freedom away from the player, after all he is the commander and do as he wants with them. Quote:4. I read with interest the comments above on the bridge destruction capabilities of heliborne engineers. I think your solution of thickening the rear area Pact security units, perhaps even upping their AAA and SAM capability, or even creating special "bridge defense" static units attached to GSFG at key bridges, may work. HOWEVER, you don't want to go too far and I would stay away from solutions that "gimp" these special NATO units. Well if you look at the first change these helo eng units fell into that category already, so they were going to lose 3HA,SA and Assault as it was, lack of heavy equipment and alot of heavy weapons, i just took an extra 2 defence and 10 movement to make sure. If you think about it though these units did have some dozers and such so it would have taken them longer to prepare to move and redeploy plus the slower flying times so i kinda see it justified. The WP rear security is thicken but it only extends so far with the limited command range i put on the Border unit HQs, it wont help much in occupied territory unless you plan on having a bunch of out of command units. The Security units you do have that are attach at Army/Front level do have some increased values. Quote:I have played Warsaw Pact more than NATO, so my view here is not fan boy NATO favoritism. But for Pact players who are complaining about needing to hunt down rear area bridge blowers, we should realize Bolt From the Blue is already taking extreme positions in a number of areas to favor the Pact, e.g.: Complete surprise is not as complete as it used to be, even in this version there are many more Nato troops already on the move or unfixed for the first turn. I would say about 3 divisions worth. Cant comment on the Air part, thats been mentioned in many a threads and cant do anything about it. So, ultimately, assuming you thicken some of the Pact security forces, I would leave alone the ratings and capabilities of the NATO airborne engineers; no sense gimping their other usefulness to head off an outlier tactic that can be countered with your other changes; there aren't too many of these heliborne engineers and the Pact in any case SHOULD have to worry about garrisoning at least some of its key rear bridges as it advances (and pay a penalty for failing to do so). Remember, Pact players, NATO can't bomb these bridges down like they could IRL - the Pact is already getting off easy here! My two cents. [/quote] Thanks for some cents Aaron (02-13-2010, 07:38 PM)P.Ako Wrote:tazaaron Wrote:Then you wouldnt have learned anything, its good practice and practice makes perfect. You stick it in the editor and change them to something else. :cheeky: I think the ones i changed i found my camo pattern, shrunk it to the same size as one of the boxes (half the unit box) the same way i do .pdf, and then copy and paste to the other half but then you have to lighten the other half (stick the whole unitbox in editor put a square around the half and then use the brighten slider) . Place the yellow/red border on, 2 hexs wide 2 hexs from the edge, after all that you need to find and create your roundles and copy one on to each half. Simple eh These might need a touch up but itll get you started [attachment=2687] [attachment=2688] Heres a camo site h**p://kamouflage.net/ dont forget to cross your Ts |
){kind=link}