Bolt out of the Blue Feedback

[Aaron]

What I meant is that PDT Replacements were not in HPS Danube Front? Am I right? Just asking if it's an additional Replacements value.

Ah I think I know what your saying, I don't remember the values but I believe they do stack on that one

[Elxaime]

Welcome back Tazaaron! Bolt from the Blue is an incredible piece of work that has stood the test of time and well-merited inclusion in the Gold version. Based on numerous play throughs over the years (admittedly none that went past turn 30 or so) of the various versions, and having looked at how vanilla D85 is modeled, here are my thoughts. I'd break them into two parts, one dealing with the premises of the scenario, and the second on the impact of certain design decisions on game play.

I. Premises of Bolt from the Blue

Operational Surprise by Warsaw Pact
As noted above, to make this more playable as a game, Bolt assumes a level of operational surprise by the Warsaw Pact. I agree this has to be done, as otherwise modeling a front line with fully deployed alliances = WW1. I'd note that operational surprise may not necessarily mean everyone was caught with their pants down. It could also involve political decisions by the civilian leaderships of the various Member States of NATO. Recall that the surprise achieved by Egypt and Syria in the 1973 War wasn't because the Israeli military intelligence hadn't registered their movements, it was because Israeli leadership chose, for a variety of diplomatic and political reasons, not to respond in a manner that would suggest that Israel was escalating the situation. While the NATO Treaty Article V requires joint action in response to aggression, you might consider whether a Pact offensive likely would have been preceded by "dezinformatsiya" and "peace offensives" designed to confuse and divide the NATO governments. Although NATO, once the balloon went up, likely would have held together (although not 100 percent certain), it is plausible that some NATO governments would have asserted themselves, remindful of 1914, to have their own forces hold back from assuming a readiness posture deemed "provocative," particularly if the Soviets political machinations, at the UN and with individual NATO Member States, had some success. In real life, as opposed to written plans, "things happen" - recall that in 1941 the US Air Force in the Philippines under MacArthur had some warning of the planning for a Japanese attack, but for a variety of reasons did not disperse the US planes, which remained wingtip-to-wingtip on the runways at Clark Airfield when the Zeros came down on them. So I think there is probably more validity to have some sort of "surprise" modeling, even if it isn't really "surprising" to the intelligence gatherers. I think the Gold version of Bolt, for the above reasons, is about right - or at least can pass the laugh test.

Impact on NATO civilian populations of a Pact surprise general offensive
Bolt, in its various versions, and in its latest Gold version, does model somewhat the presence of refugees and traffic jams through some Congestion hexes. I seem to recall this has gone back and forth in versions, with more or less Congestion. I'd urge another pass at this if you plan to revisit Gold version. Right now, there are a few Congestion hexes near the front, but I think that's it. It is a subjective judgment, but I would think a true Pact surprise attack, involving the mass use of modern munitions on built up urban areas with millions of civilians in situ, would be far, far worse than currently modeled. While NATO units would likely be under strict orders to blow by whatever scenes of carnage they encounter, I think the delays from road jams and such would impose greater costs on initial movement. This need not be modeled by Congestion hexes, per se, but rather creating new types of "deception" type units, which would all be subject to withdrawal by date certain in addition to the deception discovery percentage. These would model choke points, I think, better than Congestion hexes. Having complete automatic removal by date certain, say two days after the offensive began, would model NATO military and civilian authorities imposing some order on the situation. But urge a pass on looking at this.

Loyalty of Pact and NATO national forces
I think Gold version models the Poles about right, given that in 1989 they were in unrest. Although the USSR was not in the greatest shape either by then (it would of course start falling apart the next year) it is likely the traditions of the Red Army, political indoctrination and coercive measures if necessary would keep the Soviets in shape to fight. Not sure about the GDR and Czech forces, but would say to also leave them as is, since if they are made brittle, the whole premise of a Pact general offensive moves from implausible to insane. NATO national forces, given the premise of defending against Communist aggression, would not be subject to similar pressures to walk off the field. So I think you have it right.

II. Design Decisions and effect on play

Almost all Pact hard attack ranges as 1 instead of 2
The biggest design decision, in my opinion, is to have the Bolt version, as opposed to D85 vanilla, model Pact hard attack range, for the appropriate MBT and infantry, almost always as 1 hex instead of 2 (exceptions being attack helos and the small light ATGM units). I don't quarrel with the design decision premises, e.g. doctrines for engagement distances with the various weapons systems, quality of optics systems, availability of ammunition in sufficient quantity and type. And I assume, this reflects the NATO reforms that, by 1989, had widened the qualitative gap with the Pact. What this means, in game, however, is that combat usually devolves into the NATO MBT with 2 hex HA range plinking away at any Pact MBT unwise enough to remain in the open, without fear of response except for the few ATGM vehicles. Pact infantry is spared, since NATO soft attack is 1. But what happens, in terms of gameplay, is that the wise Pact player keeps his MBT off the front line, hiding behind Pact infantry who are used to dig in and soak up NATO bombardments. During TIS time, of course (which includes dusk and dawn), any Pact armor left at the front will get melted into scrap, a fate which also can happen to any Pact infantry not completely dug in. This all may be working as intended. A couple of years later, during the 1991 Gulf War, Western MBT and ATGM would indeed hold off beyond the effective range of Saddam's tanks and destroy them without taking any losses in return. I raise this mainly as a game play issue, noting that D85, albeit modeling armies from a few years before, does have the same Pact equipment and troops with a 2 hex HA range.

Infantry v Tanks
A separate issue is whether Pact HA values, at their 1 hex range, impose enough of a challenge to NATO MBT. My sense is that it is pretty common to roll up mass stacks of M1 and Leos to blow away Pact infantry, even in built up areas, since Pact infantry HA values are fairly low. I'd wonder whether for their part NATO infantry capabilities are accurately lethal as well, so I'd give everything a once over, not just Pact. Armor should really fear tangling with enemy infantry in a built up area, and not sure that is the case right now. Seems pretty easy to roll up armor and just blast, even in cities.

Infantry losses (especially to arty) in particular, values of trenches/improved positions/terrain in general
This is a tough one. Some early versions of Bolt played around with entrenchment values and terrain defense values, I think even at one point putting Trenches at 40 percent and buffing urban terrain so that basically infantry dug in a City hex was at 90 percent - which meant the WW1 problem raising its head. Not sure whether the current balance is working. I know the premise is that in modern warfare, anything you see can be killed. But I also wonder whether infantry dispersal and use of terrain, particularly by elite infantry units, is undersold a bit. I don't know what the answer is, but if the scenario is revisited, urge a pass at whether the balance is still where you think it should be.

Helicopters and SAM/AAA balance
No one would believe any discussion of Modern Campaigns would be complete without a spirited discussion on attack helicopters! For my part, I think what you have is OK, but there is also a school of thought that feels NATO is left too vulnerable to roaming Hinds. Judgments will remain somewhat subjective, but I think what you did ensures that leaving helicopters exposed during the enemy turn will come with a price. But on behalf of others with different views, suggest taking a look here as well.

Airpower
I think the current balance is fine, but others feel that NATO air dominance is not fully reflected, either in the number and potency of air strikes, or air interdiction. A lot of this remains supposition, since I believe the technological capabilities of the aircraft and anti-air remain highly classified. My own two cents is based on the fact that, in 1989, both sides were still using mainly manned aircraft, very expensive at that, so there would be some reticence to just send waves of planes into enemy air defense networks. Just raising this as an issue others have concerns over. I would note, of course, that if a decision is made to buff NATO air, it needs to be factored into overall game balance, victory conditions, etc.

Deception Units
I think these are about right, but others feel they are too powerful. Depending on where you come out on this, a solution might involve (if you think deception units are too powerful) adding to the density of rear area security troops, which could of course include some way to reflect Interior Ministry and militarized civilian police units (to help increase the web of automatic detection - these rear area units would be fixed or with very slow movement). For my part, this is one of those areas that remains unknowable. If a war like this, God forbid, actually happened in 1989, who knows what havoc the various deception/dezinformatsiya planning would have caused behind the lines? Maybe it would have been a relative bust, squelched by counter-measures on both sides. Or maybe it would have written a new chapter on the impact of massive, well-planned irregular warfare operations. On the fun side, lots of chances to tinker with this and add some chrome.

Opening unit dispositions
Take this for what its worth, as I know it would be a TON of work. But it would be great if the two sides had some opening strategy choices for deployments of starting forces, including VP costs for bringing more troops to bear. I am not talking about putting Czechs up in Jutland. But right now, once anyone has played a game or two, it becomes somewhat predictable what will happen in each sector. A NATO player, for example, can relax a bit south of Fulda and US V Corps area, knowing this is held by a GDR 5th Army of - shall we say - less than potent capabilities. I think as well another pass can be given to the variety of options for AB drops, as after a while people have a good sense where they may land. Lastly - and I know this is perhaps pie-in-the-sky, it would be great if the campaigns system engine of the HPS and Tiller Black Powder era wargames can be adapted to create a "Pre-War" module for choices by the Pact and NATO that would set the scene for the battle to come, including political, diplomatic and military developments in and out of theater, which could affect opening force levels, dispositions and victory levels. The France 1940 game has some mods that allow the German player, for example, to vary his initial deployments based on decisions to emphasize attacking through Belgium, the Ardennes, or towards the Channel. In Bolt, even something like this (as opposed to the pie-in-the-sky idea) would potentially add more uncertainty, as well as supercharging replayability.

Thanks again for your great work. I don't think you really need anything like a major overhaul, this is more like tweaking the fuel mix to get a few more HP. I hope these comments are helpful.

[Aaron]

Thanks for the report, excellent info and ideas. As far as predictability that's something that would be TOP of my list, it's the reason for so many options in the game now because I wanted replay to be high and all choices viable but changing some and adding some would be first thing I would do and actually it doesn't take long, couple hours.

Would be nice to be a giant gaming company and have a chart of what % of choices are used and could adjust off that, if anyone has some info along these lines in there games it would be nice to know which ones are used the most and which ones aren't. Like I said these can be changed in no time at all, I'd like to tweak some and add more.

The congestion in game I added but can always look at adding more, as far as new features or such from what I understand is Gold is kinda the last hurrah so any changes to the game engine isn't happening. 

Need to get ahold of David first, I don't think I got the Gold version or I missed it. Lol

[Aaron]

On another note, who's winning? I know quality of player is a factor but I hear from some that NATO's to easy and others that WP usually wins.

[Elxaime]

On another note, who's winning? I know quality of player is a factor but I hear from some that NATO's to easy and others that WP usually wins.

I think player skill has a big impact, as well as a willingness to tolerate risk.  My sense is that the present version favors NATO a bit,  Here is a rundown sector by sector (which I've shared with Cesar):

Jutland
Decent chance for a Pact advance if you bring both GDR 3rd Army Divisions north (although this has ripple effects to the south).  The big challenge here is that Pact reinforcements are the brittle Poles.  But this front can be relatively fluid, if the Pact gets across early.  So the balance here is a fine one.

I Korps and I Legerkorps
It is relatively easy for NATO to mire the Pact in the north and create a "ghost front" where almost all the bridges get destroyed, or only a few remain unblown, which allows NATO to focus on just a few crossings.  In the north, the Pact takes a risk to cross any river just with bridging units, e.g. without a unblown on map bridge, as shallow bridgeheads are, in my experience, wiped out by good players, especially with TIS as the North accumulates a surplus of Bundeswehr, Dutch and US heavy MBTs.  However, maybe this is just because the Pact needs to be more aggressive.  However, my gut level is that the Pact doesn't have the force dominance, in terms of numbers on the scene initially, to make a strong push.  So this area may need some attention, assuming the goal isn't that it in fact become an early static front (not sure whether it should be a design goal to make all fronts fluid or not, that is questionable, so maybe this is right where it needs to be)

BAOR
Probably in decent shape, as plenty of room for maneuver, given that there isn't a major river between the two sides.  This sector though is a candidate for WW1 stalemate after day one, since it is the natural place for both sides to funnel forces as other fronts become static.  But probably, like Jutland, a fine balance as the current setup does give Pact some ability to advance early.

III Korps and I Belgian
Fine balance here.  A lot depends on the decisions made on allocating the III Korps units.  The Pact can beat up on the Belgians early, if NATO is unwary.  But like the north, this has a higher potential to also turn into a "ghost front" of blown bridges and neither side usually makes this a main arena (Pact would need to strip BAOR to do that, which is inadvisable).

V US Corps, VII US Corps, Canadians and II Korps (north area)
While lower density, this is a fine balance and can have some nice mobile cut and parry.  The main issue here is that the 22nd USSR Army is the only real mobile threat.  8th Guards Army runs into a wall by mid-day in Fulda and it is not uncommon to see NATO begin its own offensive out of Fulda early.  Between 8th Guards and 22nd Army is 5th GDR Army, whose three divisions are best used conservatively and defensively, particularly if NATO, as often happens, decides to pick on them with Leopards and M1s.  The GDR will melt away if hit hard, although they can shelter behind the border fence and have good defensive terrain.  US V and VII Corps, while outnumbered, are solid quality and it is just a matter of time and preference for this sector to turn into a NATO offensive sector

Danube
So many Czechs with so much artillery, plus low NATO density, keeps this sector fluid and fun.  Never got far enough to see how the Czechs do mid-game once they cross the river, as numbers is about all they have going for them.  But I'd say this sector is finely balanced, especially since Austria is the weakest link.

Best guess is about a 60-40 NATO edge, between evenly matched players.  But mileage may vary.  I may be wrong as I am about to give Cesar a rematch where he may display ways the Pact can be more potent than I could make them!

[Aaron]

Sectors are easy and hard to balance, 3 ways of doing this is some units start released so putting some on a % release , or if some are set at 75% chance per turn already can lower that number and/or the units already released and moving towards the front I can just push them back another 20 hexs.

I prefer the % release chance though as this add variable to the game in not knowing for sure who you can move every game your first few turns.

Just need to be careful, changing 3 bdes release could swing the whole sectors balance the other direction

[2-81 Armor]

Sectors are easy and hard to balance, 3 ways of doing this is some units start released so putting some on a % release , or if some are set at 75% chance per turn already can lower that number and/or the units already released and moving towards the front I can just push them back another 20 hexs.

I prefer the % release chance though as this add variable to the game in not knowing for sure who you can move every game your first few turns.

Just need to be careful, changing 3 bdes release could swing the whole sectors balance the other direction

Guys,

A little OT, but I think maybe relevant to scenario design in the MC Series:

I dimly recall back in the Stone Age when the MC Series was new and being released on CD by HPS, that a topic of discussion here at The Blitz was that Mideast '67 was the only title in the series that did not handicap company sized (especially broken down ones of a battalion) units with increased fatigue costs?

If I remember correctly, this was a change made to the .exe in order to accommodate the Israeli OOB's that featured units of Section, Platoon, Company, and Battalion sizes. If this is correct (and I'll admit old age can lead to wishful thinking and dumb statements!) then maybe JTS can be persuaded to make the ME '67 .exe the standard for all of the other titles, and release a quick and dirty update? Sounds easy enough, but I'm no programmer.

I could be completely wrong, since I'm talking about conversations that happened here many moons ago, when Glenn Saunders, et al were still around. Since I don't think the forums are archived that far back, I wonder if someone can confirm or deny what I said above?

[Indragnir]

Thanks for the report, excellent info and ideas. As far as predictability that's something that would be TOP of my list, it's the reason for so many options in the game now because I wanted replay to be high and all choices viable but changing some and adding some would be first thing I would do and actually it doesn't take long, couple hours.

From my experience.

WP:
Deception all good but GRU Moscow, they are somewhat less interesting.
34th Artillery Division: evenly divided. I would consider adding a I Korps choice.
76th GABD: Usualy Danube bridges.
Jutland/Zeeland: Flensburger usualy. Would be too much unbalancing between Lübeck or Kiel? Also the no Invasion is not funny.
106th GABD: Usualy Danube bridges (again) Maybe a Kassel drop?
7th GABD: hard choice, not very attractive drops.
5th and 7th GTA seem good.

NATO:
Brit paras seems fine. I drop them at Hildesheim usualy.
French Paras: rarely select Hannover or Bergen. There are a lot of areas of potencial drops: Danube, Austria, Jutland, VII Corps.
Italian Paras: the only real choice is Salzberg, the other choices just mean Czech are in the very ground when they arrive. I would suggest a drop at Mattighöfen (203, 505) that would make this area even more interesting.
Brit airborne: seems fine.
Canadian paras: every time to Ingolstadt, I think a Naab river choice would be fine, maybe another Salzberg opton.
USA 82 and 101 seem fine.

[Aaron]

Good stuff there Indragnir, thanks. Balancing some sectors and changing/adding options are all easy to do.

Looks like my Danube is HPS so need to wait for new key for upgrade before playing with this, keep the info coming.

I do think i remember something along those lines 2-81 but ya thats a long time ago

[Aaron]

Welcome back Tazaaron!  Bolt from the Blue is an incredible piece of work that has stood the test of time and well-merited inclusion in the Gold version.  Based on numerous play throughs over the years (admittedly none that went past turn 30 or so) of the various versions, and having looked at how vanilla D85 is modeled, here are my thoughts.  I'd break them into two parts, one dealing with the premises of the scenario, and the second on the impact of certain design decisions on game play.

TY .ty. im home now so will cover a little more

I.  Premises of Bolt from the Blue

Operational Surprise by Warsaw Pact
As noted above, to make this more playable as a game, Bolt assumes a level of operational surprise by the Warsaw Pact.  I agree this has to be done, as otherwise modeling a front line with fully deployed alliances = WW1.  I'd note that operational surprise may not necessarily mean everyone was caught with their pants down.  It could also involve political decisions by the civilian leaderships of the various Member States of NATO.  Recall that the surprise achieved by Egypt and Syria in the 1973 War wasn't because the Israeli military intelligence hadn't registered their movements, it was because Israeli leadership chose, for a variety of diplomatic and political reasons, not to respond in a manner that would suggest that Israel was escalating the situation.  While the NATO Treaty Article V requires joint action in response to aggression, you might consider whether a Pact offensive likely would have been preceded by "dezinformatsiya" and "peace offensives" designed to confuse and divide the NATO governments.  Although NATO, once the balloon went up, likely would have held together (although not 100 percent certain), it is plausible that some NATO governments would have asserted themselves, remindful of 1914, to have their own forces hold back from assuming a readiness posture deemed "provocative," particularly if the Soviets political machinations, at the UN and with individual NATO Member States, had some success.  In real life, as opposed to written plans, "things happen" - recall that in 1941 the US Air Force in the Philippines under MacArthur had some warning of the planning for a Japanese attack, but for a variety of reasons did not disperse the US planes, which remained wingtip-to-wingtip on the runways at Clark Airfield when the Zeros  came down on them.  So I think there is probably more validity to have some sort of "surprise" modeling, even if it isn't really "surprising" to the intelligence gatherers.  I think the Gold version of Bolt, for the above reasons, is about right - or at least can pass the laugh test.

Impact on NATO civilian populations of a Pact surprise general offensive
Bolt, in its various versions, and in its latest Gold version, does model somewhat the presence of refugees and traffic jams through some Congestion hexes.  I seem to recall this has gone back and forth in versions, with more or less Congestion.  I'd urge another pass at this if you plan to revisit Gold version.  Right now, there are a few Congestion hexes near the front, but I think that's it.  It is a subjective judgment, but I would think a true Pact surprise attack, involving the mass use of modern munitions on built up urban areas with millions of civilians in situ, would be far, far worse than currently modeled.  While NATO units would likely be under strict orders to blow by whatever scenes of carnage they encounter, I think the delays from road jams and such would impose greater costs on initial movement.  This need not be modeled by Congestion hexes, per se, but rather creating new types of "deception" type units, which would all be subject to withdrawal by date certain in addition to the deception discovery percentage.  These would model choke points, I think, better than Congestion hexes.  Having complete automatic removal by date certain, say two days after the offensive began, would model NATO military and civilian authorities imposing some order on the situation.  But urge a pass on looking at this.

Will look at this some more as this is easy to do also, can always add more congestion around the major cities

Loyalty of Pact and NATO national forces
I think Gold version models the Poles about right, given that in 1989 they were in unrest.  Although the USSR was not in the greatest shape either by then (it would of course start falling apart the next year) it is likely the traditions of the Red Army, political indoctrination and coercive measures if necessary would keep the Soviets in shape to fight.  Not sure about the GDR and Czech forces, but would say to also leave them as is, since if they are made brittle, the whole premise of a Pact general offensive moves from implausible to insane.  NATO national forces, given the premise of defending against Communist aggression, would not be subject to similar pressures to walk off the field.  So I think you have it right.

This has been discussed alot in the past and i actually played with Polish units having a % chance of withdrawing to show this but in the end i think it would just have pissed people off and it would make things hard to plan out on a design end for me

II. Design Decisions and effect on play

Almost all Pact hard attack ranges as 1 instead of 2
The biggest design decision, in my opinion, is to have the Bolt version, as opposed to D85 vanilla, model Pact hard attack range, for the appropriate MBT and infantry, almost always as 1 hex instead of 2 (exceptions being attack helos and the small light ATGM units).  I don't quarrel with the design decision premises, e.g. doctrines for engagement distances with the various weapons systems, quality of optics systems, availability of ammunition in sufficient quantity and type.  And I assume, this reflects the NATO reforms that, by 1989, had widened the qualitative gap with the Pact.  What this means, in game, however, is that combat usually devolves into the NATO MBT with 2 hex HA range plinking away at any Pact MBT unwise enough to remain in the open, without fear of response except for the few ATGM vehicles.  Pact infantry is spared, since NATO soft attack is 1.  But what happens, in terms of gameplay, is that the wise Pact player keeps his MBT off the front line, hiding behind Pact infantry who are used to dig in and soak up NATO bombardments.   During TIS time, of course (which includes dusk and dawn), any Pact armor left at the front will get melted into scrap, a fate which also can happen to any Pact infantry not completely dug in.  This all may be working as intended.  A couple of years later, during the 1991 Gulf War, Western MBT and ATGM would indeed hold off beyond the effective range of Saddam's tanks and destroy them without taking any losses in return.    I raise this mainly as a game play issue, noting that D85, albeit modeling armies from a few years before, does have the same Pact equipment and troops with a 2 hex HA range.

Again the range issue has been touch on many of times, will look at this some more and get some more feedback and info

Infantry v Tanks
A separate issue is whether Pact HA values, at their 1 hex range, impose enough of a challenge to NATO MBT.  My sense is that it is pretty common to roll up mass stacks of M1 and Leos to blow away Pact infantry, even in built up areas, since Pact infantry HA values are fairly low.  I'd wonder whether for their part NATO infantry capabilities are accurately lethal as well, so I'd give everything a once over, not just Pact.  Armor should really fear tangling with enemy infantry in a built up area, and not sure that is the case right now.  Seems pretty easy to roll up armor and just blast, even in cities.

Infantry losses (especially to arty) in particular, values of trenches/improved positions/terrain in general
This is a tough one.  Some early versions of Bolt played around with entrenchment values and terrain defense values, I think even at one point putting Trenches at 40 percent and buffing urban terrain so that basically infantry dug in a City hex was at 90 percent - which meant the WW1 problem raising its head.  Not sure whether the current balance is working.  I know the premise is that in modern warfare, anything you see can be killed.  But I also wonder whether infantry dispersal and use of terrain, particularly by elite infantry units, is undersold a bit.  I don't know what the answer is, but if the scenario is revisited, urge a pass at whether the balance is still where you think it should be.

Helicopters and SAM/AAA balance
No one would believe any discussion of Modern Campaigns would be complete without a spirited discussion on attack helicopters!  For my part, I think what you have is OK, but there is also a school of thought that feels NATO is left too vulnerable to roaming Hinds.  Judgments will remain somewhat subjective, but I think what you did ensures that leaving helicopters exposed during the enemy turn will come with a price.  But on behalf of others with different views, suggest taking a look here as well.

Airpower
I think the current balance is fine, but others feel that NATO air dominance is not fully reflected, either in the number and potency of air strikes, or air interdiction.  A lot of this remains supposition, since I believe the technological capabilities of the aircraft and anti-air remain highly classified.  My own two cents is based on the fact that, in 1989, both sides were still using mainly manned aircraft, very expensive at that, so there would be some reticence to just send waves of planes into enemy air defense networks.  Just raising this as an issue others have concerns over.  I would note, of course, that if a decision is made to buff NATO air, it needs to be factored into overall game balance, victory conditions, etc.

Deception Units
I think these are about right, but others feel they are too powerful.  Depending on where you come out on this, a solution might involve (if you think deception units are too powerful) adding to the density of rear area security troops, which could of course include some way to reflect Interior Ministry and militarized civilian police units (to help increase the web of automatic detection - these rear area units would be fixed or with very slow movement).  For my part, this is one of those areas that remains unknowable.  If a war like this, God forbid, actually happened in 1989, who knows what havoc the various deception/dezinformatsiya planning would have caused behind the lines?  Maybe it would have been a relative bust, squelched by counter-measures on both sides.  Or maybe it would have written a new chapter on the impact of massive, well-planned irregular warfare operations.  On the fun side, lots of chances to tinker with this and add some chrome.

Opening unit dispositions
Take this for what its worth, as I know it would be a TON of work.  But it would be great if the two sides had some opening strategy choices for deployments of starting forces, including VP costs for bringing more troops to bear.  I am not talking about putting Czechs up in Jutland.  But right now, once anyone has played a game or two, it becomes somewhat predictable what will happen in each sector.  A NATO player, for example, can relax a bit south of Fulda and US V Corps area, knowing this is held by a GDR 5th Army of - shall we say - less than potent capabilities.  I think as well another pass can be given to the variety of options for AB drops, as after a while people have a good sense where they may land.  Lastly - and I know this is perhaps pie-in-the-sky, it would be great if the campaigns system engine of the HPS and Tiller Black Powder era wargames can be adapted to create a "Pre-War" module for choices by the Pact and NATO that would set the scene for the battle to come, including political, diplomatic and military developments in and out of theater, which could affect opening force levels, dispositions and victory levels.  The France 1940 game has some mods that allow the German player, for example, to vary his initial deployments based on decisions to emphasize attacking through Belgium, the Ardennes, or towards the Channel.  In Bolt, even something like this (as opposed to the pie-in-the-sky idea) would potentially add more uncertainty, as well as supercharging replayability.

I think balancing all the sectors would change the game a bunch without having to do anything extreme , the last update had Nato release times being pushed back for I Korps and I Legerkorps, sounds like its still needs more and dont think it would hurt bumping a BDE or 2 back in all the other sectors

Thanks again for your great work.  I don't think you really need anything like a major overhaul, this is more like tweaking the fuel mix to get a few more HP.  I hope these comments are helpful.