Old Bolt stuff

[Elxaime]

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.