Bolt out of the Blue Feedback

[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.