Old Bolt stuff

[Aaron]

Bunker creation would be cool. I'd just reduce their defensive effects. Also, setting up "pillbox" not "PILLBOX" positions across the front would be realisitic. Setting them to just above BUNKER defensive value. Night movement disruption is still a problem for deployed mechanized units. I'd set it fairly low though.

You could drop the day/night Delta values in order to give it a more realistic time aspect. Foot speed should be 5. I'd up the mine prob to make mining a more realistic defensive strategy. And so on..

problem with upping mining is on this scale how long would the mines last. Its always hard to say but in my exp the ammo dont go as far as estimates think they would. id see them running out in the first couple days.

the dreaded pillbox or PILLBOX position. i prefer piLLboX positions myself

[goomohn]

well at 7% a player would be waiting 9 turns before the mines are probably set up. Mines are very plentiful. The drawback would be the unspotted mines that your own traveling units might trigger. I mean pillbox as a static defensive position set so that its reduced value (when vacated) is just above BUNKER. Would flavor the front and strongpoints. I've also toyed with the idea of making bunker/pillboxes as immobile units with facing. That way as vehicles they would be more accurately represented. Not lending to the defensive values of other units besides the entrenching that would be within their hex.

Just suggesting lowering the zoc movement multiplier to get a taste of greater manuevers across enemy flanks. So that armor can move between a gap of two units into their flanks and still be able to fire would seem realistic. Also, fixed units on map are unrealistic. I personally like no limited air recon, as that is the main purpose of air recon (to direct artillery/airstrikes). If the units aren't under the players control waiting in the rear I think they should be used as reinforcements. If they must be on map as fixed (such as defensive unreleased) formations; they should be in defensible terrain with AAA cover, and not in road column. Although, I think that would be unrealistic as they're in theater and yet the commander cannot issue orders.

[Aaron]

well at 7% a player would be waiting 9 turns before the mines are probably set up. I mean pillbox as a static defensive position set so that its reduced value (when vacated) is just above BUNKER. Would flavor the front and strongpoints.

To me a pillbox is a prepared position with poured cement which is outside the scope of a 2 week scenario. A bunker on the other hand can be accomplished especially with engineers, ive tried to make eng as important as can be. As far as 7, i have to look back but doesnt that mod with some eng value

i also have look at facing, the austrian bunkers before i went with the trenchs around them, works much better

as far as zocs i tested it years ago, it would take more testing to lower it

[goomohn]

There is no way to make pillboxes in the system. They would already be on map and were more plentiful than wooden machinegun nests (which is what bunkers describes). I'd install both pillboxes and bunkers as immobile vehicles with facing. Differing in their weapons and thickness. Based along the border, military posts, and highway checkpoints. As well as immobile SAM batteries. Anti-tank ditches on military posts would also add flavor.

Reducing day delta to 1 hour and keeping movement the way it is would mesh well I think. Also, reducing map scale back to 1km per hex would be neat. To bad you can't edit sight ranges. Longer attack ranges across the board would have a realistic effect.

I think whether the engineer is a split unit rather than a combined unit effects its basic engineer value. In your game the inability to recombine seems to have a greatly negative effect. What is the 6x fatigue modifier you mention (as the reason for using KG setting)?

[Aaron]

If you reduce day delta to 1 hour it would cause reinforcements to take twice as long to show up so the whole scenario would have to be redone so reinforcements show up sooner to balance back out (different story), i personally think the time line should be 7-10 days, im looking at a 10% to 20% increase in speed of the units to make up the extra 1-4 days.




Fatigue Accumulation
Fatigue is gained from losses in combat. The factor used to determine Fatigue
accumulation depends on the size of the unit.
· For Battalions, the Fatigue accumulation factor is 2.
· For Companies and Platoons, the Fatigue accumulation factor is 6
(When 2 Companies are Combined, the factor is 4 and when 3 or more
Companies are Combined, the factor is 2).
Losses taken from fire and from defending in assault range randomly from 0 up
to the factor times the loss value, in men equivalent. Fatigue taken from
attacking in assault is double normal values. For example, an infantry battalion
that takes a loss of 15 men from fire will gain Fatigue from 0 to 30. Likewise,
an infantry company that takes a loss of 15 men will gain fatigue from 0 to 90.
Fatigue is applied against the nominal loss before it is converted to vehicles or
guns. This means that a tank battalion that has a nominal loss of 20, resulting
in a tank loss of 2 vehicles, will gain Fatigue from 0 to 40. It also means that a
unit based on vehicles or guns can gain Fatigue without suffering a loss.

[goomohn]

Thanks. That is such a pointless rule. Yeah 1 hour delta is more a planning stage idea. You could decrease movement parameters to get the same effect as well. Whichever is easier i suppose.

[JDR Dragoon]

Some points:

RE Pillboxes:

The eastern "fortifications" along the border were meant for surveillance of the border and for preventing unarmed people from egressing. Thus they had very little capability to actually help in a defence (there were some fortifications that would classify as "pillboxes" along the border IRL of course, but hardly enough to warrant a counter). Where you would have pillboxes would be near the installations that were supposed to house the main communition and HQ nodes at army level and above on both sides (COMNORTHAG, COMCENTAG, COMAFCENT, COMBALTAP for NATO for instance, and the various Front and TVD HQs for WAPA). The austrian and swiss militaries were really the only ones sold on permanent fortifications as a mean of territorial defence against overland attack.

RE Mines:
The only mines that were removed were of the SM-70 type (a sort of East German equivalent to the Claymore). For various reason this type of mine had gotten an execrable reputation in the west (probably because they were visible to the naked eye, since they were mounted on the border fence) and the W. German goventment put it as a condition for loaning the GDR further money, that this type of mine be removed (1984). But other types of mines (typically traditional dug-in pressure-plate designs) continued in use. You could of course argue that the border fortifications would be better represented by Obstacles instead of Mines, but I digress.

RE laying of Mines.
Tazaaron is right. Mines (apart from the supply immediately available to engineer units) would typically be on the "critical item list" almost from the get-go. The problem here is, that the game doesn´t track Mines (apart from artillery delivered ones), which means that the mine-probability should be also take into consideration, that the number of mines available will be limted.

[goomohn]

Ahh, I see they dug in PMN and SM701 mines after removing the SM70s. So, the West Germans just helped them modernize their minefield. While the Czechoslovaki border went unmined. Considering that each force should have several million landmines in stock and that to effect a 1/3 mi sq you'd need <5,000 mines I don't see how allowing engineers to emplace mines in a timely manner should reflect on supply. I'd say 10-15 percent chance.

The pillbox/bunker as a unit idea would just add flavor. The 1000s of 'observation posts on the East German border would be used as pillboxes in a shooting war. They were more like bunkers down in Czechoslovakia. Then again one could use blockhouse/fortresses as defensive positions for housing units I suppose.

[Aaron]

Im updating Bolt to the 1.02 version and at the same time making changes on a few things here and there mostly adjustments to values from things ive learned the last couple of years. Upped all inf assault values 3 points and lowered tanks 3 points, not a major change but adds that little bit more to the inf if tanks assault by themselves. Heres a preview of the new tank values, some big changes here, the better got better and the worse got worse. Any ideas on changes nows the time to let me know and we can debate them, gonna try to have it all done by next weekend.

Aaron

ARM TRK 17 5 30 2 0 20 1 0 2 0 0 30 18 16 0 M1
ARM TRK 14 5 42 2 0 22 1 0 2 0 0 33 18 16 0 M1A1
ARM TRK 14 5 42 2 0 22 1 0 2 0 0 42 21 16 0 M1A1HA
ARM TRK 13 4 23 1 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 20 15 15 0 Leopard 1A1
ARM TRK 13 4 23 1 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 20 15 15 0 Leopard 1BE
ARM TRK 13 4 23 1 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 21 15 15 0 Leopard 1A2
ARM TRK 17 4 23 1 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 20 15 15 0 Leopard 1V Dutch
ARM TRK 13 5 23 1 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 21 15 15 0 Leopard 1A3
ARM TRK 13 5 23 2 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 21 15 15 0 Leopard 1A4
ARM TRK 13 5 26 2 0 20 1 0 2 0 0 25 15 15 0 Leopard 1A5
ARM TRK 13 5 36 2 0 21 1 0 2 0 0 37 21 16 0 Leopard 2A1
ARM TRK 13 5 36 2 0 21 1 0 2 0 0 37 21 16 0 Leopard 2A2
ARM TRK 13 5 36 2 0 21 1 0 2 0 0 37 21 16 0 Leopard 2A3
ARM TRK 13 5 42 2 0 22 1 0 2 0 0 42 21 16 0 Leopard 2A4
ARM TRK 14 5 20 1 0 17 1 0 2 0 0 17 15 13 0 Centurion Mk5
ARM TRK 14 5 39 2 0 21 1 0 2 0 0 39 21 14 0 Challenger I
ARM TRK 14 5 33 2 0 21 1 0 2 0 0 33 18 13 0 ChieftainMkIX
ARM TRK 14 5 33 2 0 20 1 0 2 0 0 25 18 13 0 ChieftainMk5
ARM TRK 17 5 23 1 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 18 15 13 0 M60A1
ARM TRK 14 5 26 2 0 20 1 0 2 0 0 19 15 13 0 M60A3
ARM TRK 16 5 18 1 0 16 1 0 2 0 0 17 15 13 0 M48A3E
ARM TRK 13 3 23 1 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 17 15 13 0 M48A2G2
ARM TRK 13 4 23 1 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 20 15 14 0 AMX-30B /E
ARM TRK 13 4 26 2 0 20 1 0 2 0 0 21 15 15 0 AMX-30B2
ARM TRK 31 6 18 1 0 16 1 0 2 0 0 12 15 12 0 ASU-85
ARM TRK 10 5 14 1 0 14 1 0 2 0 0 12 15 12 0 PT-76
ARM TRK 31 3 20 1 0 17 1 0 2 0 0 18 15 12 0 T-54
ARM TRK 31 3 20 1 0 17 1 0 2 0 0 18 15 13 0 T-55
ARM TRK 31 3 22 2 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 20 15 13 0 T-55M
ARM TRK 31 3 22 2 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 23 15 13 0 T-55AM
ARM TRK 31 5 30 2 0 20 1 0 2 0 0 33 21 14 0 T-64BV
ARM TRK 31 5 27 2 0 20 1 0 2 0 0 27 18 14 0 T-64A/B
ARM TRK 31 4 24 1 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 23 15 14 0 T-72
ARM TRK 31 4 24 1 0 18 1 0 2 0 0 23 15 14 0 T-72M
ARM TRK 31 4 27 1 0 19 1 0 2 0 0 26 15 14 0 T-72M1
ARM TRK 31 4 27 1 0 19 1 0 2 0 0 26 15 14 0 T-72A
ARM TRK 31 4 33 2 0 21 1 0 2 0 0 36 21 14 0 T-72B
ARM TRK 31 5 33 2 0 21 1 0 2 0 0 33 21 16 0 T-80BV
ARM TRK 31 5 33 2 0 21 1 0 2 0 0 30 18 16 0 T-80B
ARM TRK 31 5 39 2 0 22 1 0 2 0 0 39 21 16 0 T-80U
ARM TRK 12 4 23 1 0 16 1 0 2 0 0 14 15 15 0 SK-105 Kurassier
ARM PM 19 5 14 1 0 14 1 0 2 0 0 12 15 14 0 Cougar

changes so far

1. Upgraded to version 1.02
2. Mine probability set at 10%
3. Night Move Disruption parameter set at 20%
4. Digging in raised from 15% to 20%. (60% for engineers)
5. Pact vehicle breakdown raised to 4 from 3. (Thats 4 vehicle breakdowns per 100 hexes)
6. Value changes, mostly tanks but adjustments elsewhere also
7. Removal of all recon helicopters (it wasn't standardize throughout the oob)
8. Increased movement for all helicopters to between 30-40
9. Removal of Danish Hawks
10. Added the M901 ITV to the US battalions equipped with Bradley s
11. 5 US M110a2 artillery battalions brought up to strength (24)
12. Elimination of 1 company of US tanks in Berlin and changing the one to M60a3
13. Changed T64a/b,T55m,T55am and T-72b tanks to a range of 2 HA from 1 (could fire an atgm)
14. Buffed up attack helo.
15. Split the WGerman Pah-1 regiments to 4 flights of 14 AC instead of 2 of 28 AC
16. Some minor changes to the US 2nd Marine Division oob
17. Increased ranges on ATGMs
18. Doubled movement on SF/deception type units from 5 to 10
19. Put some more variable into the programmed weather (to many 100%)
20. Eliminated the 6 helo engineers from Nato
21. Fixed wrong graphic used for 6 WGerman eng units
22. Fixed French recon units were counting as 18 men.
23. Changed WGerman Kampfschwimmer so it infiltrates the EGerman coast
24. Lowered Austrian Turrets HA from 550 to 50. It didnt do alot anyways and this gets rid
of 2200VP for destroying them all
25. 3 of the Corp level Apache Bns where not stationed in Germany, removed and set as reinforcements
26. OOB changes to the US Berlin Bde
27. OOB changes to the US 9th Inf Div
28. OOB changes to US Eng Bde at Corp level (these also had has boats missing,ive added it in)
29. Eliminated Soft attack values for all ATGM units (they will only fire at hard targets now)
30. Change of Canadian reinforcements, eliminated 2Bdes of reinforcements but upped the replacement rate. (Looks like only 1 Bde would be deployed from Can and they would draw replacements from the others)
31. Changed US divisional engineers to the new org
32. US MPs got some love, currect Bns

[JDR Dragoon]

A small observation, that has only really become obvious over time:

-While COMAIRBALTAP (and to a degree COMNAVBALTAP) had the responsibility for any strike or other airsupport missions flown in Corps LANDJUTs area of responsibility, the responsibility for defending Schleswig-Holstein from air attack rested on 2 ATAF, not AIRBALTAP. This arrangement was a major source of potential friction, and the prosecution and handover of bogeys between the two commands was something frequently trained.

What this means is, that no danish HAWK missile units should be part of the OOB. Defending Germany from air attack, even danish forces in Germany, was not a task they were supposed to undertake. 2. ATAF, supported by NATOs SAM belt was to take care of that (ditto for 4. ATAF in the south).