Bolt out of the Blue 5.3

tbridges · 07-25-2013, 11:55 PM,

(07-25-2013, 12:13 PM)tazaaron Wrote: Update. Theres been no major problems actually no real problems at all, we are just still playing around with some values.

Great news! Can't wait till its ready to go! Salute

Aaron · 07-27-2013, 02:07 PM,

Still lookin good, were hard at it changin and testing values on ATGM vehicles, helos and MLR systems, goin for more causalties. Aircraft got a complete overhaul. Will probably post 1 more beta this weekend for 1 week then hopefully its all a go. Wanna take the next week so we can check for any errors in the oob and continue the forward defense testing.

Aaron

Aaron · 07-29-2013, 10:34 AM,

2nd Beta is posted

The Teacher · 08-04-2013, 08:05 PM,

Has anyone ever considered doing a 1948-49 Warsaw Pact/Nato Campaign ?
Or even another time like 1956-58 ?
Asking out of interest as I'm trying to find out about cold war OOB's at different times.

Aaron · (This post was last modified: 08-04-2013, 10:24 PM by Aaron.)

(08-04-2013, 08:05 PM)The Teacher Wrote: Has anyone ever considered doing a 1948-49 Warsaw Pact/Nato Campaign ?
Or even another time like 1956-58 ?
Asking out of interest as I'm trying to find out about cold war OOB's at different times.

Hardest part would be finding that info. It can be done for any period but some periods more than others have more information on it. So i guess it would depend on how accurate you wanted it. I probably spent 2 years putting info together and i still am making small adjustments. Another reason is as i believe Nato had no chance before the 80s of winning a conventional war, i actually think at no time before 87....

A 3rd reason was there was no WP intill 55.. It would have been Nato vs. Them scenario

Aaron · (This post was last modified: 08-09-2013, 05:27 PM by Aaron.)

Taffy had to leave town till monday 8-12-13 and he was my second pair of eyes so release has been delayed but if theres anybody who wants to scan threw the oob for errors let me know, it will speed things up. The more eyes the better.

Elxaime · 08-10-2013, 12:27 PM,

Just curious. Will version 5.0 alter the digging-in, mine-laying or bunker construction probabilities? Being able to construct some bunkers, even in the time frame of the game, could be useful, especially for the NATO in the Jutland area.

Aaron · 08-10-2013, 02:24 PM,

(08-10-2013, 12:27 PM)Elxaime Wrote: Just curious. Will version 5.0 alter the digging-in, mine-laying or bunker construction probabilities? Being able to construct some bunkers, even in the time frame of the game, could be useful, especially for the NATO in the Jutland area.

Digging in is now 25% so that makes eng 75% and mine probability is 20%, no bunkers though. Jutland is 10 times better now for nato but still going to be tuff just because of the open terrain.

Elxaime · (This post was last modified: 08-11-2013, 07:32 AM by Elxaime.)

(08-10-2013, 02:24 PM)tazaaron Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 12:27 PM)Elxaime Wrote: Just curious. Will version 5.0 alter the digging-in, mine-laying or bunker construction probabilities? Being able to construct some bunkers, even in the time frame of the game, could be useful, especially for the NATO in the Jutland area.

Digging in is now 25% so that makes eng 75% and mine probability is 20%, no bunkers though. Jutland is 10 times better now for nato but still going to be tuff just because of the open terrain.

Just curious why no bunker-building capabilities? Is it a play balance issue? I am no engineer, but my lay-man's thought is that by 1989 a military engineer could do things much faster than his 1944 counterpart. It would add a nice element of strategy since building even a small bunker line can provide a useful pivot for gathering reserves.

While we are at it, a question on Deception units. Is it an appropriate house rule to require both sides to deploy them once they arrive on-map? In some games, I have noticed players keep them undeployed and use them to both fight and cause casualties and also to spot for air/artillery. Then, once the enemy is closing in - poof - they deploy. This seems iffy to me. Also (and I admit to guiltily doing this myself) if they appear close enough to the front you can deploy your SpecOps units back onto hexes occupied by your own side. They reappear undeployed at the start of your next turn and then can be deployed again further back in this way, out of enemy range, to serve as a reserve secret weapon to deploy if the enemy breaks the line. This also seems iffy, although I have done it myself. So - any suggested house rules on Deception units with Bolt 5.0?

Aaron · 08-11-2013, 08:48 AM,

(08-11-2013, 07:26 AM)Elxaime Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 02:24 PM)tazaaron Wrote:
(08-10-2013, 12:27 PM)Elxaime Wrote: Just curious. Will version 5.0 alter the digging-in, mine-laying or bunker construction probabilities? Being able to construct some bunkers, even in the time frame of the game, could be useful, especially for the NATO in the Jutland area.

Digging in is now 25% so that makes eng 75% and mine probability is 20%, no bunkers though. Jutland is 10 times better now for nato but still going to be tuff just because of the open terrain.

Just curious why no bunker-building capabilities? Is it a play balance issue? I am no engineer, but my lay-man's thought is that by 1989 a military engineer could do things much faster than his 1944 counterpart. It would add a nice element of strategy since building even a small bunker line can provide a useful pivot for gathering reserves.

While we are at it, a question on Deception units. Is it an appropriate house rule to require both sides to deploy them once they arrive on-map? In some games, I have noticed players keep them undeployed and use them to both fight and cause casualties and also to spot for air/artillery. Then, once the enemy is closing in - poof - they deploy. This seems iffy to me. Also (and I admit to guiltily doing this myself) if they appear close enough to the front you can deploy your SpecOps units back onto hexes occupied by your own side. They reappear undeployed at the start of your next turn and then can be deployed again further back in this way, out of enemy range, to serve as a reserve secret weapon to deploy if the enemy breaks the line. This also seems iffy, although I have done it myself. So - any suggested house rules on Deception units with Bolt 5.0?

"A military dug-out; a reinforced concrete shelter" i just see it beyond the realm of a 2 week scenario and on top of that if you set it like 5% which is more than any other scenario i can think of is a waste of time for a engineer to sit there for 12 turns, things move fast and engineers have plenty to do already building entrenchments,bridges and minefields plus blowing bridges and clearing minefields.

As far as SF yes that is working as designed, its actually been added to because the SF units have a movement of 10 now which has worked great, every time midge takes his turn i can see spets going in and out of my units line of sight and every now and then he attacks an HQ or art unit and is gone but ive caught a few.

As far as SF goin to the wrong side of the line that is a downfall, i dont do it myself but then again i see more use for them on the enemys side of the line.

Gonna leave them as is for now, u can always have a house rule that they must stay on the enemy side of the front.