Beta release of Bolt out of the Blue V10.0.

[nukkxx]

It doesn't make sense that WP is unfixed while Nato is fixed either.  

Of course. I think that both should be unfixed.

[Elxaime]

Back in the day, I had the chance to set up and play a few turns (solo) of the old SPI monster game Next War. This game covered more or less the same area as Bolt and posited a WW3 that started during the late 1970's. At that time, the public messaging from NATO and everyone else was that the Red Beast was a huge unstoppable force that would likely only be halted by strategic nuclear war. The USSR was assumed to be able to easily overrun West Germany in one week and perhaps send columns as far as the low countries and France.

Playing Next War, which has a "surprise attack" mechanic somewhat like Bolt, I was surprised to see that, after the first day or so shock (when the "surprise" rules were most applicable), the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies immediately began to slow down and soon ground to a halt. Warfare took on a positional nature by Day 3, partly due to mutual exhaustion but also as NATO's ample reserve forces began to enter the fray. I was left very skeptical of the notion the USSR and Pact were going to get very deep into West Germany, much less beyond, and cognizant of mid/long term factors working for NATO (growing NATO air superiority, decreasing Soviet supply). This was even though, as Bolt does, the game took a rather optimistic view of the willingness of the Soviet Unions' Warsaw Pact allies to contribute to such a war, especially an offensive war.

Playing Bolt leaves a similar feeling, but even more, since by 1989 NATO was measurably stronger than 1979. Even with the "attack from barracks" approach, by the end of the first day the Warsaw Pact forces are running into real trouble - especially when coming up against first line NATO MBTs.

If you wanted to make a "realistic" Bolt from the Blue, with the likelihood of most/all forces mobilized/mobilizing, the war would, in my opinion, rapidly turn into a mutual car wreck. The Pact may get some minor distance into NATO territory, at huge cost, but it would be downhill from there. It can be done, but I think to keep it as a "game" you'd need to plus up the objective hex values in NATO territory, have them set as timed, and give the Pact an "early termination" option if they manage to take enough of them. VP levels should be set to have Pact start with more points, on the assumption that if they don't win in the first 3 days, they will need to begin shifting to defense. It could still be an enjoyable game, since NATO now has to solve the challenge of eating through massed Pact defense lines.

But I don't think Bolt, even with the Pact advantages it has, leads to a reasonable chance of Pact victory. NATO just has too great a qualitative edge, and Pact numerical superiority rests on dubiously equipped allies with uncertain morale.

[2-81 Armor]

Back in the day, I had the chance to set up and play a few turns (solo) of the old SPI monster game Next War.  This game covered more or less the same area as Bolt and posited a WW3 that started during the late 1970's.  At that time, the public messaging from NATO and everyone else was that the Red Beast was a huge unstoppable force that would likely only be halted by strategic nuclear war.  The USSR was assumed to be able to easily overrun West Germany in one week and perhaps send columns as far as the low countries and France. 

Playing Next War, which has a "surprise attack" mechanic somewhat like Bolt, I was surprised to see that, after the first day or so shock (when the "surprise" rules were most applicable), the Soviets and their Warsaw Pact allies immediately began to slow down and soon ground to a halt.  Warfare took on a positional nature by Day 3, partly due to mutual exhaustion but also as NATO's ample reserve forces began to enter the fray.  I was left very skeptical of the notion the USSR and Pact were going to get very deep into West Germany, much less beyond, and cognizant of mid/long term factors working for NATO (growing NATO air superiority, decreasing Soviet supply).  This was even though, as Bolt does, the game took a rather optimistic view of the willingness of the Soviet Unions' Warsaw Pact allies to contribute to such a war, especially an offensive war.

Playing Bolt leaves a similar feeling, but even more, since by 1989 NATO was measurably stronger than 1979.  Even with the "attack from barracks" approach, by the end of the first day the Warsaw Pact forces are running into real trouble - especially when coming up against first line NATO MBTs. 

If you wanted to make a "realistic" Bolt from the Blue, with the likelihood of most/all forces mobilized/mobilizing, the war would, in my opinion, rapidly turn into a mutual car wreck.  The Pact may get some minor distance into NATO territory, at huge cost, but it would be downhill from there.  It can be done, but I think to keep it as a "game" you'd need to plus up the objective hex values in NATO territory, have them set as timed, and give the Pact an "early termination" option if they manage to take enough of them.  VP levels should be set to have Pact start with more points, on the assumption that if they don't win in the first 3 days, they will need to begin shifting to defense.  It could still be an enjoyable game, since NATO now has to solve the challenge of eating through massed Pact defense lines. 

But I don't think Bolt, even with the Pact advantages it has, leads to a reasonable chance of Pact victory.  NATO just has too great a qualitative edge, and Pact numerical superiority rests on dubiously equipped allies with uncertain morale.

I also played Next War when it first came out. This was in Kirchgoens, FRG while I was in the 1st Brigade 3rd Armored Division. We tried the Tension, and then the Spring Maneuvers scenarios with much the same results that you describe. We also found the naval war to be too detailed and complicated, and the air game to be a real drag on play.

Sometimes designs attempt too much, include too much detail, and get pretty unwieldy and bloated. Next War was like that, and (I don't think this will be too popular here) Bolt Out of The Blue is also.

Don't get me wrong, the designer's attention to detail, his attempt to include almost everything imaginable in both sides projected OOB, and use of some innovative techniques are really something to be admired. I know I couldn't do even half of all that. 

The problem is that I've always felt Bolt in it's many versions was just way over the top, and to the point of being unplayable unless really dedicated teams were doing so. Maybe if it were pared down for unit count, and limited to the first week of projected combat it might be serviceable. 

I've tried the earlier versions of Bolt both in PBEM one on one, and in teamplay. The team game didn't last very long at all (many good intentions, but like a lot of team games, poor turn returns) and the PBEM attempt was pretty cumbersome after a while.

I playtested Version 10 (playing solo) for 3-4 turns, made an initial report and was prepared to continue, but never heard from the designer again. This was close to a year ago I think, and I don't believe development has ever been resumed.

I don't think a playable, and realistic NATO-Pact game covering the entire Central Front with Bn sized units and 1-3km hexes has been published yet in digital or paper format. Some of the TOAW scenarios do come close though.

[DaveK]

I played something like 100 PBEM turns of Bolt during COVID work-from-home, but ended up getting sidetracked by moving, work travel, and returning to the office and had to stop playing.

As much as I admire the great work that went into it, it's objectively a miserable scenario.  The unit density is far too high, the loss of 2-hex range for all WP units but a few T-80s is crippling against NATO 2-hex units, and it's impossible to breakthrough anywhere; rivers might as well be the Alps.  Within 30 turns, it literally becomes World War One with MBTs.  That might be realistic-- see Donbas-- but it's not at all fun, it's a grind.  I even went nuclear and chemical to try to break out, and all I did was trap more WP units in death pockets.



And this latest scenario redesign made it *worse*-- losing on-map helicopters takes away one of the few effective maneuver/fires tools in the game. 



Again, I hate to sound harsh, I really genuinely admire the work that went into this, but I regretfully put nearly a year into a scenario that does not work.

[2-81 Armor]

I played something like 100 PBEM turns of Bolt during COVID work-from-home, but ended up getting sidetracked by moving, work travel, and returning to the office and had to stop playing.

As much as I admire the great work that went into it, it's objectively a miserable scenario.  The unit density is far too high, the loss of 2-hex range for all WP units but a few T-80s is crippling against NATO 2-hex units, and it's impossible to breakthrough anywhere; rivers might as well be the Alps.  Within 30 turns, it literally becomes World War One with MBTs.  That might be realistic-- see Donbas-- but it's not at all fun, it's a grind.  I even went nuclear and chemical to try to break out, and all I did was trap more WP units in death pockets.



And this latest scenario redesign made it *worse*-- losing on-map helicopters takes away one of the few effective maneuver/fires tools in the game. 



Again, I hate to sound harsh, I really genuinely admire the work that went into this, but I regretfully put nearly a year into a scenario that does not work.

I'm both happy and a bit sad to hear this.

Happy because I'm not alone in thinking Bolt is overall too big and overdone, while being a remarkable design effort. I guess it's to The Modern Campaign series what Richard Berg's Campaign For North Africa was to SPI back in the day.

I'm a little sad because this confirms my suspicion that no amount of trimming down and editing can rescue Bolt from being an unplayable monster.

My hat's off to you for lasting as many turns as you did. I doubt I could have.

Maybe the enlarged map might be salvaged and used for a new design.

[Aolain]

Well, at the risk of going against the, seemingly, prevalent thought, I find the Bolt Mod quite playable. Normally, I play solo as NATO against either one other person playing the WP, or a two man WP team. Now I get the idea that a "Bolt" scenario was unlikely, but, this is a game after all that only approximates a hypothetical event. So, I stand firmly in the "pro Bolt" camp.

[Aaron]

I am alive, honestly cant believe it's been over a year since I've been here, feels like a couple months.

I've disappeared on David a couple times now, wish I had the time but work and life come first and doing this didn't support my addiction of having money to spend and time spent with others.

It has been over a year and I'm not against making adjustments to Bolt but with it being so big testing for a couple weeks really didn't get anywhere. Now that it's been this long there should be some great feedback out there so throw it at me. I wont have time the next couple weeks , training 2 people to take my 2 job titles off me and auditors coming to visit this week plus moving in to a single job title but I promise to make adjustments where needed.

Ty

[Elxaime]

Welcome back! Completely understood RL comes first. In the spirit of your request for feedback on 10.0 Bolt, here are some thoughts:

1. Attack Helicopters. They seem to have some issues in that, despite being attached to various formations, if you recon an enemy HQ spotted via ECM, then every available friendly helicopter can hit them, regardless of where they are on the map. Not sure if the game engine is adaptive enough to model helicopters in this new way. It makes me wonder if one step forward has turned into two steps back here and the old original FOB concept needs looking at again. I think the idea is you want helicopters to be somewhat tethered, both as doctrine and to prevent gaminess. Maybe the old FOB, with attack helicopters as on-map units, worked best?

2. Recon units. This is an ancient issue, but it still seems weird that recon units are so vulnerable. The recon spotting helps somewhat. I'd consider tweaking them a bit more, perhaps turning them into "hybrid" units that were soft targets, with but decent soft and hard defense factors, and adjusting their movement rates to allow them to spot even better using the distant spotting ability.

3. Border units. In the playthrough I had, my NATO opponent had some reasonable complaints about the ability of Pact border guards, once they had unfixed, to spread out across the map to cover the front line. On the other hand, the border units seem like a good idea - I always felt it was strange to have each sides' rear area so "naked" that it allowed enemy special forces to roam freely. You may want to consider having each sides' border units start to withdraw after the first two days (random percentage and by unit), then have rear area security forces trickle in afterwards in friendly cities to represent the mobilization of rear area security units (again, via random percentage and by unit). This would perform two functions: hinder the use of border troops, beyond the first two days, to perform unrealistic assault functions; b) the trickling in of rear area troops would "harden" those areas against enemy special forces while creating some "emergency" forces to use in extreme situations. I would also suggest reducing the border troops movement and making the arriving rear area security forces fixed for the first week of the campaign, to reflect that they are arriving to protect cities and key infrastructure.

4. VP hexes and levels. As noted in my comment above, it is unlikely the Warsaw Pact will get very far into enemy territory, all other things being equal. You may want to make use of the new timed VP hex function to create a potential "sudden death" victory threshold for both sides. I would also stage the NATO VP more closely to the frontier, to reflect their "forward defense" doctrine, which had a heavy political dimension. This would encourage the Pact to be more aggressive early on, even at the risk of high losses, while encouraging NATO to fight for every inch of territory and not just sit back and await their reserves so they can crush the Pact. This would turn the game into more of a turn-by-turn nailbiter, as either side, by advancing deeply into enemy territory, can cause a sudden death victory.

Just my two cents. Others may have ideas.

J.

[Outlaw Josey Wales]

Helicopters doubtful to be pulled from all over to an area. They were on their own frequency and wouldn't know about situation unless informed by higher HQ. Then, you would have to make a couple of stops to refuel and rest depending on how far away they are coming from. They also, would not leave their area without helicopter support unless it was absolutely necessary. Bulge type of situation.

Border units were guards. Not meant for offensive action. I went on a border tour in 1980. All newly stationed soldiers were. In a tower, there were at most a squad with other personnel with other jobs. Where I was, they had a wall rigged with shotguns and dogs on 50' chains and 101' apart. So, when two dogs came together, there was only a one foot gap to squeeze through. The dogs were fed once a week and mistreated to keep them vicious. If anything, they would probably be rated E or F troops and it would take a lot of work to get them together for anything other than directing traffic, IMO.

The WP forces had actual Border Guards. Nato had actual units on border guard that rotated on a regular basis. When they were rotated off the border, they did in garrison stuff and field exercises and whatever else they had to do.

[2-81 Armor]

I find myself agreeing with most of the comments above, and I'll add a few.

1. The scenario is too long (I don't have the game or anything WDS/Tiller installed right now so I may be wrong) and should be limited to the first week (stretching it two weeks) of operations. Both sides, given the rate of ammunition expenditure in modern combat would probably exhaust their on hand stocks pretty quickly anyway. Ditto fuel reserves and even food and medical supplies. If the Pact can't make their strategic objectives in a week max, it's game over. Reduce the number of turns.

2. If turns are reduced the unit density will go down naturally. This would be a huge help for players, with less units to move per turn. Also, please have a good hard look at the OOB for both sides, and try to weed out all of the 'ant' type units that look great in a detailed OOB, but tend to clutter up things. Border and Police units fall into this category I think, and (heresy here!) having too many SF types running around. Are SF troops important? You bet, but IRL I doubt they'd be overly available since they are too valuable to be wasted on all but the most important targets. They should be reduced in numbers.

3. The helicopter revision in Bolt 10.0 was an innovative experiment that looks great, and deserved to work, but the current game system really can't handle it. Better to return (as said above) to the old on map FOB/unit way of doing things.

4. Have a long hard re-evaluation of (especially NATO) which units should be allowed to breakdown given their specific uses and training/morale ratings. Also will cut back on the unit count.

5. Again with unit density, review the number of on map AAA units at all levels. While perfectly accurate as is, would it be better to revert to the older Bolt scenario system where the SAM umbrella markers and effects were used?

6. Why always the 1985-1989 period? Maybe something from the early 1980's might make for a more competitive WP force?

While I would welcome a revised Bolt, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.