(08-21-2013, 04:33 AM)tazaaron Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2013, 04:12 AM)Elxaime Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2013, 01:48 AM)Midge Wrote: [ -> ]You could debate Berlin until the cows come home. Personally I'm not convinced the East Germans would be happy to see a Soviet Arty Div draw up alongside them and start pounding Berlin and its civillian population into the dust. I'm even less convinced that the East Germans would of been overly keen on advancing into Berlin themselves and engaging fellow Germans in what is the most vicious type of combat. And as for the Soviets, I'm sure the loss of 200,000 men last time they entered the place would weigh heavily on the minds of some of their old guard as they were young enough to remember it!
I would guess the whole war scenario itself exists mainly in an alternative reality. This alternative reality supposes that in 1989 the Pact allies were sufficiently reliable not only to shoulder their burden of an offensive war, but also loyal enough not to betray the whole scheme in advance to NATO. As others have commented, the idea of a Pact strategic surprise of the scale the scenario supposes is a best case. That being the premise, not sure we need factor in East German squeamishness over a bombardment of West Berlin - East Germans upset at that would likely already have rebelled at the very notion of the war to begin with. But you are quite right, we can debate the might-have-been stuff until the cows come home.
I suppose what I should have said is that removing the option of using the Soviet 34th Artillery near Berlin more or less consigns the Pact to not taking the city at all without diverting some later reinforcements. I doubt the Operation Zentrum GDR division can make the difference by itself. But I am glad to be proved wrong.
In Beta, how did things play out in Berlin? Could the Pact take the city with just the Zentrum forces (minus 34th Arty)? Or did they have to divert follow on troops as well?
In testing there was only probing of the defenses and in feedback over the years Berlin is bypassed 8 out of 10 games
That is surprising...there are 8K VP in the city, plus the VP for destruction of the NATO garrison units (the Pact will suffer losses, but it is very unlikely they will have any units destroyed).
That said, it is very tough to model political dimensions that are not consonant with purely military considerations. For example, Britain sent additional Hurricane squadrons to France in May 1940 even though the BEF lacked the infrastructure in place to adequately support them. Churchill felt he had a political imperative to do so in response to desperate appeals from the French. Another WW2 example was Eisenhower acceding to De Gaulle's demand that Strasbourg not be abandoned to a German counterattack in late 1944 from the Colmar Pocket. It was sound military strategy to fall back and straighten the line. But Ike caved in so as to preserve Allied political unity. It is hard to imagine Soviet forces choosing to ignore Berlin if a WW3 ground war started.
On the other hand, forcing a player to do X or Y by imposing political considerations can lead to "idiot rules" that make a game not fun for one or both players. For example, tying a German-side WW2 war game player to some of Hitler's crazy last stand or "Fuhrerfestung" orders would mean a preordained outcome. In the end, Bolt strikes a good balance between alternative history and solid facts.
Well done again on a superb mod.
(08-21-2013, 05:13 AM)Elxaime Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2013, 04:33 AM)tazaaron Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2013, 04:12 AM)Elxaime Wrote: [ -> ] (08-21-2013, 01:48 AM)Midge Wrote: [ -> ]You could debate Berlin until the cows come home. Personally I'm not convinced the East Germans would be happy to see a Soviet Arty Div draw up alongside them and start pounding Berlin and its civillian population into the dust. I'm even less convinced that the East Germans would of been overly keen on advancing into Berlin themselves and engaging fellow Germans in what is the most vicious type of combat. And as for the Soviets, I'm sure the loss of 200,000 men last time they entered the place would weigh heavily on the minds of some of their old guard as they were young enough to remember it!
I would guess the whole war scenario itself exists mainly in an alternative reality. This alternative reality supposes that in 1989 the Pact allies were sufficiently reliable not only to shoulder their burden of an offensive war, but also loyal enough not to betray the whole scheme in advance to NATO. As others have commented, the idea of a Pact strategic surprise of the scale the scenario supposes is a best case. That being the premise, not sure we need factor in East German squeamishness over a bombardment of West Berlin - East Germans upset at that would likely already have rebelled at the very notion of the war to begin with. But you are quite right, we can debate the might-have-been stuff until the cows come home.
I suppose what I should have said is that removing the option of using the Soviet 34th Artillery near Berlin more or less consigns the Pact to not taking the city at all without diverting some later reinforcements. I doubt the Operation Zentrum GDR division can make the difference by itself. But I am glad to be proved wrong.
In Beta, how did things play out in Berlin? Could the Pact take the city with just the Zentrum forces (minus 34th Arty)? Or did they have to divert follow on troops as well?
In testing there was only probing of the defenses and in feedback over the years Berlin is bypassed 8 out of 10 games
That is surprising...in all the games I have played Berlin was always an early target. Even now, there are 8K VP in the city, plus the VP for destruction of the NATO garrison units (the Pact will suffer losses, but it is very unlikely they will have any units destroyed).
It is very tough to model political dimensions that are not consonant with purely military considerations. For example, Britain sent additional Hurricane squadrons to France in May 1940 even though the BEF lacked the infrastructure in place to adequately support them. Churchill felt he had a political imperative to do so in response to desperate appeals from the French. Another WW2 example was Eisenhower acceding to De Gaulle's demand that Strasbourg not be abandoned to a German counterattack in late 1944 from the Colmar Pocket. It was sound military strategy to fall back and straighten the line. But Ike caved in so as to preserve Allied political unity. It is hard to imagine Soviet forces choosing to ignore Berlin if a WW3 ground war started.
You dont have to ignore it as the WP player, uve got 20 or so divisions on the map, if the player wants he can send everyone of them after Berlin. Its not being ignored unless you want it to but alot of players choose so and thats there choice, the tools are there to take it.
Thanks Tazaaron! That new download site worked great for me!
Anyone interested in trying Bolt 5.0 solo? I have had mixed results with team games as they tend to lose steam after a few turns. I can play either side. Let me know.
(08-24-2013, 10:42 PM)Elxaime Wrote: [ -> ]Anyone interested in trying Bolt 5.0 solo? I have had mixed results with team games as they tend to lose steam after a few turns. I can play either side. Let me know.
Solo is the way to go, you dont have to rely on 4 or 5 other people and its not bad, after you get threw the first 8 turns or so you can start turning turns in 2 hours if you dont watch the replay.
With more Nato units forward the action gets hot fast, by 1000 its in full swing.
In are game we were finding interdiction to still be a tad much. For on going games if your seeing this also then i suggest all players change thier .pdt from 4-3 50% to 3-2 40%. We already have and its much better
Aaron
Heh, this explains how two 18-gun NATO towed artillery battalions got vaporized!
Interdiction for this will always be a guesstimate though - who knows what would really have happened in WW3?
I am thinking there would have been a lot of traffic accidents with all those young men driving at high speeds after forty hours straight being awake. So I am just assuming I had two big pileups of tractor trailers on the autobahn...
(09-11-2013, 02:05 PM)Elxaime Wrote: [ -> ]Heh, this explains how two 18-gun NATO towed artillery battalions got vaporized!
Interdiction for this will always be a guesstimate though - who knows what would really have happened in WW3?
I am thinking there would have been a lot of traffic accidents with all those young men driving at high speeds after forty hours straight being awake. So I am just assuming I had two big pileups of tractor trailers on the autobahn...
Lost one myself that way, know how you feel. Lowering the values helps and speeds up the game but still stings with 40%, somewhere months down the road on the next update will probably raise defense on towed guns so this doesnt happen, then ull only lose half. Good news is both sides has towed guns so it evens out in the end.
We tested out 10 different sets of values for interdiction and thought we had it at 4-3 but interdiction is hard to measure, 1 unit will get bombed 3 times in 1 move and then nobody in the next 10, but i think we did get it finally with the 3-2 40%. Just need a little defense added to towed units and were all good for years to come.
Aaron
One potential issue which may/may not be working as designed? I have noticed that helicopters seem to be disrupting during night movement when they move along a non-road.