Fulda Gap and NGP '85 OOB Inaccuracies

[Hunter9502]

Hello, I haven't really had the time to take a good look at the other two European titles aside from Danube Front until recently. I noticed that the OOB is entirely different between the big Germany scenario in Danube Front '85 and the smaller scenarios in the other two titles. In fact they seem to be woefully inaccurate compared to Danube Front '85, which has a mostly flawless OOB. I was always under the impression that the big Germany scenario in Danube Front '85 was merely a piecing together of the campaigns of the three titles, but it seems like it was more like a redux.

One of the biggest things that stands out to me is the Soviet T-72's in the other two titles. This is completely inaccurate and can be verified by publicly available OOBs from 1985-1991 for all Soviet divisions in Germany which show that only T-80's, T-64's and T-62's were in service in Germany. T-72's were a cheap alternative designed to be fielded in second rate and reserve divisions, such as those in the far east on the Chinese border and in Czechoslovakia, and to be exported to Warsaw Pact allies. Another noticeable although arguably minor issue is the numbering of regiments. All divisions in NGP and Fulda Gap use a simplified scheme of "1st", "2nd", "3rd Regt", etc, rather than using the actual names. This also makes it a bit hard to know what the OOB was even based on.

For example the 79th Guards Tank Division uses this naming scheme in Fulda Gap '85, but in Danube Front '85 they have the 17th, 45th and 211th Tank Regiment, which is correct to their actual organization in 1985. In Fulda Gap one regiment exclusively and inaccurately uses T-72's, while in Danube Front they use entirely T-64's. Many other divisions in Fulda Gap exclusively use T-72's despite never fielding them historically, and the same can be seen in NGP. There may be an inaccuracy here, because I could not find information regarding the use of T-64's in the 79th, rather they seem to have only fielded T-80's, but I did not do a deep search and there is a few years gap in the info I found. Bolt out of the Blue may be the standard to look at here, though of course the 4 year difference in timeframe could have an impact. Still, with all that said the Danube Front OOB is far more accurate than the other two titles. The only forces I noticed in that title that use the outdated Fulda Gap/NGP style organization are the Soviet divisions around Berlin (20th Tank Division and 6th Guards Mot Rifle Div), which also inaccurately use T-72's. If I remember correctly Berlin was adapted from a mod, so that might be why.

I'm not really sure what the development history was for these games but I wonder if it would ever be possible to get a refresh for the other two titles to address these issues. While obviously Danube Front gives access to the big Germany scenario and largely eliminates OOB issues, it loses out on all those nice smaller scenarios, so it'd be nice to see all the titles get some care.

[parmenio]

In fact they seem to be woefully inaccurate compared to Danube Front '85, which has a mostly flawless OOB. I was always under the impression that the big Germany scenario in Danube Front '85 was merely a piecing together of the campaigns of the three titles, but it seems like it was more like a redux.

It's always worth a read of the Designer Notes in a WDS title. There's a section in there that specifically deals with the OOB - Page 6 "The Order of Battle".

[Hunter9502]

In fact they seem to be woefully inaccurate compared to Danube Front '85, which has a mostly flawless OOB. I was always under the impression that the big Germany scenario in Danube Front '85 was merely a piecing together of the campaigns of the three titles, but it seems like it was more like a redux.

It's always worth a read of the Designer Notes in a WDS title. There's a section in there that specifically deals with the OOB - Page 6 "The Order of Battle".

Yes, as the notes explain the original designers of Fulda Gap and NGP were working with inaccurate information based on sources written during the Cold War, while Danube Front used more "recent" and accurate sources based on declassified documents. The designer notes for the first two titles don't really explain where they sourced their information, so it makes more sense now. I suspect this would be the reason for the inaccurate numbering of regiments, and I am guessing the T-72's were assumed in the absence of better information as well. My point is that it would be nice for the other two games to get a refresh based on the OOB used for Danube Front.

[Strela]

My point is that it would be nice for the other two games to get a refresh based on the OOB used for Danube Front.

Completely understand the sentiment. Refreshes like that are more likely when the original designer(s) are still active. We have seen that with products such as France ‘40 where Mike Prucha continues to support his prior work.

Unfortunately, the designers for the original two titles are no longer active, so any revision would require internal resources, and that would directly impact new projects.

I don’t want to say it won’t happen, but it’s not on our radar currently. If someone in the community wants to tackle it, than that’s a different issue and we can discuss, but we don’t have available resources currently.

[Hunter9502]

My point is that it would be nice for the other two games to get a refresh based on the OOB used for Danube Front.

Completely understand the sentiment. Refreshes like that are more likely when the original designer(s) are still active. We have seen that with products such as France ‘40 where Mike Prucha continues to support his prior work.

Unfortunately, the designers for the original two titles are no longer active, so any revision would require internal resources, and that would directly impact new projects.

I don’t want to say it won’t happen, but it’s not on our radar currently. If someone in the community wants to tackle it, than that’s a different issue and we can discuss, but we don’t have available resources currently.

Fair enough, I can certainly see how it'd be hard to finish someone else's work without sacrificing resources elsewhere. I could look into doing it myself, but I imagine it'd be a big undertaking.

[PaulSan]

Hunter9502, I encourage you to do the revision. It sounds like you know what you are taking about and very passionate about the topic of the OOB's.