Wish List

[junk2drive]

OK fans and lurkers, what would you like to see in the next edition of PC?

Maybe something that is missing from another recent wargame?

[benpark]

I would just like to see more attention paid to the infantry in the game. Other than that, a more active AI, and I would be happy.

[freeboy]

Smoke? boy its been awhile since this was put on the shelf... easy design editor for users to self create with a fan based collection of scenarios and campains ala cm

[Laryngoscope]

benpark,

The infantry model of PCK is streets ahead of PCOWS. However it is not 1:1 like CMSF

Freeboy,

I don't know if you missed it but Kharkov will have smoke, as well as very comprehensive scenario and campaign editors.

Depending on how things go it will most likely have a random battle generator as well.

The extensive fan based database of user campaigns and sceanarios will obviously depend on the users [;)]

The only other thread in this forum has SS and descriptions of the editors and random battle generator.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=1471014

[elmo3]

Is a complete list of enhancements for Kharkov available yet?

[Yoozername]

I would like to re-iterate some requests:
 
1.  German tank sections.  2 and 3 tank sections being the basic units of German armor.  This reflects the better C&C/training that the Germans still enjoyed.  Soviet armor should be at best 3 tank platoons with 6 tank/4 tank representing many units.
 
2.  More order options available in subsequant orders phase.  Allow better units (yeah Germans) to have options like retreat, smoke, etc.  Again simulating better training, experience, etc.  Small length movement commands also to tweak posture of units also.
 
3.  Improved artillery model.  Something like CM2 has developed but on a WWII realism level.  Smoke and realistic 'dust' effects.
 
 
 
 

[general_solomon]

good to see the forum up.  I was beginning to worry. 

currently, tied up with cm shock force.

can't wait to get back to the ost front.

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
I would like to re-iterate some requests:
1.  German tank sections.  2 and 3 tank sections being the basic units of German armor.  This reflects the better C&C/training that the Germans still enjoyed.  Soviet armor should be at best 3 tank platoons with 6 tank/4 tank representing many units.

Sections? The Germans usually have 5 tank platoons and the Soviet 10 tank companies? Though the Soviets are sometimes represented by fewer tanks in depleted companies.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
2.  More order options available in subsequant orders phase.  Allow better units (yeah Germans) to have options like retreat, smoke, etc.  Again simulating better training, experience, etc.  Small length movement commands also to tweak posture of units also.

Every platoon can issue retreat orders now. But be careful what you wish for. As it takes Soviets another turn and a half to get back in foward motion if once stopped or retreated.

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
3.  Improved artillery model.  Something like CM2 has developed but on a WWII realism level.  Smoke and realistic 'dust' effects.

Artillery smoke and direct fire smoke.



[/quote]

[Yoozername]

Yes sections.  This would give the Germans the advantage of having more units.  In effect, it models the better C&C. So a 5 tank platoon would be modeled as a 2 and 3 tank section. Each acting as independant units.

[Tomus]

Is there to be any form of dynamic or strategic overlay?

Also is there an RTS version available a la CMSF? I was dubious at first but I love the continous action.

[henius]

Hi All, my take on what I really want improved in the Kharkov expansion
 
- Friendly AI. Big time. What's the point in having all the formalities right (like section size, equipment, graphics, etc, etc) if your units behave like boneheads? For instance, moving formations should avoid forests if possible. And if you order a formation to attack something, some of the units in the formation shouldn't be parking in heavy forest with no LOS to the target.
 
- Clean up the right - click menu. For a light wargame, there doesn't need to be _that_ many possibillities to order a unit to do basically the same. And friendly Ai should know to fire AP at tanks and MG at troops. Why having the possibillity to do the exact opposite? Frankly, I am intimidated by all these options - and I regard myself as rather hard - core (which may be wrong, I agree).  
 
- Waypoints. To make real strategy possible, and avoid RTS- type play. If you want to win with PC-OWS, you must micro- manage every d**n unit every d**n turn, just like any other RTS. The whole point of having formations is to remove micro management, right? And waypoints provide the possibillity to maintain a strategy across several turns.
 
Just my $0.02. I own PC-OWS and will propably buy Kharkov when it is released. But I cannot say I have played it much so far... Still have hopes, though, and the PC engine is neeeearly there.
 
Someone said it in another thread: concentrate on C&C.
 
-henius
  
 

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Yoozername
Yes sections.  This would give the Germans the advantage of having more units.  In effect, it models the better C&C. So a 5 tank platoon would be modeled as a 2 and 3 tank section. Each acting as independant units.

Western tank organization was based on the maneuver element being the platoon. That was true in WWII and was at least up to 1987.

ORIGINAL: Tank Platoon FM 17-15 Oct 1987.
The platoon is organized in two sections to enhance command and control. As a rule, the platoon should not be employed or moved as sections. It would normally operate together, with its movement overwatched by other platoons. Movement by sections is used whenever overwatch by another platoon is not available.

Bound might be used to move when an nearby platoon was not available to for overwatch.

[Bil H]

Sorry Steve, I disagree... for example, in the US Army FM 17-30 Tank Platoon dated Oct. 22 1942 they definitely discuss using one or two tanks to cover maneuver, especially when attacking an enemy position. They might not call them sections, but a duck is a duck in my book.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Germans used the same techniques.

Is there any doubt that such techniques would be used for tactical movement also when a threat was probable but not yet seen? Not to me.

This isn't to say that I support the tank section idea... I have some misgivings about it. Namely, would the section be used a-historically and as independant formations? I have seen no evidence that this was done and think the tank platoons need to stick together as a unit..

...but manueuver should use sections when warranted, just like it does now when using bound in game.

I do wish they bounded more realistically though... and a command to assault a position using sections like in the example below would be nice to have, where one section would remain in a support by fire position (SBF) while the other maneuvered "independantly" but still being supported by the SBF section.

Bil

Here is an example from this FM 17-30 (1942):

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
Sorry Steve, I disagree... for example, in the US Army FM 17-30 Tank Platoon dated Oct. 22 1942 they definitely discuss using one or two tanks to cover maneuver, especially when attacking an enemy position. They might not call them sections, but a duck is a duck in my book.

There is no doubt in my mind that the Germans used the same techniques.

Is there any doubt that such techniques would be used for tactical movement also when a threat was probable but not yet seen? Not to me.

Bil I'm sure the divided platoon could be used. Used when no supporting platoon was available.
As FM 17-36 Employment of Tanks with Infantry March 1944
shows a company attack on an AT position. Platoons are used as the maneuver element.

[Bil H]

Indeed, that proves nothing.
 
My post was just to counter what you said about the Platoon, and only the Platoon, being the smallest maneuver element.  It can be, and indeed was, broken down into sections.
 
Bil

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Bil H
My post was just to counter what you said about the Platoon, and only the Platoon, being the smallest maneuver element.  It can be, and indeed was, broken down into sections.

None of my documents on WW2 OOB show anything below platoon for German tanks. There are sections of special units but not the regular tanks.
For example a Mark IV company.

[Yoozername]

1. COMPOSITION
The point platoon is generally made up of the platoon leader's tank and two sections of two tanks each. The platoon leader may place either the first or second section at the head of the point platoon, but he himself always stays between the two sections in order to observe his entire outfit. However, the composition of the point varies according to the situation.
The strength of the point platoon may be increased in mountainous terrain. During the German invasion of the Balkans, the point amounted to an extra-strong company and consisted of heavy tanks, assault weapons, tanks with the long 75-mm and 50-mm guns, an infantry platoon, and a detachment of engineers. A platoon of five Pz. Kw. 4's led the point. Behind them came a group of engineers, riding either on the last tanks in the point or on other tanks immediately following. After that came a platoon of self-propelled assault guns (four short-barreled 75-mm's), then the platoon of infantry riding in armored personnel carriers, and finally a platoon of five Pz. Kw. 3's. There were no motorcycle couriers.
At the historic Thermopylae Pass, in Greece, there were 22 tanks in the spearhead, but only three of these got through. A responsible German officer's comment on this was that it was worth losing the 19 tanks in order to achieve success with the three.
2. COMMUNICATION
a. Within the Point Platoon
In combat, communication within the German tank platoon operating as a point is done basically by radio. Up to that time, liaison is maintained by at least one or two motorcycle couriers attached to the platoon leader. As soon as contact with a hostile force is established, these couriers scatter to the sides and lie in ditches until the whole platoon has passed. They then go back to the company commander and report to him contact has been made. After this, he carries on by radio.
b. Within the Armored Regiment
As has been stated, there are five tanks in each platoon—two in each section and one for the platoon leader. The platoon leader and each section leader has a two-way radio; the two remaining tanks have receiving sets only. Regimental commanders and all three battalion commanders have special radio cars, each equipped with 100-watt sets. If the battalions (or companies) attack together, they have radio communication with the regiment. When they attack separately, each uses, in addition to his two-way radio (Funk Gerät 5), four sets capable only of receiving (Funk Gerät 2's). Each of these receiving sets is used for communication with one of the four companies. Moreover, each company is on a different frequency. In turn, each company commander has a two-way set and two receiving sets, and can speak with the battalion commander.
Each battalion, too, is normally on a different frequency. The platoon is on the same frequency as its company commander. Each platoon leader has his second receiving set tuned to the frequency of his battalion commander, in case his company commander should become a casualty.
If the regiment attacks as a unit, the network remains unchanged. However, if the battalions act independently, the regimental commander has no communication with them except by messengers, usually motorcyclists.
Code is used only with the 100-watt sets, from battalion up to division. During the attack, communication is in the clear, even up to the regimental commander. When battalions attack separately, however, they use code in communicating with the regimental commander.
The division commander alone authorizes messages in the clear. If the battalion commander cannot reach his regimental commander by using the two-way Funk Gerät 5 (which has a range of 6 kilometers), he encodes his message and uses the 100-watt set.
3. ON THE MARCH
a. Combat Vehicles
It is a German principle that the distance between the rear of the point platoon and the company commander must not be so great that the latter cannot see the former. It can be, but seldom is, as much as 1 kilometer. The spacing depends entirely on the terrain. All movement is made by road until a hostile force is encountered. The tanks then scatter to the sides. Even when there is danger of air attack, the tanks remain on the road but keep well apart. In mountainous country, when heavy tanks are used in the point, the method of advancing on roads is altered. Two tanks advance together, one behind the other but on the opposite side of the road.
The sections are easily interchangeable; for example, should the first section be at the head of the platoon and then leave the road to overcome hostile resistance, the second section can move to the head, allowing the first section to fall in behind when the resistance has been overcome. The Germans believe that it is of the utmost importance to keep the platoon moving forward.
b. Supply Column
During the campaign in Greece, all supply trucks were placed at the rear. In any other position they would have delayed the movement, because of the twisting mountainous roads. Any truck that was damaged was immediately shoved off the road to keep the column moving at all costs.
In more recent operations, when facing the possibility of a guerrilla attack from the front (rather than from the flank), the Germans have been known to sandwich elements of the supply column between tank platoons on the march. The important ration and fuel trucks have even traveled between tanks within a platoon. While this plan has not been followed by a point platoon, it has been employed by the platoons following immediately afterward in the line of march. The same plan has occasionally been used by German battalions on the march, but only when there has been a danger of attacks by guerrillas or when road conditions have been so bad that supply trucks have needed tanks close at hand at all times, for emergency towing.

[Yoozername]

[Yoozername]

Not only is use of sections (half-platoons) historical, its a great abstraction of the superiority of better C&C. 

[Bil H]

Steve, you are totally mising the point.  Of course the Platoon is the SMALLEST official element, that is not to say that it wasn't broken down into sections for tactical maneuver, which has nothing to do with the official TO&E or organization charts... where is the disconnect?
 
Yoozername, great stuff in those posts.. what document is that from?  have a link?  It is amazing to me how similar the US Army FM's and the German manuals are.. I believe the US FM's were written using the German manuals as a guide.  The similarity is too striking.
 
Bil