Panzer Command: Kharkov Impressions

[bardolph]

I keep seeing comments about how the maps need to be bigger.
But the average frontage for a WW2 battalion on the attack was from 500-1000 meters, so it would seem to me the maps are pretty close. Remember that these actions did not take place in a strategic vacuum, there would be other units operating on either flank the vast majority of the time, and units weren't supposed to cross over into other units area of operations. Prevents blue on blue and all that.

Since the manuever element is apparently supposed to be platoons in PC (with some ordering of squads), I am assuming the game is aimed at company to battalion level actions, in which case the maps are about the right size.

If you wanted to play regimental level actions they would need to be about twice the size they are now, but that is stepping a level of command higher than the game is really suited for methinks. I know gamers have a tendency towards playing games at larger than intended levels...we used to play Panzerblitz with all the maps and all the counters [:D]

[jamespcrowley]

ORIGINAL: bardolph

I keep seeing comments about how the maps need to be bigger.
But the average frontage for a WW2 battalion on the attack was from 500-1000 meters, so it would seem to me the maps are pretty close. Remember that these actions did not take place in a strategic vacuum, there would be other units operating on either flank the vast majority of the time, and units weren't supposed to cross over into other units area of operations. Prevents blue on blue and all that.

Since the manuever element is apparently supposed to be platoons in PC (with some ordering of squads), I am assuming the game is aimed at company to battalion level actions, in which case the maps are about the right size.

If you wanted to play regimental level actions they would need to be about twice the size they are now, but that is stepping a level of command higher than the game is really suited for methinks. I know gamers have a tendency towards playing games at larger than intended levels...we used to play Panzerblitz with all the maps and all the counters [:D]

Allowing for set-up zones, the actual distance between opposing forces can be less than 500m at the start of a battle. This can lead to a situation where there is very little room for maneouver and, consequently, few tactical options available.

This might apply in some historical situations i.e. where both sides were entrenched and one side launches an offensive. However, in most maneouver battles the start line for an attack was, generally, further than 500m away from the enemy.

Larger maps would allow more scenario types and tactical options and enable, for instance, the defender to be able to fall back, progressively over a decent distance.

Also, generally, German optics were superior to Soviet optics and their tanks could succesfully engage at much longer ranges. This gave their smaller forces a balance against the numerically superior Soviet tanks. This cannot be replicated on smaller maps.

I would agree, that for infantry based battles and certainly for urban battles, the current maps are sufficient.

[madorosh]

ORIGINAL: bardolph

I keep seeing comments about how the maps need to be bigger.
But the average frontage for a WW2 battalion on the attack was from 500-1000 meters, so it would seem to me the maps are pretty close.

Real attacks took place with a lot more artillery, and in much more depth, though.

But I'm not arguing the size of the maps - a 1 x 1 km map in CM works fine. The CM maps tend to be more concentrated in terms of terrain elements - I think most tactical wargames do that. PC:K uses realistic terrain (compare to the GoogleEarth preview for a look at what I mean!) which may be a disadvantage ironically enough in some respects. But I think they're fine also.

[Erik Rutins]

<rebump as a reminder to post impressions here>

[Motomouse]

Today I had some spare time available. Time to play PC Kharkov, CMBB, TOW, and CMSF. I like the whole bunch and every one has something special where it excells and a few shortcomings. I was not impressed to much by the first PC Winterstorm release (beeing a Koios Software Tin Soldiers JC Fan in the first place, I really have to get Alexander anytime soon), PCW was a good game, but i did just not get really warm to it (Perhaps setting too white and cold . They did a great Job improving PC with the Kharkov Release in my opinion!

I am really enjoying the random battle generator (did not expect it it), fought some really nice battles. I think there went a lot of thought into the system, have to look into the template system later. Thats why I mentioned the other games up there in the first place, I think the editor and random generator are really a strong point of Panzer Command. Especially if i want to enjoy a laid back quick game, I really prefer to have a lot of single missions available. When I dont want to take care of every single unit, I can appreciate an AI surprise tank pack that shoots me to pieces after I thought everything is won already.

Later I will look into the campaign game, but for starters I am having a lot of fun with the PC Kharkov Battle Generator!

[Erik Rutins]

Thanks Motomouse, I'm glad you're having fun!

[Tac2i]

Initially this game wasn't on my radar for purchase (prefer more operational/strategic games); however, after reading this thread and others in this forum, I've made the purchase. The fact that it is PBEM enabled also helped as I don't have a great desire for RTS games anymore.

Update: Game installed and downloaded the 1.01c beta update and installed it. Barely have had time to look at the game, but it is looking like some good war gaming ahead.

[Erik Rutins]

Thanks, Webizen, hope you have a lot of fun with it. [8D]

[freeboy]

if I get the phisical copy do I need ie7?

[Erik Rutins]

We've already released a v1.01c beta update that removes the IE7 requirement and is just IE6 compatible now (which comes included with out of the box XP).

[freeboy]

go figure that after having lots of flex time all winter, I take a vacation and you release this and then start a job working long hours LOL looks great .. cheers to the team

[Erik Rutins]

<bump> for new lurkers...

[Redleg]

Just finished creating and playing my first scenario.&nbsp; The richness of this game and the Random Battle Generator, Scenario Editor, and Random Campaign generator is just great.&nbsp; A real "Gamers Game".&nbsp; I haven't attempted creating a campaign from scratch yet so cannot comment on that.
&nbsp;
This game is all I wanted and more.&nbsp; Thanks Matrix.

[kam99]

Redleg,

I have downloaded your scenario and will try it later. I have had a go at campaign creation using the guide supplied by WhiteOwl:

tm.asp?m=1781397

It was relatively easy to expand his core force of a single platoon of 3 tanks into a group of 2 tank platoons, a Panzer Grenadier platoon and an armoured car recce section. Still playing about with balancing the support and opposition, and writing the documentation.

I would love to see some small scenarios available for download. IMHO this would encourage beginners to get more involved in the game system.

I too have great hopes for the PC system.

kam

[Agrippa]

Great game, but with some fleas[&:].&nbsp; I am really happy with the game, and am happy to see a game that puts more into statagy and how it plays instead of how it looks[:-].&nbsp; On the other hand I don't think that they worked all the bugs out before releasing it.&nbsp; I'm ok with that as long as they sick[&:] with it and fix them.&nbsp; Great game over all[:)]!

[junk2drive]

RE: your comment on bugs, looking at the list of fixes in 1.01d, it's a short list, mostly typo fixes, some player requested changes (not fixes or bugs). Pretty good to me, but I'm biased.

[thewood1]

I am a little suprised to see someone mention bugs.  I think this is a pretty clean release, relative to some other wargame releases lately.

Not saying its perfect, but playable and wouldn't have noticed most of them without sonmeone mentioning them.

[Redleg]

Kam99.
&nbsp;
I hope you enjoy the scenario.&nbsp; Your results will be very useful to me to know.
&nbsp;
Redleg

[Joram]

Well, have played throught he tutorial and some scenario's too.
&nbsp;
The tutorial says to put on "easy" somewhere (I forget if the manual said that or what) but I think that pretty much breaks the tutorial.&nbsp; The very last scenario didn't even play on easy mode, just was a straight victory for Germans.
&nbsp;
Anyway, my impressions.
&nbsp;
I said it before in another thread but the atmosphere seems rather bland.&nbsp; I can't put my finger on it yet though part of it is the flat green matte the terrain resides on.&nbsp; I don't particularly care for some of the sounds.&nbsp; Especially some of the background sounds which are identical to ones in TOAW!&nbsp; Sometimes the looping, especially the infantry troops gets real repetitive real fast.&nbsp; Don't particularly care for the fact that as soon as you look away from a unit, you no longer hear it.&nbsp; I can understand why you might want to do this but the sound actually helps me locate units sometimes.&nbsp; Also, by just abruptly cutting off the sound, it kind of kills the atmosphere.&nbsp; Not a fan of having to "mount" a building though I have to give props to a somewhat ingenious solution.
&nbsp;
The models for the most part are excellent!&nbsp; The tire/track of the halftrack is just about the only one that annoys me but the rest seem real sharp.&nbsp; The HT tire is jaggy plus it actually has a higher gradient in a particular position so it looks like it is flashing.&nbsp; But anyway, I really like the models.&nbsp; The platoon based system is very intriguing.&nbsp; I haven't played it enough to get the full affect but I like what you are trying to do.&nbsp; I think the random battle generator is brilliant.&nbsp; That alone is practically worth the price.&nbsp; But I don't like initial placement in the scenario's.&nbsp; It seems unintuitive on what you can and can't do.&nbsp; Artillery can be devestating.&nbsp; Maybe I just have the knack for it but with proper lead and placement, you can really do some fair damage with artillery.&nbsp; It does seem to move and follow the enemy sometimes.&nbsp; Not sure if that's designed or just creepy (pardon the pun!).&nbsp; Sometimes infantry seems real fragile.&nbsp;&nbsp;I've lost whole units to a single tank shell.&nbsp; If it's as a result of a critical hit, then maybe just feels like crits are happening slightly too often.&nbsp; I wouldn't expect an HE shell from a T-34 to wipe out a whole unit with one shot, especially in a building (which happened to me!).&nbsp; But the feel for infantry vs infantry seems right.
&nbsp;
So, these are my initial impressions.&nbsp; Not glowing but not too bad either.&nbsp; I'm enjoying myself.&nbsp; Looking forward to this series maturing some more.
&nbsp;

[Agrippa]

I agree with you that it is a very good game, and the bugs are not crippeling, by any means.  There are, however, some bugs like the one mentioned above about the last battle not playing in the tutorial.  Also, I have had men running for a whole turn in place because they couldn't find their way around one of their own tanks, and units that could not mount a building because there were dead enemy troops inside.  These are minor problems and I am told they are being fixed, so no problem to me.