What does rate of fire mean?

[PinkPanzer]

I downloaded the equipment file into a spreadsheet and I see that most arty units have a rate of fire value. What does that mean?

Very interesting: Looking at the multipurpose values it looks like the StuG IV and StuH 42 are switchable arty/at units. Also the the SU-122 is a switchable arty/arty unit. One has a better soft attack with range 3 and one has a better hard attack with range 0.

[VPaulus]

Take a look at this thread:
viewtopic.php?t=26663

Also please take a look at the "FAQ / Common Questions" thread:
viewtopic.php?f=121&t=27283

[PinkPanzer]

Thanks VPaulus.

Regarding rate of fire, that was very informative.
Regarding upgrading StuG III;s or StuH 42's to a StuG IV, it's doable if you use the alleqp cheat. Seems a bit odd that you can't do it without cheating.

[robman]

It's high time to include ROF in the main user interface!

[PinkPanzer]

One more question VPaulus. Taking rate of fire into account the sturmpanzer should be 12.5% more effective against soft or hard targets then the 15 cm towed arty.
But the sturmpanzer doesn't show up as having better results vs the 15 cm towed arty when I cntrl left click to see the predicted results? Both are the same.

So I'd guess the predicted results don't take the rof into account.

[PinkPanzer]

It's high time to include ROF in the main user interface!

I agree robman. Looks like the 1940 Stug III is the bomb, early on best hard attack arty for the krauts. Plus lots of ammo and good GD and AD, but crummy CD. In PG it came out in Norway but in PC it doesn't come out until sealion.

[The_Drill_SGT]

One more question VPaulus. Taking rate of fire into account the sturmpanzer should be 12.5% more effective against soft or hard targets then the 15 cm towed arty.
.

SP guns suffer from ammo capacity problems that towed guns don't have. They also have more heat build-up that towed guns, with a resultant limitation on ROF. Finally a towed gun can rotate crew positions. I wasn't there in 44, but was in 70. 155 towed guns have a sustained ROF of 2 rounds a min and can surge to about 5.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mar ... FORM=VIRE3

a well trained crew surging. On the other hand, I've seen sustained fire for 12 hours.

[ThvN]

One more question VPaulus. Taking rate of fire into account the sturmpanzer should be 12.5% more effective against soft or hard targets then the 15 cm towed arty.
But the sturmpanzer doesn't show up as having better results vs the 15 cm towed arty when I cntrl left click to see the predicted results? Both are the same.

So I'd guess the predicted results don't take the rof into account.

Maybe my explanation will clarify. If you open up the expanded combat prediction window (Ctrl + mouse click), you'll see the RoF being displayed, and the calculated 'Total Shots' the unit will have. Those 'RoF' values are separate from the % chances you see for Miss/Suppress/Kill. Those % values are the chances for a single shot (die roll) only. Than the combat prediction multiplies those % chances with the 'Total Shots' to give a prediction for the total combat result.

So if the two attacking units have identical attack values (15cm sFH/Sturmpanzer), against the same target these % should be the same, regardless of wether the attacking unit has 15 or 1 strength. And then, when the shooting starts, for each 'Total Shot' a die is cast, with each roll result resulting in a Miss/Suppress/Kill 'score' according to the % distribution. So, in essence, you can imagine the RoF as a seperate sort of overstrength mechanism, with the same effect on unit attack results.

For the two 15cm artillery pieces, any difference in predicted attack results is based on the single die roll the Sturmpanzer has over the 15cm sFH. If this die roll for 'Kill' has a typical value of 25%, then statistically the extra Sturmpanzer die roll is not likely to result in an extra kill over the 15cm sFH, because the kill chance is less than 50%. If I use a very simplified view of the statistics (mathematically incorrect, but just for the purposes of this explanation), you would expect to see a difference in predicted kills if the Sturmpanzer fired four more shots than the 15cm sFH. If the 'Kill' chance is 20%, five more shots would be needed before a prediction would show an extra kill. So you are unlikely to see a difference in predicted kills unless the strengths of the two artillery units are very different, but then you would expect different results anyway, so the RoF difference still doesn't 'show' very easily.

But you might see some differences with predicted supression. The supression chances are generally a lot larger, and you can see a difference sometimes in predicted 'suppressed' results based on this extra die roll if the chance of a 'Suppress' roll is more than 50%. I ran a quick check, put a 20 str infantry out in the open (0 entrenchment), and positioned a 15cm sFH and Sturmpanzer within range. The predicted results had identical % for Miss/Suppress/Kill, had the same prediction for kills, but showed a difference of 1 (one) in suppression, because this chance per roll was more than 50%, so the extra shot mattered.

I hope this makes some sense, but if you want to see for yourself you can start a scenario (like Greece, this has a 15cm sFH and Sturmpanzer), and play both sides, just position some units for a little test and/or use the cheat codes to recreate different situations.

[PinkPanzer]

Thanks ThvN for answering. Yep I was guilty of the sin of being unobservant. ROF show up. Any arty firing from a river add 4 to the defenders defense!

[PinkPanzer]

One more question VPaulus. Taking rate of fire into account the sturmpanzer should be 12.5% more effective against soft or hard targets then the 15 cm towed arty.
.

SP guns suffer from ammo capacity problems that towed guns don't have. They also have more heat build-up that towed guns, with a resultant limitation on ROF. Finally a towed gun can rotate crew positions. I wasn't there in 44, but was in 70. 155 towed guns have a sustained ROF of 2 rounds a min and can surge to about 5.

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=mar ... FORM=VIRE3

a well trained crew surging. On the other hand, I've seen sustained fire for 12 hours.

Well the original SturmPanzer was a stock real deal 155? mm howitzer mounted on a Pz I chassis with a steel structure to protect the crew from mg fire. No way that Sturmpanzer turd had a better rof than towed 155 arty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_33_Se ... _Artillery.

[KeldorKatarn]

First of all, the SIG 33 was a 150mm SIG, (not 155) and not a 150mm field howitzer. The 150mm howitzer was the 15cm sFH 18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sFH_18). sFH stands for schwere Feldhaubitze or heavy Field Howitzer. The SIG was an infantry support weapon, the 150mm heavy infantry gun. That thing was a lot smaller than the howitzer. The howitzer would not have fit the Pz I shassis, that thing was later mounted on the Hummel, which was a LOT bigger.

The small SIG was just a close range infantry support gun, just like the stuff mounted on the first StuGs, hence the low range. It wasn't used as field artillery to give wide area fire but to give close range support. So you cannot really compare its rate of fire with a fully fledged 15cm field howitzer.

So if anything, you'd have to compare that thing to the Hummel's rate of fire.

Field artillery is used in artillery regiments, the infantry gun was a support weapon used in infantry units. Then there was the even bigger 15cm Kanone 18 which was a heavy gun used on corps level. So the caliber isn't everything, the SIG had a very short barrel and was a lot easiert to transport. Actually the game got it a little wrong with the sFH 18- That thing was so heavy that is had to be pulled by the SdKfz 7, the thing that is right now pulling the 8.8 anti tank/anti air gun, because those things are actually very similar in size. The small halftracks couldn't pull that thing from what I know, so that's actually a flaw in the game.

[danhanegan]

First of all, the SIG 33 was a 150mm SIG, (not 155) and not a 150mm field howitzer. The 150mm howitzer was the 15cm sFH 18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sFH_18). sFH stands for schwere Feldhaubitze or heavy Field Howitzer. The SIG was an infantry support weapon, the 150mm heavy infantry gun. That thing was a lot smaller than the howitzer. The howitzer would not have fit the Pz I shassis, that thing was later mounted on the Hummel, which was a LOT bigger.

The small SIG was just a close range infantry support gun, just like the stuff mounted on the first StuGs, hence the low range. It wasn't used as field artillery to give wide area fire but to give close range support. So you cannot really compare its rate of fire with a fully fledged 15cm field howitzer.

So if anything, you'd have to compare that thing to the Hummel's rate of fire.

Field artillery is used in artillery regiments, the infantry gun was a support weapon used in infantry units. Then there was the even bigger 15cm Kanone 18 which was a heavy gun used on corps level. So the caliber isn't everything, the SIG had a very short barrel and was a lot easiert to transport. Actually the game got it a little wrong with the sFH 18- That thing was so heavy that is had to be pulled by the SdKfz 7, the thing that is right now pulling the 8.8 anti tank/anti air gun, because those things are actually very similar in size. The small halftracks couldn't pull that thing from what I know, so that's actually a flaw in the game.

I don't have the slightest doubt you know whereof you speak, but I am a little confused. In my version of Panzer Corps, 1.20 with no mods, sturmpanzer, sIG 33 II (sf), and hummel all have the same range stat... a 3. Sturmpanzer and Hummel are also both Rate of fire 9, though the sIG 33 is nerfed slightly at 8. Perhaps it would have made sense for the hummel to have greater range than sturmpanzer, but the game does not appear to be coded that way.

[Magic1111]

sturmpanzer, sIG 33 II (sf), and hummel all have the same range stat... a 3.

Yes, you´re right, therefore I reduced in equipment-File the Sturmpanzer I range to 2!

[KeldorKatarn]

You could even reduce it to 1 and it'd still make some sense (although I don't know what the exact ranges where, but looking at the barrel length, it can't have been much. The sturmpanzer was a predecessor to the StuGs so it should have similar range I think.

[Tarrak]

The only problem is that reducing Sturmpanzer's range to 1, while maybe historically accurate, will render the unit useless. The only thing it will be good for will be defensive fire. If you put that thing into the first line to fire you better make sure the opponent dies and no new one can reach the Sturmpanzer as every attack on it will most likely cripple it.

[KeldorKatarn]

I never said it was good from a game balance point of view hehe, I am well aware why it has the stats that it has. But from a historical point of view those stats don't make sense. Form a historical point of view the unit shouldn't even exist, since it was never used on a level that most units in PzC usually represent, they were part of the infantry and panzer units most of the time, not part of the artillery regiment in large formations. But that's where the abstraction of PzC gets in the way and where it should remain the way it is best for gameplay. The rest should be left to modders like deducter and such.

[Magic1111]

The only problem is that reducing Sturmpanzer's range to 1, while maybe historically accurate, will render the unit useless. The only thing it will be good for will be defensive fire. If you put that thing into the first line to fire you better make sure the opponent dies and no new one can reach the Sturmpanzer as every attack on it will most likely cripple it.

Yes, therefore is in my opinion a range-reduce from "3" to "2" (not to "1") a good compromise between historical accurate and playable!

[danhanegan]

KeldorKatarn, would it be accurate to say these three panzer corps vehicles all carry that sIG 33 infantry gun: sturmpanzer, sIG 33 II (sf), and sIG 38(t) M ? and thus could be justifiably modded to have shorter range?

Whereas the hummel is the only SP arty in the unmodded equipment list that carries the heavy howitzer you mention?

I understand the wespe had a 105mm gun. Was it also a heavy field piece with decent range?

Am I correct in believing the sIG 38(t) M is based on the chassis of one of the Czech pz38(t) tanks?

[PinkPanzer]

First of all, the SIG 33 was a 150mm SIG, (not 155) and not a 150mm field howitzer. The 150mm howitzer was the 15cm sFH 18 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/15_cm_sFH_18). sFH stands for schwere Feldhaubitze or heavy Field Howitzer. The SIG was an infantry support weapon, the 150mm heavy infantry gun. That thing was a lot smaller than the howitzer. The howitzer would not have fit the Pz I shassis, that thing was later mounted on the Hummel, which was a LOT bigger.

The small SIG was just a close range infantry support gun, just like the stuff mounted on the first StuGs, hence the low range. It wasn't used as field artillery to give wide area fire but to give close range support. So you cannot really compare its rate of fire with a fully fledged 15cm field howitzer.

So if anything, you'd have to compare that thing to the Hummel's rate of fire.

Field artillery is used in artillery regiments, the infantry gun was a support weapon used in infantry units. Then there was the even bigger 15cm Kanone 18 which was a heavy gun used on corps level. So the caliber isn't everything, the SIG had a very short barrel and was a lot easiert to transport. Actually the game got it a little wrong with the sFH 18- That thing was so heavy that is had to be pulled by the SdKfz 7, the thing that is right now pulling the 8.8 anti tank/anti air gun, because those things are actually very similar in size. The small halftracks couldn't pull that thing from what I know, so that's actually a flaw in the game.

Thanks for that informative reply KK.

I didn't know the Sturmpanzer was used as a direct fire mobile Infantry gun and not as indirect fire arty.

From what I remember reading Guderian the whole point of mixing infantry and tanks in a Panzer division was for thanks to kill the biggest threat to infantry: The machine gun; and for infantry to kill the biggest threat to tanks: Towed AT guns.

So it appears the Sturmpanzer was designed as a mobile Infantry gun to fill both roles.

There are no mg's in the game and towed AT guns suffer from an initiative penalty vs tanks.
In game terms is there a point to mixing tanks and infantry in a panzer division?

I wonder. The only reasons I can think of to keep them together, is that tanks are best in open terrain and infantry are best in close terrain, plus tanks are faster then walking infantry and can more easily add to the mass attack initiative penalty the defender gets.

On the other hand, I wonder if employing the principle of mass(One of Guderian's 3 principles of successful tank usage) killing tanks and arty is better.

[KeldorKatarn]

KeldorKatarn, would it be accurate to say these three panzer corps vehicles all carry that sIG 33 infantry gun: sturmpanzer, sIG 33 II (sf), and sIG 38(t) M ? and thus could be justifiably modded to have shorter range?

These all carried the same guns, the SIG 33, Sturmpanzer I was build on the panzer I chassis, Sturmpanzer II on the Panter II chassis and Sturmpanzer 38(t) on the Pz 38(t) chassis. The latter used a modified version of the gun but I don't know what the changes were, the ammunition was the same. The changes were only made to fit the chassis I think so probably minor changes. The SIG33 is not available as a towed version, simply because it wasn't a gun used by artillery units but by infantry units for close support. hence the name "Infantry Gun". Think of it as something used where a mortar is too small but calling for artillery support is a bit too much. When it became obvious that always carrying this crap around and towing it with trucks was just not feasable in a fast moving Panzerdivision where infantry units were supposed to be just as mobile, the StuGs became the big hit. well armored vehicles that could be called in transporting these guns and supporting infantry were needed, without the need to pull these guns through the mud with horses or trucks.
That's also why StuGs were not part of the artillery regiments. They were independent units that were assigned to divisions on a need basis. When they took over the tank role, infantry asked to get their support guns back and the army started mounting those types of guns on halftracks, recon cars etc. it probably wasn't always THIS gun, probably smaller versions, 10.5 cm, but they were all short range infantry guns. Field artillery has a different purpose and is located in an artillery regiment that is deployed by division command where needed. Infantry guns were artillery types that the infantry units had direct control over and were used in smaller numbers.

Whereas the hummel is the only SP arty in the unmodded equipment list that carries the heavy howitzer you mention?

The hummel uses the 15cm sFH 18 artillery gun which is the same gun as you can buy in PzC as the towed version. Exactly the same, just mounted on a modified Panzer III/IV chassis (roughly a modified Panzer IV chassis with a Pz III engine assembly. This was also discussed as the basis for a fully fledged tank but was later given up when the Panther was given priority.)

I understand the wespe had a 105mm gun. Was it also a heavy field piece with decent range?

The Wespe is using the 10.5 cm leFH (Light field howitzer) on a Panzer II F chassis. Again, the same gun you can get as a towed version mounted on a tank chassis, no changes to the gun itself. So yes this was field artillery. Usually field artillery regiments had a mixture of 10.5 and 15cm guns. usually in a 2:1 ratio. Same was true for use of the Wespe and Hummels. The ratio was about 2 Wespen to 1 Hummel. Both were field artillery, Wespe light, Hummel heavy.

Am I correct in believing the sIG 38(t) M is based on the chassis of one of the Czech pz38(t) tanks?

Yes, hence the name. But the chassis never changes the gun characteristics. Maybe rate of fire can be influenced by the crew compartment size, but not by the chassis itself. That only influences part of the armor and the speed/fuel7terrain behavior.