Page 1 of 2

Rates of fire for guns

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2008 11:59 pm
by Knut
I was noticing how variations in rates of fire for different models/calibers of guns don't seem to be modeled in the game. In reality, the difference could be quite dramatic, with a pz. IV able to get off 3-5 shots for every one by a JS II. Same thing as far as the 6 pdr Churchill vs. a Tiger. The other aspect is some of the automatic cannon used by the Germans in their armor, such as the 2cm gun in the Luchs or their armored cars. That certainly would be fun to see in action!

Gun rates of Fire

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 1:06 pm
by JeanBoule
I agree.

I have always kept my eyes open for anything I can find about artillery rates of fire. Most reference books are very vague about rates of fire.

Same goes for tanks as you say. cheers

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2008 6:45 pm
by StateRoute170
When it comes to INfantry,the rate fire is based on an indivual soldier.One dude may hold the trigger on a SMG for 1 sec while another dude holds it for 3 sec.I would that would make the game more realistic if for say the longer a soldier holds down the trigger the less accuracy of the weapon.Maybe in the future sean will have an option so the player can set the number of sec a soldier wil hold the trigger.1.5 sec would be the default while the computer(Enemy) would random the time for its troops.

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:09 am
by Andy
as gucci as that would be, its majorly overly micromanaging it. you can't even have that kind of control holding a guys shoulder, let alone watching him through a set of bins 400m away.

it would be a nice touch to the troop rating though, to go with holding fire - raw troops letting rip early, whilst elite being picky as late as possible
buy herbalaire vaporizer

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 3:33 am
by Knut
I was really just talking about tank guns and field artillery. I think the 'standard' of troop (Raw, Reg, Elite) does have an affect on when and how they open fire. At least, I have noticed that Elite level troops wait until the enemy is pretty close before firing a volley, whereas the other types will fire individually and much sooner. Perhaps infantry ROF is other wise built in.

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 4:16 am
by StateRoute170
Tanks and arty is the same thing.Except it depends on how fast a crew can load a shell and fire.

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:43 pm
by Andy
well there are certain bits of tank behaviour that are modeled poorly in firefight - an early t34 stopping well out of range to fire at a tiger is going to be smoking pretty soon.

it comes from as far back as 17th century naval warfare - the shorter gunned is usually the lighter and so closes as maximum speed whilst trying to not get hit, then out maneouvers the bigger foe at minimal range.

if i had 4 t34s, my tactic against a single tiger would be to close asap in valleys and other natural cover. and then get behind from both flanks simultaneously. ruddy difficult but better than being human roast!

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2008 6:53 pm
by Ezekiel
Well,you are correct.4 T-34s wouldnt stand a chance against a tiger unless you flanked it by using the surrounding enviorment.

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2008 9:30 pm
by Erin Henshaw
You might get away with flanking,considering how slow the tiger's gun is.but the tiger is goin to get fix on at least one T-34.Which means that 1 t34 crew is doomed no matter wat.

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2008 3:15 am
by Legacy
Erin Henshaw wrote:You might get away with flanking,considering how slow the tiger's gun is.but the tiger is goin to get fix on at least one T-34.Which means that 1 t34 crew is doomed no matter wat.
Such is war.

Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 7:53 am
by T2K
The "sea and freeze" behaviour of tanks is pretty well known in Firefight.

If they see another tank or an AT gun, they will stop all movement and fire it out until one is destroyed or their LOS is restricted (as by smoke).

I had two regular Shermans use their ENTIRE ammo supply in a duel with a single Pzjgr IV yesterday. The Shermans were getting repeat hits on the vehicles front but, even though the distance was only 300m, they never got a kill. Eventually, they were both knocked out. The german SPG soon ran out of 75mm ammo also, but as I had no other AP weapons I lost.

Posted: Thu May 15, 2008 11:10 pm
by Knut
This is probably the biggest annoyance to me in FF. I'd like to see tanks take cover or retreat a bit more readily than just completely freeze. While annoying behavior in tanks, it is completely nonsensical to have thinly armored halftracks and carriers behave the same way.

Posted: Fri May 16, 2008 4:23 pm
by TheKangaroo
On the other hand, though, 'fixing' that might have adverse effects on balancing. After all tanks react to orders quickly, don't hesitate to get close to enemy infantry and are no subject to small arms suppression. If they didn't have that major disadvantage when facing enemy cannons the tank assault would never fail.

Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 4:29 am
by T2K
Yeah, I'll just repeat my usual thing:

FF is really fun. The ONE thing that would make it much better would be some simulation of the ability of infantry to attack tanks at close range with magnetic charges, grenades, molotov cocktails. The total and absolute invincibility of tanks to infantry is the biggest problem in the game, and also not realistic at all.

Tank doctrine is all about making sure infantry support tanks so that enemy infantry doesn't get too close, which is when tanks become vulnerable.

Posted: Thu May 22, 2008 11:50 pm
by Knut
The only thing about tanks that desperately needs fixing is the whole freeze-up-and-do-nothing phase that kicks in after a couple minutes of exchanging fire. I would at the minimum like a bit where the tank might automatically do one of its big loops or two at that point rather that just sitting there facing off for the next 20 minutes. It would be nice to also see some more variable tank and gunner behavior, similar to the raw, regular, elite infantry behaviors.

Agreed wholeheartedly on more anti-tank options for infantry. There really should be a "primary, secondary" weapon option for infantry whereas the secondary weapon might be something other than handgrenades, and would kick in if the soldier came with 10 yards or so of a tank. Most forces had some option for defeating tanks in close-in combat, which is why tanks would not go into woods or towns without close infantry support. I think by modeling maybe 2 or 3 different close-in anti-tank weapons, say "thrown" or "placed against hull" you could cover most of the bases.

Some examples:

Thrown type

German - Panzerwurfmine (shaped charge grenade mid-late war), Geballte Ladung (7 grenade heads strapped together on one stick - early to mid war)

Russian - Molotov cocktail, RPG 40, RPG 43, and RPG 6 (shaped charge grenades early to late war)

Britain - Hawkins mine (large grenade)

Placed type

German - Hafthohlladung (Magnetic shaped charge), Teller mines

Japanese - Lunge mines (anti-tank mine strapped to a 10 ft pole)

All sides used grenades strapped to a can of gas or satchel charges, as well as placing anti-tank mines against hull etc.

I would imagine that not every soldier would have something like this, but nearly every squad having a soldier or two with one of these instead of regular grenades would do the trick, as would just allowing infantry to be able to damage halftracks and other open-top vehicles with regular grenades.