Slitherine

StuH42 just became available and I compared stats of the units. My two StuG IIIB have 4 and 3 stars.
The advantage of the StuH42 is higher GD and higher SA.
The StuG IIIB has more ammo, hard attack and better initiative.

Initiative is quite useful for a frontline artillery - no infantry gets close before getting shot at and suppressed. That's the strength of the StuG IIIB.
For the StuH42 that's not guaranteed.


What would you say?
What would deducter say?

Edit: Also notice how much cheaper it is to buy/reinforce/overstrengthen a StuG IIIB.

If I was in that situation I would upgrade at least one of them. Just solely based on defense numbers. Artillery with range this short tends to get put in bad situations and the allies only hit harder as the war goes on.

Well the StuH 42 has the ability to switch to AT which means it can use direct fire and defend better against enemy armor.

I upgrade, although it's a tradeoff.

The StuG IIIb won't survive situations that you'll find it in as the war progresses. When it arrives, it can (mostly) stand toe-to-toe with enemy tanks, and act as a good suppression vehicle. You don't want to be reckless with it, but it can "handle itself" to a degree when attacked by enemy armor when it's a relatively new model.

Not so in later scenarios, as more powerful Soviet tanks and AT start making their presence known; they'll have to be protected, or kept behind your lines altogether. This puts an artillery unit with a Range of 1 in a somewhat poor position...sooner or later, they'll get exposed, and their weaker ground defense value makes it quite vulnerable, I've found.

When I can upgrade to the StuH42, I almost always do so.

its interesting to note that the Stuh 42's HA actually drops to 5 when it is in AT mode, so I'm not sure if i'd consider this much of an advantage. Probably its penetration was not worse than the IIIB but it would have been cumbersome and cramped to operate with a short range of accuracy. It also was not much more heavily armoured than the IIIB. I think its probably a slighly better weapon but it is more expensive and of course, by late 43 you won't have the choice. I don't think either weapon (or the stug IV) is actually modeled quite right yet.

I upgraded both to StuH42 and they are doing well, the higher SA does quite a lot against SMG Infantry.

Though see the very interesting "Rate of Fire" thread and the testing done by impar and others, despite lower SA the smaller caliber Artilleries do very well while having higher ammo capacity.


@Soldier:
I absolutely agree.
The StuG IIIB was an experiment and it was very successful. A very good and interesting unit, deducter even says overpowered.
The StuH42 and the StuG IV - the IV still having range 2 for whatever reason, I think it's rather the StuH42 who should have it - are indeed not modeled quite right yet.

For the StuH the odd drop in HA (there might be a reason for that. Unlike the StuG IIIB it doesn't seem to have the special hidden "fort killer" trait either) and the odd range of the StuG IV still need some work.

I hope Kerensky thinks over Christmas about these units, they are VERY interesting units. The SU-122 is quite impressive as well. I will take a look at the stats again, check if AT-HA value changes that dramatically as well for instance.


Edit: There is a whole flood of SU/ISU guns and except the SU-100 they seem all to be able to switch from artillery to anti-tank mode. Some are listed as Anti-tank units and some are artillery.
I think the team has to be careful with the multi-purpose units, even if they tend to have rather weak stats in their secondary modes. Though the entire SU series really had this capability. Just read that the SU-76 could fire up to 17km!

The StuG IIIB was an experiment and it was very successful. A very good and interesting unit, deducter even says overpowered.

For MP no, this unit is in probably underpowered. I tried to use it, but it is not that great on the one map where you can use it, Iron Cross, Red Star.

For SP however, it quickly gains many stars, is super cheap to overstrength, and becomes a wrecking ball on both enemy tanks and infantry, with its 110% rate of fire. At 3 stars, it has a base of 13 Def, good enough to resist even the T34/41 fairly well. It can be used to drive up to a tank, bombard it, then your panzers can kill or force the enemy tank to retreat. You then move up another panzer to where the enemy tank was, and now your StuG IIIB is not only protected, but it provides cover fire. This is why this unit is ridiculously good for SP.

The problem I think is that for the best SP experience, you have to balance its equipment table differently from MP. Hence when I've undertaken the project to balance unit stats for the DLC content to better reflect historical values and to give a more interesting gameplay experience. I've for instance increased the StuG IIIB's cost by 50%, lowered its armor by 1, and reduced its ROF to 100%.

The StuH 42 has its range wrong. Should be at least 2.
It carried a modified 10.5 howitzer:
http://www.wehrmacht-history.com/heer/p ... tuh-42.htm
That may explain its 5HA in AT mode.
And, dont think the StuG IV should have 2 range, or being switchable if other StuGs arent.

Latest testing shows that the StuH42 is VERY effective in direct fire mode against Infantry. High GD and high SA.

Maybe range 1 instead of 2 isn't that bad. The problem is rather that many Russian artillery/AT guns have very good range and all that as well and I am not sure how that compares.

Longasc wrote:Latest testing shows that the StuH42 is VERY effective in direct fire mode against Infantry. High GD and high SA.
Maybe range 1 instead of 2 isn't that bad.

StuH42 direct fire fire (AT) should be kept at 1 range. The 2 range is only for indirect fire mode (ART).

Reached Stalingrad in the GC42 and the StuH 42 is now available.
It still has the wrong range.
Should be at least 2 in ART mode.

Also, the SuG IV shouldnt have the 2 range. It carried the same weapon as the later PzIV.

These two units (StuH 42 and StuG IV) have the ranges switched.

PS
Quick googling gives this:

Germany's 10.5 cm Sturmhaubitze 42, SdKfz 142/2; 10.5 cm Sturm-Haubitze 42
Design
...
The 105 mm gun fired a 32.7 lb at a velocity of 1,772'/sec to a range of 9,077 yards.

8.300m

impar wrote:Reached Stalingrad in the GC42 and the StuH 42 is now available.
It still has the wrong range.
Should be at least 2 in ART mode.

Also, the SuG IV shouldnt have the 2 range. It carried the same weapon as the later PzIV.

These two units (StuH 42 and StuG IV) have the ranges switched.

PS
Quick googling gives this:

Germany's 10.5 cm Sturmhaubitze 42, SdKfz 142/2; 10.5 cm Sturm-Haubitze 42
Design
...
The 105 mm gun fired a 32.7 lb at a velocity of 1,772'/sec to a range of 9,077 yards.

8.300m

The STuH 42 was not designed for indirect fire so should not really have a range of 2 any more than the Tiger or Panther should. It was an assault gun designed to take on infantry in hard cover but still not really meant or even used for indirect fire. The Wespe and the Hummel were designed for indirect fire. There is a significant difference. the STuH 42 was built specifically because the StuG III with its smaller 75mm shells was having trouble dealing with fortified buildings and bunkers.

Besides the StuH 42 couldn't elevate its gun enough to provide indirect fire so range 2 would be highly unrealistic. The maximum elevation of the gun was only 20 degrees as compared to the Wespe which could elevate to 42 degrees.

Lastly maximum range is not a good measure of how far a vehicle should be able to shoot in a game. No weapon that uses direct fire should have a higher range than 1. Because terrain will almost always be the limiting factor on your engagement range. For instance the King Tiger had a maximum effective range of 10,000 meters but I don't think giving it range 3 would be a good idea or realistic.

brettz123 wrote:Besides the StuH 42 couldn't elevate its gun enough to provide indirect fire so range 2 would be highly unrealistic. The maximum elevation of the gun was only 20 degrees as compared to the Wespe which could elevate to 42 degrees.

That is an interesting observation.
However, the gun it carried had a range of 13.748y/12.325m in its towed configuration (From Encyclopedia of Weapons of WWII, by Chris Bishop), so the range mentioned above in its "StuH42ed" form was already shortened.
Also, whats your opinion on the StuG IV 2-range and the SU-122 3-range?

brettz123 wrote:Lastly maximum range is not a good measure of how far a vehicle should be able to shoot in a game. No weapon that uses direct fire should have a higher range than 1. Because terrain will almost always be the limiting factor on your engagement range. For instance the King Tiger had a maximum effective range of 10,000 meters but I don't think giving it range 3 would be a good idea or realistic.

All ranges mentioned above are from indirect fire.

I would say the STuG IV 2 and SU-122 should not have extended ranges either as they really were anti-tank / assault guns. Now I do remember reading that the soviets did on rare occasions use the SU guns as indirect fire but I can't recall the exact situation. I would say that all STuGs and SU weapon systems should be restricted to range 1 because of how they were used operationally. Just like the Sig 33 should only be range 1 also.


And remember just because the gun is used for indirect fire in one configuration doesn't mean it can be used for that in every configuration. The max elevation of a Tiger I was 15 degrees and no one is going to argue that this was used for indirect fire so I would say not only was the STuH 42 not used for indirect fire but it would have been incapable of shooting indirectly unless it was parked on the slope of a hill.

brettz that makes sense.

I was thinking of the StuH42 in comparison to the Sturmpanzer I early on. But it's used differently. It's at the front and has 15 GD and works nicely as support, shooting cities or entrenched units in artillery mode or directly firing into advancing Soviet Infantry in the open. It's really great at that. It doesn't need more range, as it isn't something like the Hummel or Sturmpanzer I.

So yeah, the StuG IV as range 2 artillery is just WEIRD.

The Soviet SU guns, almost all of them have an artillery mode, are surprisingly quite ineffective and easy prey of tanks. So far. I will test them some more. The SU-76 will probably never become good.

Longasc wrote:
The Soviet SU guns, almost all of them have an artillery mode, are surprisingly quite ineffective and easy prey of tanks. So far. I will test them some more. The SU-76 will probably never become good.

I've used the SU-76 in MP, on maps like Urban Warfare. They are really cheap and fast, and provide enough firepower against infantry to be worthwhile. They also have more ammo. I think I've even used one in AT mode to kill a 1 strength Pershing. So they are not useless.