Anti-Tank brigade always has higher piercing than Heavy Tanks

[oerbaa]

Given how powerful it was in HOI3 to have an armor advantage over the opponent's piercing value (increased organizational damage, half damage received) and the balancing mechanism: at equal tech levels Light and Medium armor cannot be pierced by Infantry, but will be by Anti-tank brigades, while Heavy armor will not be; the current armor/piercing values gives anti-tank brigades a higher piercing value than the armor levels of heavy tank and super heavy tank brigades, given equal year techs.

see here, http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Land_units_by_year

Hopefully its incorrect and the values will be updated upon release.

But.. In case this is not incorrect, it gives very little reason to make heavy armor, which costs over 10x as much as an anti-tank brigade. For equal tech levels, it should remain balanced as in HOI3, anti-tank brigades should pierce light and medium armor, but not heavy armor.

Given that you will always attach an anti-tank brigade to infantry, as one did in previous iterations, the armor advantage seems easily nullified.

Yes you can go on about how they have increased speed and attack values, but for the cost what you are paying for is the armor value, which will allow a small division to beat multiple opposing divisions that cannot pierce the armor.

Thoughts?

 

[Denkt]

We don't know how piercing works, if it is averaged it could be very hard to defeat heavy tanks but then armor could also be averaged.

Heavy tanks can be up armored by the variant system: http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Variant

Anti tank is useless against soft targets while heavy tanks have very good combat stats.

 

[oerbaa]

We don't know how piercing works, if it is averaged it could be very hard to defeat heavy tanks but then armor could also be averaged.

Heavy tanks can be up armored by the variant system: http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Variant

I doubt its averaged, that wouldn't make sense. It isn't like terrain bonuses. Likewise armor isn't averaged.

Piercing is a single value, the highest in a division. Likewise for armor. In HOI3 it worked that way. And given how the combat is very similar to HOI3, this mechanic will probably transfer as well.

When divisions engage each other, a check is done whether the highest piercing value is higher than the highest armor value of the opponent. If you cannot pierce the armor of an opponent, you do half damage and receive increased organizational damage.

I pretty sure I saw this in a WWW clip long ago with Johan.

Anti tank is useless against soft targets while heavy tanks have very good combat stats.

Also, the reason you include a single anti-tank brigade is to be able to pierce the enemy's armor. You don't sacrifice attack power given that the majority of your division is still infantry, or whatever.

 

[Denkt]

In HOI3 it worked that way. And given how the combat is very similar to HOI3, this mechanic will probably transfer as well.

Don't be too sure about that. Combat is similar but not the same.

Very few battalions have good hard attack which is also something you should consider.

 

[oerbaa]

Don't be too sure about that. Combat is similar but not the same.

If you read here, http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Land_warfare you will see that it is exactly the same in every way. Just some name changes, Toughness is now Breakthrough. And some new features, but none of the mechanics from HOI3 have been removed.

Armor and Piercing "seem" to be the same as well. It'd be very awkward to have it be averaged out now.

If a Dev could simply state "Yes the armor value of a division is based on the highest value of any given brigade." That part of this discussion could be dealt with.

 

[Kovax]

Unless attacks are done by each of the sub-units of a division and allocated randomly among the possible targets, or adjustments are made for quantity of AT or Armor, it basically means that you can add one company of AT guns and nullify the effects of a full Battalion of Heavy Armor, or add one company of Heavy Armor to make a Motorized division almost impervious to infantry weapons unless it includes dedicated AT support.

 

[Denkt]

We should consider stuff like that now research is a very limited resource so having even anti tank gun researched is not always true not to talk about maxed out.

Very few battalions have good hard attack while heavy armor is 90% hardness. Having one anti tank battalion in each infantry division is quite expensive. And yes we don't know how it work, it may sound similar but may work differently.

Also if anti tank battalions can not counter tanks, what is the point of anti tank battalions then? Useless soft attack and not cheap + all research you need to invest into them.

 

[oerbaa]

Unless attacks are done by each of the sub-units of a division and allocated randomly among the possible targets, or adjustments are made for quantity of AT or Armor,

Combat is based on the division's total stats. It does not target sub-units in a division.

it basically means that you can add one company of AT guns and nullify the effects of a full Battalion of Heavy Armor, or add one company of Heavy Armor to make a Motorized division almost impervious to infantry weapons unless it includes dedicated AT support.

Your conclusion is correct if our understanding of the mechanics is correct. Given how cheap it would be to add a single AT brigade to each division, it would indeed nullify all armor. That is what I am protesting. Heavy armor should be an exception. Given how expensive it is, it should have an advantage against other divisions. Namely the armor value should be higher than an AT's piercing value for any given year. To take them down, as in HOI3, you would need countless more divisions attacking from multiple directions.

Also, if balanced properly, it would be impossible to support a Heavy Tank brigade in every division. If you did, your army would be tiny, and thus susceptible to being flanked.

Also if anti tank battalions can not counter tanks, what is the point of anti tank battalions then? Useless soft attack and not cheap + all research you need to invest into them.

Well, it would be able to counter light and medium tanks is what I'm saying.

 

[tom_jones]

Yes you can go on about how they have increased speed and attack values, but for the cost what you are paying for is the armor value, which will allow a small division to beat multiple opposing divisions that cannot pierce the armor.

If you don't bother to build heavy tanks and such, what armour is there going to be on your supposedly superior division with anti-tank brigade, that you claim the enemy units won't be able to pierce?

 

[Denkt]

Variant system: http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Variant

Each point into armor increase it by 10%. 2 points should be enough.

 

[oerbaa]

Variant system: http://www.hoi4wiki.com/Variant

Each point into armor increase it by 10%.

Well that is useful indeed. So perhaps then, Medium Armor could, if you invested enough points, have a higher armor value than AT guns.

Nonetheless, I think Heavy Armor, by default in their base variant, should have higher armor than AT guns. Thats all I'm saying.

 

[oerbaa]

If you don't bother to build heavy tanks and such, what armour is there going to be on your supposedly superior division with anti-tank brigade, that you claim the enemy units won't be able to pierce?

I'm not sure I understand. You saying that if i don't build HA.. ?

 

[vector1]

The real question you should be asking is whether they can produce enough AT at the right place at the right time to counter your heavy tanks. It's important to note that research =/= production and this does lead into the systematic back and forth as advanced technology is introduced in stages by different players in the war. It's way better than HOI3 where your concerns are very real since all AT produced since 1918 upgrade with each researched tech automatically.

Also, AT guns should almost always win over tank armor given equal levels of technology. It's much easier to build a bigger gun than to up-armor a tank to be impervious. What introducing new tank models did was forcing one side to upgrade their older AT weapons to new standards. This can be seen by Germany using 88mm guns dual purpose AT/AA in the later stages of the war rather than the initial 37/50mm AT weapons, though they were pretty effective pre-1941 and in Africa.

 

[Denkt]

Well that is useful indeed. So perhaps then, Medium Armor could, if you invested enough points, have a higher armor value than AT guns.

Even with 5 points medium armor don't have enough armor to protect them against good anti tank guns.

 

[oerbaa]

The real question you should be asking is whether they can produce enough AT at the right place at the right time to counter your heavy tanks. It's important to note that research =/= production and this does lead into the systematic back and forth as advanced technology is introduced in stages by different players in the war. It's way better than HOI3 where your concerns are very real since all AT produced since 1918 upgrade with each researched tech automatically.

I agree with this. The new system is better than HOI3 and will allow even new Medium Tanks to have higher armor than old AT brigades. Thus a possible strategy is, unlike other equipment, to keep AT brigades up to date at all times.

Also, AT guns should almost always win over tank armor given equal levels of technology. It's much easier to build a bigger gun than to up-armor a tank to be impervious. What introducing new tank models did was forcing one side to upgrade their older AT weapons to new standards. This can be seen by Germany using 88mm guns dual purpose AT/AA in the later stages of the war rather than the initial 37/50mm AT weapons, though they were pretty effective pre-1941 and in Africa.

Isn't it true that the Tiger, when first introduced, could not be pierced by any AT the enemy had in use? I'm not completely sure but if so, then Heavy Armor should be the exception. Like I said before, Light and Medium armor should always be pierced by current AT tech, but not for HA. What do you think?

 

[tom_jones]

I'm not sure I understand. You saying that if i don't build HA.. ?

It may be I don't understand your argument, but it seems to be there's no point to make heavy armour, because you can just attach ant-tank brigade to a division, and this will make this division able to pierce everything and it will be then able to win against multiple enemy divisions that cannot pierce [its] armour.

If this is correct interpretation, then I don't see where this armour on the supposedly superior division, to protect it from the multiple opponents comes from. It's more like (due to high piercing value) such division won't be disadvantaged when facing opponent with armour, but it won't have advantage over that opponent, either. At which point superior numbers do their thing and your division with the anti-tank attachment isn't going to win that fight.

 

[oerbaa]

Even with 5 points medium armor don't have enough armor to protect them against good anti tank guns.

I see. Well then that nullifies that strategy.

I see future balancing patches taking care of this, hopefully.

For example, if you invested heavily into armor for a medium tank, sacrificing all other aspects of your tank, then it should have more armor than current AT weapons.

For example, the T34 could not be pierced by then up-to-date AT weapons. They had to bring in the 88 AA gun, which was not an AT gun, to pierce it.

This could be an example of how you sacrifice all parts of the tank (the t34's horrible reliability, poor crew sights, etc.) for the hard sloped armor (the saving grace of the t34).

 

[Denkt]

Up to date anti tank is not something that you may have because you have alot to research with limited research.

For example, the T34 could not be pierced by then up-to-date AT weapons. They had to bring in the 88 AA gun, which was not an AT gun, to pierce it.

Do that sounds like up to date anti tank guns to you if you have an anti air gun who is better at destroy tanks then the anti tank guns you currently have?

It is possible for 1941 medium tank to have armor that 1941 anti tank gun tech can't pierce and with a company who add armor you may have enough for 1942 tech as well but 1943 is to much even for 1943 medium tank.

 

[oerbaa]

It may be I don't understand your argument, but it seems to be there's no point to make heavy armour, because you can just attach ant-tank brigade to a division, and this will make this division able to pierce everything and it will be then able to win against multiple enemy divisions that cannot pierce [its] armour.

If this is correct interpretation, then I don't see where this armour on the supposedly superior division, to protect it from the multiple opponents comes from. It's more like (due to high piercing value) such division won't be disadvantaged when facing opponent with armour, but it won't have advantage over that opponent, either. At which point superior numbers do their thing and your division with the anti-tank attachment isn't going to win that fight.

I think things are being mixed up here.

The bonus a division gets from having a higher armor value than the opponent's piercing value is tremendous. I'm not understanding you entirely, but the point here is that you should attach an AT brigade to your infantry divisions so as to nullify your opponents armor advantage.

Armor still has high soft and hard attack and will be difficult to defeat, but you will make it easier by not allowing that division to have the armor advantage on top of everything else.

If you happen to have a division with an armor advantage (higher armor value than the opponent's piercing value) then that division could potentially take on multiple other divisions and win.

The problem I'm seeing, is that the AT brigade has too much piercing power, and can even pierce Heavy Tanks and Super Heavy Tanks. This makes producing these expensive tanks less favorable. Unless the A.I. doesn't fill its divisions with AT guns, but I hope they do, otherwise I'd be too easy.

 

[oerbaa]

Up to date anti tank is not something that you may have because you have alot to research with limited research.


Do that sounds like up to date anti tank guns to you if you have an anti air gun who is better at destroy tanks then the anti tank guns you currently have?

i'm not sure. I'm assuming it was up-to-date. But thats a whole 'nother topic.