Exact effect of Armor ?

[GeneralisimoAR]

Hello,

I checked the wiki but have some doubts about it, does anyone know the exact effect . confirmed by developers?

 

[Corpse Fool]

Half damage suffered, increased org damage dealt dice size.

 

[Anaraxes]

What specific questions did you have after reading the wiki?

Just to expand on what Corpse Fool wrote:

Half damage suffered

... when the attacker (the unit shooting at the moment) cannot pierce the target's armor. That is, its piercing value is less than the armor.

Before NSB, piercing was a simple binary comparison. Piercing was greater than armor, or it wasn't. Hence, normal damage or half damage, accordingly. NSB was supposed to introduce a less stark change:

• Armor < 75% piercing: Normal damage
• Armor between 75% piercing and 100% piercing: Between normal damage and half damage, linearly scaled as the armor scales from 75% piercing to 100% piercing.
• Armor > piercing: Half damage

So, a smoother piecewise linear function rather than a sudden threshold. Note that the cap on piercing effectiveness vs armor values also moves up from the old 100% of armor (piercing greater than armor) to 133% (75% of piercing is greater than armor). With NSB, having piercing one point higher than armor isn't much better than having piercing one point worse. You need fifteen or twenty points better piercing for best damage (depending on the sorts of armor values you see in your games).

(This number comes up more often that you might think when comparing actual divisions. It's not comparing each tank's armor versus the best anti-tank gun, a la World of Tanks 1:1 duels, but the composite values of the entire division that are shown in the unit statistics, which are a blend of the armor battalions, infantry battalions, researched equipment like panzerfausts / PIATs / bazookas, and so on. Infantry divisions have hardness and piercing values, too, and the same rules apply.)

I don't remember seeing anyone that posted results of intensive testing in-game to verify the effects of this new piecewise function.

increased org damage dealt dice size.

Which in practice means +40% org damage. (The d4 for org damage changes to a d6; on average, that's 2.5 points increasing to 3.5, or a 40% increase. Every combat rolls damage for so many attacks that any significant deviation from the average is very unlikely.

Armor also contributes to division "hardness". Hardness is basically a percentage that reduces the number of soft and hard attacks rolled. Hard attack count is multiplied by hardness (let's say 40%); Soft attack count is multiplied by "not hardness", which is 1 - hardness (or 60% in this example). So, however many attacks the attacker can generate, it will roll 40% of its hard attack versus this target and 60% of its soft attack. The harder the unit, the less vulnerable it is to soft attack. It does get hit by more hard attack, but that's usually a lot lower value.

 

[Corpse Fool]

NSB was supposed to introduce a less stark change

I'll have to repeat my tests for 11.5 since that just dropped, but for 11.4 it does not appear to actually work.

Edit. It is disheartening to report that my testing shows the same sorts of results as it did previously. The unpierced formation still seems to take half the damage and deal about 40% more org damage than the slightly pierced formation.

 

[Kanitatlan]

I'll have to repeat my tests for 11.5 since that just dropped, but for 11.4 it does not appear to actually work.

Edit. It is disheartening to report that my testing shows the same sorts of results as it did previously. The unpierced formation still seems to take half the damage and deal about 40% more org damage than the slightly pierced formation.

That has definitely been my experience in the open Beta. I suspect this change was overtaken by time and the unfortunate need to seriously fancy up the tooltip and possibly the broken shield icon.

 

[Anaraxes]

I'll have to repeat my tests for 11.5

Thanks for doing the work.

If I understand the description correctly, in that test I'd expect
Case 1 (armor 12.54): 96% of piercing (13) = 4/25ths of the way from half to full damage, or 58% org damage
Case 2 (armor 16.5): > piercing (13), 50% org damage
It's a narrow difference, but case 1 should be losing 16% more org than case 2. Seems like the difference should be noticeable if it existed, but at this point we're getting into statistics about the distribution of combat results and confidence intervals for any particular test.

If you get around to another experimental mood, you might try adding a Case 3, with armor 9.75 or less. That would reach the full damage threshold, so twice the Case 2 damage. Or perhaps a case right in the middle of the 75-100% range, 11.375 armor.

 

[Corpse Fool]

If you get around to another experimental mood, you might try adding a Case 3, with armor 9.75 or less. That would reach the full damage threshold, so twice the Case 2 damage. Or perhaps a case right in the middle of the 75-100% range, 11.375 armor.

I'm not really sure what the point of this would be? The testing I've already done shows that even when the differences in damaged suffered should be small enough to hide within the variation of one round to the next, the results line up with those we'd expect as if the new armour mechanic was completely non-functional.

 

[Arheo]

Yes, there seems to have been a miscommunication at some point during development, and the announcement for this change made it into a dev diary despite not being applied to the game. It may make a return at some point.

 

[DaleDVM]

Yes, there seems to have been a miscommunication at some point during development, and the announcement for this change made it into a dev diary despite not being applied to the game. It may make a return at some point.

This was one of the features I was really hoping for. This makes me sad...

I am no programmer, but I understand mathematics. I could write the formulas for this combat system in a half hour.

May I ask what is the problem incorporating this into the game? Do the developers think it is a bad idea?

 

[Anaraxes]

I'm not really sure what the point of this would be?

Just to check the boundary conditions where things change. Not terribly necessary, and of course utterly moot given Arheo's reply.
Unless you want to be really prepared in case of the return of that feature

 

[Jays298]

This was one of the features I was really hoping for. This makes me sad...

I am no programmer, but I understand mathematics. I could write the formulas for this combat system in a half hour.

May I ask what is the problem incorporating this into the game? Do the developers think it is a bad idea?

I hope for this as well or some variance as well. Because we don't have front / side / rear armor values. Or anything else to reflect what happens when a lightly gunned tank approaches a heavily armored tank or column and pierces the armor that would not normally pierce thru the front, because there is a side attack or a tactical advantage.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

Because we don't have front / side / rear armor values.

I think Corpse Fool's suggested something like this before. now that we have an actual armor designer, for better or for worse, i feel like this would be a far more easy-to-understand approach than a direct scale and somewhat more realistic as well. for example, it could be set up so that having full unpierced armor equates to a 75% damage modifier, all-but-rear unpierced armor a 40% modifier and all-but-front unpierced armor a 30% modifier. of course you still have to deal with the fact that armor is a division-level stat and averaged between infantry and hard targets, but still, it's better than the idea of an AT gun dealing 90% damage to a tank that it can't pierce but would be able to if it had 11% more velocity or diameter or whatever.

 

[PikaPilot]

I hope for this as well or some variance as well. Because we don't have front / side / rear armor values. Or anything else to reflect what happens when a lightly gunned tank approaches a heavily armored tank or column and pierces the armor that would not normally pierce thru the front, because there is a side attack or a tactical advantage.

Remember that when a division is armored, 1/6 damage still gets through. That can absolutely represent the rare occasions where a tank is flanked.

Don't forget that attackers get bonuses for attacking from multiple tiles, which furthers the idea that damage can get through from the sides, but not the front.

This game does not need the extra complications of having front/side/rear armor. HOI needs to be accessible, not needlessly complex.

 

[Jays298]

Remember that when a division is armored, 1/6 damage still gets through. That can absolutely represent the rare occasions where a tank is flanked.

Don't forget that attackers get bonuses for attacking from multiple tiles, which furthers the idea that damage can get through from the sides, but not the front.

This game does not need the extra complications of having front/side/rear armor. HOI needs to be accessible, not needlessly complex.

I don't necessarily want more complexity, as much as speed / agility as an element of consideration.

Because basically as it is now you have armor vs piercing (or basically damage). Weakness to side attacks should be an element somehow.

When I think a more rock paper scissors approach would be more interesting (speed / agility as the third element)

 

[PikaPilot]

I don't necessarily want more complexity, as much as speed / agility as an element of consideration.

Because basically as it is now you have armor vs piercing (or basically damage). Weakness to side attacks should be an element somehow.

When I think a more rock paper scissors approach would be more interesting (speed / agility as the third element)

Remember that modules such as stabalizers, interleaved roadwheels, petrol-electric drivetrains, radios, larger turrets, etc. are described as enhancing the design's battlefield flexibility.

Simply put, *breakthrough* is the fighting agility of a tank, and it's the third part in that rock, paper, scissors you are describing.

 

[Corpse Fool]

Because basically as it is now you have armor vs piercing (or basically damage). Weakness to side attacks should be an element somehow.

An older idea I've had was to have the 30% highest value shift up or down based on speed. Like it would range from like 20%-40% if they are 4-12 kph.

 

[Jays298]

Remember that modules such as stabalizers, interleaved roadwheels, petrol-electric drivetrains, radios, larger turrets, etc. are described as enhancing the design's battlefield flexibility.

Simply put, *breakthrough* is the fighting agility of a tank, and it's the third part in that rock, paper, scissors you are describing.

The problem with breakthru is it is the ability to withstand attacks while on the offensive in theory, or maybe just the ability to smash infantry fortifications.

What I am talking about is more of a speed / manuevre advantage (of motorized and / or lightly armored vehicles) as a counter to that "breakthru" of a large, slow to react tank.

An older idea I've had was to have the 30% highest value shift up or down based on speed. Like it would range from like 20%-40% if they are 4-12 kph.

That would make sense.

 

[pro.gamer.69]

Remember that when a division is armored, 1/6 damage still gets through. That can absolutely represent the rare occasions where a tank is flanked.

Don't forget that attackers get bonuses for attacking from multiple tiles, which furthers the idea that damage can get through from the sides, but not the front.

This game does not need the extra complications of having front/side/rear armor. HOI needs to be accessible, not needlessly complex.

yes, but...

the entire point of the armor stat is that it's an especially unique factor in determining combat outcomes. there was 100% an armor-piercing arms race IRL and just like how it can't be simulated without breakthrough, it also can't be fully stimulated with a static modifier. after all having a "80 piercing" gun should absolutely give an advantage against tanks over having no AT guns, even if that tank is a "90 armor" one.

i do think that having armor affect breakthrough would be much simpler from a user perspective but i can imagine why it would be difficult to code.

 

[Jack65]

Yes, there seems to have been a miscommunication at some point during development, and the announcement for this change made it into a dev diary despite not being applied to the game. It may make a return at some point.

That ... is not cool

And miscommunication is a bit of an understatement

"El Risitas Moment"

 

[Poopfaust]

I got lost here. So is it still that as long as your armor is higher than Pierce - you are armored (all or nothing)? Or is it now scaled.., for example if armor is 30 and pierce is 28, you get a small decrement to damage, wheras if you had armor of 100 and pierce of 28.., the damage inflicted is significantly reduced?

Man, I thought since day 1 it was always the All or Nothing thing. How do you guys figure this stuff out? Thank God big brains exist in this forum.