Armour doesn't become invincible when A>P, it just takes half damage.
Dev dude, is this a binary test to apply the 'half damage', or a scaled linear test...? i.e.
IF: A<P
THEN: Damage
IF: A>P
THEN: Damage x 0.5
Or
func: Damage x (0.5+(A-P)) [or similar scaling function]
A = Armour value
P = Penetration value
Because, if it is a binary test, then that tipping point where A is approximately equal to P, means that for
very little change in armour value from a tech upgrade your entire army goes from being able to attack 'once' to being able to attack 'twice' with a single tech upgrade either way. However as I'm sure many people will appreciate, the ability for anti-tank guns to piece various grades of armour was also as much to do with the engagement range of the gun with the tank, as the gun itself. It wasn't a simple case of 'it could penetrate the armour or not' (except with the most armoured variants).
Therefore in that context, the game mechanic if its binary
could in principle be 'game breaking' since it forces you in effect to prioritise both AT and Armour values to the highest degree, because you are talking about a bonus of +100% effectiveness for your tank units, or not.
In that sense, it is totally gamey, and you are doing yourself a great disservice in not priorising and not researching to full. Because this is the optimum strategy, all players will follow this research path, thus netting a 'zero' overall effect, thus making this mechanic worthless between majors, and only serve to nerf minors and the AI yet more.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand,
I hope it is a linear scaling of effect, so that as Penetration passes Armour, you gain that 'double damage' mark, but say you were just below that mark, say 5P to 6A, then your 1.666 'double damage' for example.
This would be a better mechanic, because it would account for the fact that AT gunners could hold fire to closer ranges before firing, or very heavy armoured tanks could literally have shells bounce off them, much like the Japanese found to their horror against the T-34s and other tanks during the fall of Manchuria because they hadn't upgraded their AT guns since about 1934.
It would also mean that non prioritised AT guns can still have an effect, albeit at a lesser value, rather than AT guns being either "yes, can do!" or "No, your screwed!" if it is binary. Not to mention, CA bonuses as well as needing HA attack as well all adding to completly nerf minor armies...
I do strongly hope that it is a scaled test for the sake of the game.
@Whoever posted;
...Also it would be cool if artillery got some new features in expansion such as increased org-damage in addition to normal damage. Artillery really stirred up things, and could weaken armoured forces as well by destroying support units and supplies and trucks with infantry.
No, I don't think their should be anything like this, the 'big guns' with such ranges for counter battery bombardment and similar were hardly improved in WWII from the Great War, indeed in barrel size and calibre there was little to no difference on the heavy field howitzers, what changed was gun carriage design, to have trailers capable of being pulled on the roads by truck, rather than dismantled and to be carried by separate horses. Indeed as a side note, infantry field guns were typically limited at around about the 4 tonnes mark so that horses could transport them.
Because of the weight constraint which had to include barrel, mount, recoil damper and recuperators, such field guns were limited funder mentally in their range, to being LOS only weapons, unless somebody could radio in fire missions. Hence could not 'stir things up' unless you already had forward troops 'calling the iron rain' so to speak.
The corps level gun-howitzers (the ones with range for rear bombardment) were relatively few in number. HoI doesn't well represent these guns and nor could it, as guns attached to corps level HQ would not be able to attack. Thus we must assume such pieces are already incorporated into ART brigades, which they themselves are shared out amongst the infantry brigades in a division.
From this point of view, the number of large guns capable of firing into the enemies rear or for counter-battery rolls is very small compared to numbers of troops. Therefore it doesn't make too much sense to go round upgrading the 'org damage' because when we are talking perhaps 15 guns or less per brigade for support, the impact of the heavy artillery is simply non exsitent.
All that above said, there were several battles and sieges where large numbers of heavy field artillery were present, and did have a great effect in disorganising the defence and rear logistics. Yet, I feel that given within the HOI game such battles typically have multiple divisions involved, all with their own ART brigades, that more than accounts for gun concentration.
Just for some background rationale
.
