HOI4 Piercing/Armor Reference Table

[Sir Garnet]

For the usefulness of this info see separate post.
My HOI4 Tank TD Pen Table.txt - 1936 UK info ingame stats edition March 12 2017

Piercing = 40% of highest Piercing + 60% of “average” Piercing of the div components

Armor = 30% of highest Armor + 70% of “average” Armor of the div components (wiki)

So the highest ("prime") component of Piercing or Armor multiplied by 40% or 30% respectively so gives a quick estimate for the minimum stats assuming everything else is 0 and the division is at full strength in equipment. So the actual number is probably higher, sometimes much higher, based on the other division components, so the + sign is added as a reminder.

The fewer non-prime components, the more impact the prime has on the average. Infantry has piercing up to 5 with infantry kit, sometimes with modifiers from tech

1934 Light Tank 10 Piercing, 10 Armor => DIV MIN 4+ piercing, 3+ armor Vickers II
1934 Light TDest, 50 Piercing, 10 Armor => DIV MIN 20+ piercing, 3+ armor Deacon

1934 Heavy Tank 35 PIercing, 70 Armor => DIV MIN 14+ piercing, 21+ armor Vickers
1934 Heavy TDest 96 Piercing, 70 Armor => DIV MIN 38.4+ piercing, 21+ armor H TD `


1936 Light Tank 30 Piercing, 15 Armor => DIV MIN 12+ piercing, 4.5+ armor Matilda
1936 Light TDest, 77 Piercing, 15 Armor => DIV MIN 30.8+ piercing, 4.5+ armor Valiant
1941 Light Tank 50 Piercing, 30 Armor => DIV MIN 30.8+ piercing, 4.5+ armor Valentine
1941 Light TDest 99 Piercing, 30 Armor => DIV MIN 30.8+ piercing, 4.5+ armor Archer

1939 Medium Tank 61 Piercing, 60 Armor => DIV MIN 14+ piercing, 21+ armor Crusader
1939 Medium TDest 88 Piercing, 60 Armor => DIV MIN 14+ piercing, 21+ armor Cavalier
1941 Medium Tank 81 Piercing, 80 Armor => DIV MIN 14+ piercing, 21+ armor Cromwell
1941 Medium TDest 110 Piercing, 80 Armor => DIV MIN 14+ piercing, 21+ armor Charioteer

1941 Heavy Tank 111 Piercing, 110 Armor => DIV MIN 14+ piercing, 21+ armor Churchill
1941 Heavy TDest 140 Piercing, 110 Armor => DIV MIN 14+ piercing, 21+ armor Churchill Gun Carrier
1943 Heavy Tank 35 Piercing, 70 Armor => DIV MIN 14+ piercing, 21+ armor Black Prince
1943 Heavy TDest 35 Piercing, 70 Armor => DIV MIN 14+ piercing, 21+ armor Hector

1943 SuperH Tank 146 Piercing, 145 Armor => DIV MIN 58.4+ piercing, 43.5+ armor Tortoise
1943 SuperH TDest 170 Piercing, 145 Armor => DIV MIN 68+ piercing, 43.5+ armor Iron Duke

1943 Medium Tank 91 Piercing, 90 Armor => DIV MIN 36.4+ piercing, 27+ armor Comet
1943 Medium TDest 120 Piercing, 90 Armor => DIV MIN 48+ piercing, 27+ armor Contentious

1945 Modern Tank 131 Piercing, 130 Armor => DIV MIN 52.4+ piercing, 39+ armor Centurion
1945 Modern TDest 165 Piercing, 130 Armor => DIV MIN 66+ piercing, 39+ armor Centurion Maikara

Checked this over, but please advise re any typos etc. > Sir Garnet

NOTE: Regarding the calculations, Dalwin observed that "the contribution in both armor and piercing for any given battalion is modified by the percentage of its equipment that it currently holds. So as a unit loses a few tanks, its stats for both will diminish. This can change whether it pierces or is pierced in a given battle." From comments in the same prior thread, it appears that this takes effect during the course of a battle but the modifier may not be displayed. See https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/armor-and-piercing-formulas.998074/

 

[Sir Garnet]

The usefulness of the tables is
(A) quicker reference for Piercing and Armor for each tank model than finding them in game or going to the wiki.
(B) of more importance, a useful tool in division design and tactical decisions because it provides benchmarks for assessing the likely result of the A/P interaction when the exact numbers are not known, either because the full composition and current strength of each battalion and support company is not known, or the stats of the equipment are uncertain (e.g., upgrades purchased with Army experience.

(C) The benchmarks it provides for each AFV listed are those the AFV bn at full strength provides on its own to the division from its own A/P stat. To this is added the average unit stat for the division as a whole, which means the actual number will be slightly to much larger.

So, if designing a division, having a rough estimate of the minimum or maximum each side is likely to have is very useful in deciding how well it is prepared in terms of armor and piercing capabilities. Note that adding a single armored bn to an infantry division can have a large impact on both stats.

 

[KiwiNoob]

If the armor/piercing mechanics were better this would be more useful.

At the moment it's just:

1. Give all INF divisions a H.TD
2. Conquer the world

 

[Alex_brunius]

If the armor/piercing mechanics were better this would be more useful.

At the moment it's just:

1. Give all INF divisions a H.TD
2. Conquer the world

Actually this is how the game works in my experience:

1. Give all INF divisions a H.TD
2. Try to Conquer the world
3. Fail miserably against any player or AI that equips even obsolete AT

When pierced the H.TDs turn into nothing but more expensive versions of AT guns which slow you down and lower your attack efficiency through their terrain penalties.

 

[KiwiNoob]

Against a player - almost certainly. AI never brings enough AT to pierce. As long as you stay up to date on TD tech and throw a couple of points into armor upgrades only a very small % of any AI unit will ever pierce.

Plus the ~10% hardness never hurts.

In fact it works almost as well with Medium TD's too for smaller nations.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Against a player - almost certainly. AI never brings enough AT to pierce.

I looked around what kind of main infantry divisions the AI has designed by 1941 in my last 1.3.3 game.

Hungary: 44.3 piercing
Romania: 43.9 piercing
Manchucko: 38.5 piercing
Canada: 43.4 piercing
Australia: 51.2 piercing

And this is just the minors!!!!

Which of them will fail to pierce your 1941 Heavy Tank augmented divisions that have 36 armor exactly?

 

[Axe99]

I looked around what kind of main infantry divisions the AI has designed by 1941 in my last 1.3.3 game.

Hungary: 44.3 piercing
Romania: 43.9 piercing
Manchucko: 38.5 piercing
Canada: 43.4 piercing
Australia: 51.2 piercing

And this is just the minors!!!!

Which of them will fail to pierce your 1941 Heavy Tank augmented divisions that have 36 armor exactly?

Note that Australia is kicking tail here .

Sorry - get back to serious and insightful discussion again. Bloody great work putting that data together @Sir Garnet .

 

[KiwiNoob]

I looked around what kind of main infantry divisions the AI has designed by 1941 in my last 1.3.3 game.

Hungary: 44.3 piercing
Romania: 43.9 piercing
Manchucko: 38.5 piercing
Canada: 43.4 piercing
Australia: 51.2 piercing

And this is just the minors!!!!

Which of them will fail to pierce your 1941 Heavy Tank augmented divisions that have 36 armor exactly?

Get rid of some of the excess infantry, stick a bit of XP into armor and your 1941 H.TD division will have ~47 armor so the answer is... all of them.

Why all of them? Because while your on-paper Australian division can pierce. It's very unusual for AI divisions to be at full strength and even if they are when battle is joined they wont stay that way for long. A month in and their piercing will be below 47.

 

[KiwiNoob]

Not a believer? This is late-1942 and I'm using 1941 M.TD with 3 points in armor.

If only Finland knew that a few outdated TD's were all they needed to conquer the SU.

Highest actual piercing I could find on the SU front was 30 from a medium tank division which was still unable to pierce the divisions 33.5 armor.

 

[Alex_brunius]

Highest actual piercing I could find on the SU front was 30 from a medium tank division which was still unable to pierce the divisions 33.5 armor.

Something is seriously strange with the balance of the game if all the minors I check have no issues having hundreds + stockpiles of AT equipment, and divisions with 40-50 piercing, a full year before your game where Soviet does not seem to field AT at all (judging by their piercing numbers you claim).

I don't claim that the AI is perfect in any way, but I am saying that you being able to rely on the AI never piercing divisions with 30-45 armor is false.

 

[KiwiNoob]

I'm not talking about this game. Or a couple of games. This is every game - since launch. Never had any problems with getting pierced as long as my guys have their trusty TD with them.

The AI cant manage it's consumption/production so even if they head into a war with some spare AT guns they are all gone within the first month or two anyway.

 

[Alex_brunius]

AI Soviet unit in December 1940 in 1.3.3 (During Barbarossa):

How you in 2 years later can't find anything on the front which can pierce 33.5 armor is a mystery for me. Maybe you have some mods which break the AI?

 

[KiwiNoob]

No mods. I've already told you why a couple of times so I'm not sure why it's a mystery. Also - if you played the game it wouldn't be a mystery because it happens every time. Just tag switch and view the equipment carnage.

38.5 piercing is so atrocious it pretty much proves the point. Full strength and it's piercing is only 1.5 higher than a 40 width INF+TD. If you gave the INF+TD a width of 35 the armor would get up into the low 40's.

Even those few times the AI manages to field full strength divisions at the outbreak of war (not often unless you go full historic and even then it's 'flip a coin'), it's only a couple months before divisions are consistently under strength. Take that game - push the front hard for a few months and then see what you're getting.

And I enjoyed this:

AI Soviet unit in December 1940 in 1.3.3 (During Barbarossa):
Maybe you have some mods which break the AI?

Can you break something broken?

 

[Alex_brunius]

38.5 piercing is so atrocious it pretty much proves the point.

So you admit that INF + HTD can be easily defeated by "atrocious", obsolete and very small amounts of AT?

I don't see where the issue is to be honest...

To me it seems like the mechanics are working perfectly fine, but that the only weakness here is AI ( which we both agree and already knew, even if we might have a slight disagreement on just how bad it is ).

Game balance like strength of armor from TDs shouldn't be changed to accommodate for AI shortcomings, or we would end up with a game where the only weapons that are effective is infantry and artillery, and being under-strength units is not a weakness at all ( to make the AI a challenge despite fielding mostly under-strength infantry + artillery ).

 

[KiwiNoob]

So you admit that INF + HTD can be easily defeated by "atrocious", obsolete and very small amounts of AT?

No, I'm not saying that - you hear things that are different to what people are saying.

 

[Alex_brunius]

No, I'm not saying that - you hear things that are different to what people are saying.

You did write that the AIs 1940 divisions piercing of 38.5 is "so atrocious it proves the point" and also previously wrote that your divisions in 1942 with infantry + TD had 33.5 armor ( I also showed that a 40 width division with HTD get 36 armor ).

Isn't 38.5 higher then both 36 and 33.5 any more or what am I missing here?


We can also infer that if you think 38.5 piercing is atrocious for 1940, then 33.5 armor (your own divisions) in 1942 must have even more atrociously bad armor levels, right?


Don't get me wrong though, I do agree and you do have a point that the AI often neither builds enough AT equipment, nor research them with high enough priority. What I disagree with is that you can rely on this always being the case.

 

[KiwiNoob]

You did write that the AIs 1940 divisions piercing of 38.5 is "so atrocious it proves the point" and also previously wrote that your divisions in 1942 with infantry + TD had 33.5 armor ( I also showed that a 40 width division with HTD get 36 armor ).

Isn't 38.5 higher then both 36 and 33.5 any more or what am I missing here?


We can also infer that if you think 38.5 piercing is atrocious for 1940, then 33.5 armor (your own divisions) in 1942 must have even more atrociously bad armor levels, right?


Don't get me wrong though, I do agree and you do have a point that the AI often neither builds enough AT equipment, nor research them with high enough priority. What I disagree with is that you can rely on this always being the case.

You sir are the HOI4 version of an EFT warrior. You're so fixated on theoreticals that you've failed to play the actual game and work out what works and what doesn't.

You also cherry pick quotes out of context - I've already clarified which division templates work in which situation.

I've shown you screenshots of INF divisions using only a single battalion of Medium (not even heavy) TD's being impenetrable to SU divisions, this included an SU medium armor division so there is no point trying to show me on paper that it doesn't work. This works against any nation, every game, no exceptions. At most the AI divisions that can pierce last a couple of months before a lack of equipment drops their piercing.

You're position only works against a human player. Vast majority of the game is played against AI.

 

[Alex_brunius]

You sir are the HOI4 version of an EFT warrior.

I have no idea what an EFT warrior is, but hey warrior sounds like something cool to be, so thanks I guess!

I've shown you screenshots of INF divisions using only a single battalion of Medium (not even heavy) TD's being impenetrable to SU divisions, this included an SU medium armor division so there is no point trying to show me on paper that it doesn't work. This works against any nation, every game, no exceptions.

Why is your picture from the game more valid then my picture from the game where AI Soviet divisions have 38.5 piercing in 1940?

Maybe you didn't "fail to play the actual game" when taking your screenshots inside it like I apparently did?

 

[stjern]

You sir are the HOI4 version of an EFT warrior. You're so fixated on theoreticals that you've failed to play the actual game and work out what works and what doesn't.

You also cherry pick quotes out of context - I've already clarified which division templates work in which situation.

I've shown you screenshots of INF divisions using only a single battalion of Medium (not even heavy) TD's being impenetrable to SU divisions, this included an SU medium armor division so there is no point trying to show me on paper that it doesn't work. This works against any nation, every game, no exceptions. At most the AI divisions that can pierce last a couple of months before a lack of equipment drops their piercing.

You're position only works against a human player. Vast majority of the game is played against AI.

You broke the AI, simple as that. 90% of the the time after war starts the ai is broken in the base game, we know that and it has nothing to do with piercing values in some batallions.

 

[KiwiNoob]

You broke the AI, simple as that. 90% of the the time after war starts the ai is broken in the base game, we know that and it has nothing to do with piercing values in some batallions.

This way a bit of a segue from the what was originally a complaint that 24 AT guns gives large divisions too much piercing while likewise a single battalion of H.TD gives a division too much armor.

The way divisions stats are calculated should be weighted more towards the average and less towards the 'highest' battalion stat.