No, it should be weighted more towards max value, I have 60% max for armor and 52% max for piercing.
HOI4 Piercing/Armor Reference Table
- Thread starter Sir Garnet
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
No, it should be weighted more towards max value, I have 60% max for armor and 52% max for piercing.
No it shouldn't. A division would often be tasked with covering very large area's - dozens of km's at times. When spread over that distance 24 AT guns will make exactly 0 difference. There just wouldn't be enough to go around.
Likewise, a single battalion of TD's would make very little difference to a divisions 'Armor'. 20 odd TD's is spread pretty thin when you're sharing them with 12,000+ infantry
In HoI3 piercing and armor used 100% of the max value. I really liked that because it meant that you could never get into silly situations like light tanks or 1936 AT being able to pierce heavy tanks simply due to massively outnumbering them.
It wouldn't work as well for HoI4 though unless you remade a division designer a bit so you have fewer but larger battalions instead ( which might actually make it easier to use for the AI ).
It wouldn't work as well for HoI4 though unless you remade a division designer a bit so you have fewer but larger battalions instead ( which might actually make it easier to use for the AI ).
You're totally missing the point.
It's not just about the max value - you have to have enough of something to make it effective.
Case in point - The Tiger II's. Great gun, great armor. If RL used 'max value' then Germany would have done much better but there simply were not enough of them to make any significant difference.
If you have 2 infantry divisions facing off against each other. One has 20 heavy tanks and the other has 300 light/medium tanks - the division with 300 light/mediums should have far more effective armor as even light/medium armor is still effective against infantry and they can have tanks active in many places while the division with 20 heavies can only have them operating in one or two locations. They will win in those locations but across the whole front they will be at a disadvantage.
It's not just about the max value - you have to have enough of something to make it effective.
Case in point - The Tiger II's. Great gun, great armor. If RL used 'max value' then Germany would have done much better but there simply were not enough of them to make any significant difference.
If you have 2 infantry divisions facing off against each other. One has 20 heavy tanks and the other has 300 light/medium tanks - the division with 300 light/mediums should have far more effective armor as even light/medium armor is still effective against infantry and they can have tanks active in many places while the division with 20 heavies can only have them operating in one or two locations. They will win in those locations but across the whole front they will be at a disadvantage.
Yes. Let's use the Tiger II!
Germany historically built 492 of them and assuming at least half of them were used for reinforcements (not unreasonable) this means they have enough tanks to cover 6 out of their 300 divisions.
We also have to take into account that you can't reach real historical numbers of tanks produced in HoI4, if you do the math and compare peak production the conclusion is that you can only produce 1 tank in HoI4 for each 3-5 real tanks.
So actually using the German historical production of Tiger IIs translated to Hoi4 you can cover around 1-2 divisions with a single battalion of them...
How the hell is that going to help you even if they would provide 100% of the value and make these 1-2 divisions impossible to pierce?
Armor advantage just is reducing their damage taken by 50%, about the same as if they were deployed behind a river or in urban terrain.
In this situation the division with 300 medium tanks will win easily even if we used 100% of the max value for armor/piercing as well, because the most important things in combat is not armor/piercing but the other stats and hardness stats ( which do scale perfectly fine with numbers of tanks in the division ).
Armor/Piercing only represents the thickness of armor and piercing of the gun. It can still be defeated easily by larger numbers of enemy divisions or enemy divisions with significantly better other stats so numbers still is very important.
Last edited:
Do you just refuse to see how it makes no sense?
A division with 25 INF & 1 ARM has an armor of 20. A division of 25 LARM has an armor of 13.
If you actually think that makes complete sense then there is no point discussing this with you.
A division with 25 INF & 1 ARM has an armor of 20. A division of 25 LARM has an armor of 13.
If you actually think that makes complete sense then there is no point discussing this with you.
Last edited:
Light armor which early war for example were armed with MGs not being able to pierce medium tank armor even when they can completely surround them actually makes complete sense to me. Why doesn't it to you?
These early LARM models also had armor comparable to mechanized / hanomags ( paper thin ), so yes it makes sense that they can be pierced from all directions by a Medium tank as well.
A division with 25 LARM will have 80% hardness and be close to immune to any soft attacks, which is the majority of fire from infantry in that exchange. Despite the fact that both divisions are silly templates that no one would build (or in the case of 25INF+1ARM are even possible to build at all), the 25 LARM would inflict way more damage to the infantry then infantry can inflict back to them thanks to hardness and the other stats, even if it can't achieve armor/piercing.
What I am trying to say is that armor advantage is far from everything, in your example hardness reduce effective attacks taken by the light tanks by close to 80%, which is actually way more then the 50% reduction provided by the armor advantage. The breakthrough stat provided by 25 LARM on the attack also would mean it can attack taking close to 75% reduced casualties even in pretty bad terrain, where your INF+1 ARM division when attacking has all damage inflicted to it that surpasses it's much lower breakthrough multiplied by 4, another example where a single stat has a significantly greater impact then armor / piercing does.
Once you learn how the combat mechanics work and stop fixating on achieving armor advantage you'll realize that numerically more tanks in a division also provide plentiful of other really important advantages.
If they didn't you would see alot more builds where the main tank division wasn't 6ARM+4MOT but 1ARM+9MOT instead...
Last edited:
Odd you're suggesting I learn about the combat mechanics in the same post where you downplay the armor advantage. Easily giving all of you INF divisions the armor advantage against the AI = insta-win.
Your scale is completely off. We're not talking about 1 LARM v 1 ARM when we talk about armor or piercing. We're talking about a fight happening over a 20-60km front. The stats are of the whole division, not a single battalion or tank within the division.
IRL a small handful of tanks spread over 40km would make very, very little difference. However in the game it's armor and piercing are a disproportionately high part the division stats. It's not accurate.
Am not talking about hardness - personally I think hardness from MOT, MEC, ARM should be increased slightly but otherwise it's a mechanic that works well. But just because hardness works doesn't mean the way piercing works is sensible or accurate.
Armor advantage as it stands is also part of the problem. Piercing/Armor should be a scale and not a simple on/off. Especially as the advantage is absolutely massive.
Under the current system it's easy to give an INF division the armor advantage by tacking on a single TD battalion. That's dumb.
One Heavy Tank battalion in HoI4 is 40 tanks, and spread out over 40km this means a Tiger every 1000 meter. It's guns could reliably knock out any enemy medium tank it faced from well over 2000 meters so in open terrain like plains a single Heavy Tank battalion even if spread out over 40km would be totally devastating to any enemy armor advances, and at any moment have 3-4 tanks which can fire at approaching enemies from different angles while being immune to their return fire.
Assuming some reasonable recon and communications within minutes of realizing where the enemy attack was materializing the single battalion could have 10 Tigers in position, each with up to 92 rounds of ammo ( thus theoretically capable of knocking out up to 920 advancing enemy tanks ).
There are actually several historical examples of things like this happening when a single Tiger Ace in open terrain were able to knock out 10+ enemy medium tanks in rapid succession and force an enemy advancing medium tank formation up to even battalion size to retreat.
Now tell me again how it would make "very very little difference" because experience from WW2 tells a very very different story.
It's not a disproportional high part of the division stats.
Your not winning over the AI due to armor piercing advantage, your winning over the AI because it's the AI... You could win over it with pretty much any weapon if you know what your doing...
If it's so dumb why did history move in this direction with for example both the German and the US infantry formations being reinforced with TDs like the STUG and the M10 late war? Why was especially the STUG with it's hard armor so loved by the German infantry?
Last edited:
@Alex
A tank-platoon has normaly - even today - 3 to 4 tanks, a company most likely 10-14 tanks. A single platoon will not spread out 4kms without a very very good reason.
The great idea from Heinz Guderian was - and still is actual - to concentrate the power of the tanks as narrow as - tactical usefull - and possible.
A tank-platoon has normaly - even today - 3 to 4 tanks, a company most likely 10-14 tanks. A single platoon will not spread out 4kms without a very very good reason.
The great idea from Heinz Guderian was - and still is actual - to concentrate the power of the tanks as narrow as - tactical usefull - and possible.
I know how they operated ( which is also why I gave the example of calling in a tank company for reinforcements), I am just trying to show that even if they were deployed in the worst possible way to fight and spread out as thin as possible, they could have been quite effective.
Even if they are deployed 3-4 tanks every 3-4000 meters we are still talking similar amount of "few" tanks able to effectively fight and defeat much larger amounts of weaker tanks.
Being outclassed can have a dramatic impact in many tactical situations, and a continuing effect on troop tactics and psychology.
"Another KV-1 managed to install itself in a commanding position dominating an important road and succeeded in cutting off German supplies for several days. Numerous attempts to knock it out failed, during wihich time several 50 mm Paks and an 88 mm were destroyed; despite registering 14 hits, none of the Pak shells penetrated the KV-1. Charges placed on the tracks failed to blow them off. In the end it took a feint attack by no less than 50 Panzers to distract the crew while an 88 was set up to shoot it up from the rear. The 88 pierced the armour with only three of its fifteen registered hits, but finally succeeded in breewing it up." Panzerkrieg, p104 (2002).
"Another KV-1 managed to install itself in a commanding position dominating an important road and succeeded in cutting off German supplies for several days. Numerous attempts to knock it out failed, during wihich time several 50 mm Paks and an 88 mm were destroyed; despite registering 14 hits, none of the Pak shells penetrated the KV-1. Charges placed on the tracks failed to blow them off. In the end it took a feint attack by no less than 50 Panzers to distract the crew while an 88 was set up to shoot it up from the rear. The 88 pierced the armour with only three of its fifteen registered hits, but finally succeeded in breewing it up." Panzerkrieg, p104 (2002).
This shows that you're a bit detached from reality - for so many reasons.
Unobstructed, flat terrain with good visibility for 40 km doesn't happen that often (like - almost never). In fact one of the things noted about the tiger was that it very rarely got to use it's range advantage.
You cant re-deploy several km's within minutes. Try an hour. (Especially using Tigers - if you ask 40 Tigers to go anywhere only 15 of them will make it without breaking down).
The other side has so many medium tanks they can attack everywhere at once so the heavies aren't going anywhere. And then because you have 100% of your heavy tanks right on the front line as soon as a couple are destroyed and the opposing armor floods through the gaps (because you have no reserve armor to counter attack with) the rest of the heavies will be quickly surrounded and destroyed.
Plus your heavy tanks in the open ground, with great visibility and not moving at all (because they're firing all 92 rounds of their ammo non-stop) will be a very tasty treat for arty or CAS.
Because they were more mobile than towed AT guns and the armor stopped the crews getting shot plus allowed them a degree of offensive capability. I don't see your point.
I may be mistaken but as far as I'm aware placing a small handful of STUG's with an entire infantry division didn't cause the Allied infantry divisions to start doing half damage.
Likewise I don't remember reading too much in the history books along the lines of "they were attacked by 2 armored divisions but luckily they had 24 rusty old AT guns and were able to destroy the opposing armor"
One battalion of armor gives too much armor. One battalion of AT gives too much piercing. This is exploitable because the AI is unable to maintain enough/up-to-date AT in it's divisions.
Last edited:
Wait? So you're saying you just wanted to show that if they were deployed in the worst possible way they would still be very effective......
I think the reason they stopped using them like that was because they weren't effective.
A few heavy tanks are not able to effectively fight a larger amount of medium tanks - that's why people moved away from heavy tanks. A larger number of mediums was better in every way.
This is reminding me too much of the French prewar doctrinal wrangling with reasonable proofs based on assumptions that while reasonable and even documentable from past experience did not foresee changed mechanisms and circumstances.
I think a couple years of extensive reading of first person accounts as well as the most detailed battle histories you can find would serve you well in understanding the anatomy of combat on the ground, particularly for the armored troops..
I think a couple years of extensive reading of first person accounts as well as the most detailed battle histories you can find would serve you well in understanding the anatomy of combat on the ground, particularly for the armored troops..
The real trick is how you utilize them. WW2 divisions fought mobile battles in-depth and they didn't bother with AT-guns in areas where the terrain or ground conditions was unsuitable for tanks. They used them where they were needed and moved them if required.
A fully stocked german infantry regiment in 1940 had 12 AT guns (37mm Pak36s nominally).
A division normally consisted of 3 such regiments so 36 guns in total (which, coincidentally is exactly the number of AT guns you get if you build a template with 1 line AT).
If the division was of higher category (and many were) it would also include a AT battalion with an additional 12 guns (no such representation in-game but if you add "support AT" you get 60 guns in total which is 12 more guns than most infantry divisions of the day actually had to fight off armor).
Again it depends on utilization. Properly employed those TDs or SPGs is a threat the enemy cannot ignore and thus becomes the focus for many weapon systems that might otherwise be employed against infantry milling about. While not modeled in most games nor movies it was common practice to fire with every available caliber (including mortars which normally does squat to AFVs) against enemy armor posing a threat. Both to inflict lucky hits, to deter the crews and break morale, to guide other weapon-operators to target but most importantly to separate any infantry operating together with said vehicles in order to isolate them (very successfully employed at Arras for example).
All that said. Any commander, on the offense or defense, will strive to utilize his assets in the most favorable way (assuming he's not incompetent but that's not modeled IAF). This often gives an advantage to the attacker as he can chose when and where to consolidate the effort (something that's not properly modeled in the game IMO). That lack of modeling results in river crossing penalties for units with ART or ARM in them (where in reality those assets wouldn't be used up-front before a bridgehead is established but rather as support, and support rarely hurts performance up-front. Ignoring said battalions for the template calculations until a crossing's been made would've been better under such circumstances IMO).
Armor effects IS however modeled in the generic stats for the divisions where even a few armored vehicles does good even though they're a small part of the division. They don't however provide their full stats (armor values are diminished for the average) just because the number of vehicles aren't enough to properly provide their own cover (ie cannot always present front armor against all possible enemy guns, grenades, rifles, mines etc). A kind of statistical emulation of tactical realities.
The Tiger 1s engines were limited to 38km/h to improve reliability and if the companies are deployed 3km apart (spread evenly along the front as you suggested) moving this distance will take them 4 minutes and 44 seconds. If grouped in such a way this means that 3 companies (9-12 tanks) can be together theoretically within 5 minutes in optimal terrain, or in more realistic conditions, terrain and speed within 10-15 minutes, however in most situations they will be able to provide mutual support and flanking fire way before that even with some obscuring terrain.
All modern tanks have their armor and piercing levels increased from the heavy tanks so I wouldn't say anyone "moved away" from the concept of putting great armor and awesome piercing from big guns, which was the core of the heavy tank.
What nations moved away from after WW2 was producing several different types of tanks since it was not industrially efficient.
All Modern Armor have long barreled high piercing guns of 100-120mm, as heavy armor as possible and weight in at similar weights of what WW2 Heavy Tanks would if not more. ( Compare a M1 Abrams of 60-70 ton or a Leo 2 at 65 ton with a Tiger I at 55 ton for example ).
Many historians argue that the Panther should be classified as a Heavy Tank, or that it was the first prototype of the Main Battle Tank concept ( Powerful gun, Good Armor and Good mobility combined in a single main mass-producable design ). I say it could be considered to be both, and HoI4 agree that main battle tanks can also be unlocked via the Heavy Tank route conceding that they are a merge of the good features of both heavy and medium tanks.
No your right, some infantry squads that are advancing against a company of 3-4 STUGs without having appropriate AT weapons would do zero damage instead of just half, and since the advance is blocked none of the other infantry following them through the same route of advance can do much effective damage either but needs to cover, pull back or get mowed down by the MGs or main guns of the STUGs.
Maybe that's because 24 rustly old AT guns have no chance to come anywhere close to piercing proper armor divisions or tanks, neither in reality nor in HoI4? ( And no your 25 Infantry + 1 TD fantasy formations which are on the edge of what can be pierced by obsolete support AT can't be classified as armor divisions ).
Exactly, which is why the 2:1 advantage provided by Armor (50% dmg reduction) is a fine approximation for the averaged tactical advantages provided by superior armor levels, even if it at extreme situations historically could go upwards to 5:1 or even 10:1 Kill ratios of tanks in reality! ( and in other situations would provide a smaller advantage then the 50% in game ).
Historically the optimal Tank divisions in use would have something like 1 Brigade of Tanks, 2 Brigades of mobile infantry and 1 Brigade of SP support (AA/TD/SPGs). But since the highest armor level in the game isn't important enough, this formation is not really that effective in HoI4, with players in competitive situations making divisions closer to 2-3 Bde Tanks, 1 Bde Mobilize Infantry and 0-1 Bde of Self Proelled support. Your suggestion of making it only depend on averaged values would push us even further towards being forced of massing nothing but tanks in the same division to enjoy the advantage, which is totally unhistorical.
For historical combined arms to work properly Tanks need to be able to provide their armor advantage even in divisions which contain alot of infantry and less armored support.
Last edited:
You're doing the 'perfect world' thing again where you're assuming everything happens at optimal speed and you're ignore many parts of the machine. An attack will involve a push in several places. The troops there need to identify if it's just probing or a full assault. Once they know it's a propper push they need to determine if they can hold without assistance. Once they know they cant they will try and call in support from HQ. Assuming the call gets through it will be arriving at the same time as other calls from other places. HQ needs to draw up a map of whats going on, decide how best to deal with it and work out the appropriate troop movements. They then try and call in those movements to the respective places. Those orders then need to be carried out.
And at any point in that basic list things can go wrong further holding things up. 5 minutes - yeah right.
Still not really getting it. Now you're pitching a squad of men against 4 STUG's. This game is about divisions - 15,000 men.
What are you talking about? My comment was rebutting your assumption that Heavy tanks were awesome because you can just line them up 1km apart and create a wall of death...
Last edited:
When looking at the US 37mm AT gun on wikipedia you've got:
- Every battalion had 4
- Every regiment (3-4 battalions) had another 12
- Each of the artillery battalions (3-4) had 6
- Combat engineers had 9
- Divisional headquaters had 4
- Divisional maintenance company had 2
I'll let you add it all up but it works out to a lot more than 36 (or 60).
If the Germans really only had 48 guns that would explain why allied tank losses after D-Day were pretty low
When looking at the US 37mm AT gun on wikipedia you've got:
- Every battalion had 4
- Every regiment (3-4 battalions) had another 12
- Each of the artillery battalions (3-4) had 6
- Combat engineers had 9
- Divisional headquaters had 4
- Divisional maintenance company had 2
I'll let you add it all up but it works out to a lot more than 36 (or 60).
If the Germans really only had 48 guns that would explain why allied tank losses after D-Day were pretty low
Well that entirely depends on what year you're looking at.
A D-Day US division was a tad different from a 1940 German Infantry one (and the US 37mm is maybe not the perfect example since it didn't see that extensive service). Both US and others AT assets increased with year (and/or calibre with some 18 US 57mm per regiment which was actually a decline in numbers). In any case you can do the same in-game by adding more lines of AT if you so choose.The AT part they got about right IMO (but the line AT measures up to about 3 INF brigades organic numbers instead of an AT battalion so it's a bit backwards with the "support" AT that should be integral not scaling and engineers etc don't require AT guns which is weird since they often had IRL).
Artillery is another matter in number of guns though since a single HOI4 line battalion of ART has the same number of guns as most artillery regiments (a factor of 3-4) which is a bit odd.
Last edited: