Super heavy armour

[klucz13]

Hi fellow HoI fans.

I wanted to start discussion about usefulness of SH armour. From what I gather those are very thick armoured, slow beasts that are hard to kill, but have very little use in offensive due to slowness. If attacking is not where they shine, is it defending? My thinking is that when you encounter heavily fortified position, it probably is easier to encircle it and starve defenders to death rather than assualt frontally. What about defending position that cannot be encircled and have strategic meaning? I can think of Gibraltar, but other than that I cannot see any reason to build those behemots other than pure fun factor or some kind of role-playing.

As a side question - I wonder if somebody will ever tech AA version of SH armour This one might be the only thing in the game that will never be produced by anyone...

 

[kviiri]

I think someone said SH armour will have good bonuses against fortifications (or maybe entrenched position mitigation in general?) but I'm not sure. I guess they'll be better than they historically were, though, because inside roughly 90% of HoI4 players there's the same fascination for heavy guns that made Hitler greenlight Germany's crazy huge tank schemes.

 

[Paglia]

Hi fellow HoI fans.

I wanted to start discussion about usefulness of SH armour. From what I gather those are very thick armoured, slow beasts that are hard to kill, but have very little use in offensive due to slowness. If attacking is not where they shine, is it defending? My thinking is that when you encounter heavily fortified position, it probably is easier to encircle it and starve defenders to death rather than assualt frontally. What about defending position that cannot be encircled and have strategic meaning? I can think of Gibraltar, but other than that I cannot see any reason to build those behemots other than pure fun factor or some kind of role-playing.

As a side question - I wonder if somebody will ever tech AA version of SH armour This one might be the only thing in the game that will never be produced by anyone...

In HoI3, for what I've seen, SHARM were mostly built for defensive purpose... too slow for anything else


... I agree SHARM-AA variants would be a total useless thing... I guess they would be firing huge ammo against planes ?


EDIT: I meant SHARM, not HARM, post edited

 

[JerkyJerry]

Well yes and no IMHO.
In a single player historical mode maybe your points about the SH armour may be more apt to be correct.
However in a multiplayer game spanning decades maybe the SH is an entirely different beast?
The game chosen by the player may have more to do with the significance of the SH armour than the unit itself?

 

[Gort11]

I'm not really sure how worthwhile AA in general will be. I don't think I've played a HoI game or mod where it was worth the IC - either you could just take the enemy bombing on the chin, or you were far better-off building fighters of your own.

 

[kviiri]

In HoI3, for what I've seen, HARM were mostly built for defensive purpose... too slow for anything else


... I agree HARM-AA variants would be a total useless thing... I guess they would be firing huge ammo against planes ?

Or maybe it'd have like 20 normal-sized flak cannons arranged carefully to blanket vast areas of the sky with AA coverage?

 

[Gort11]

Or maybe it'd have like 20 normal-sized flak cannons arranged carefully to blanket vast areas of the sky with AA coverage?

Well, that was the Yamato's solution. Turns out heavier guns are far more effective.

 

[Scutatus]

Hi fellow HoI fans.

I wanted to start discussion about usefulness of SH armour. From what I gather those are very thick armoured, slow beasts that are hard to kill, but have very little use in offensive due to slowness. If attacking is not where they shine, is it defending? My thinking is that when you encounter heavily fortified position, it probably is easier to encircle it and starve defenders to death rather than assualt frontally. What about defending position that cannot be encircled and have strategic meaning? I can think of Gibraltar, but other than that I cannot see any reason to build those behemots other than pure fun factor or some kind of role-playing.

As a side question - I wonder if somebody will ever tech AA version of SH armour This one might be the only thing in the game that will never be produced by anyone...

The inclusion of super heavy tanks in the first place is arguably ahistorical, since in reality the number that ever existed in WWII can be counted on one hand (there were all of two Maus in production for instance, neither of which ever actually entered service). There is a valid argument for taking the superheaviess out of the game altogether, never mind adding variants! So personally, I don't think variants should be encouraged. But that's just me.

 

[Paglia]

I'm not really sure how worthwhile AA in general will be. I don't think I've played a HoI game or mod where it was worth the IC - either you could just take the enemy bombing on the chin, or you were far better-off building fighters of your own.

I remember a MP games where, as Chinese player, I built some to get some attrition against JAP airplanes and it works marvelously (MIL-AA-AA-AA units).

 

[Secret Master]

In HoI3, for what I've seen, HARM were mostly built for defensive purpose... too slow for anything else

No, I don't think so.

SHARM were more often used defensively, but HARM had a offensive purpose. In HOI3, SHARM started out with a speed of 3 kph, making them slower than even infantry. HARM started at 5 kph, making them still faster than foot infantry, although slower than ARM, MOT, and MECH.

HARM's main advantage was concentration of force. For a small amount of width and stacking penalty, you could put a ton of firepower into play (assuming you combined it with proper brigades). Under TFH, HARM's armor value made it difficult to oppose by all but the most dedicated anti-armor forces. It's penetration value combined with higher HA values allowed it eat ARM divisions for breakfast. HARM divisions were excellent for prying open a hole in the line.

For those players with tons of IC to spend and not very much manpower, it was also manpower efficient. You run something like HARM/MECH/TD/TD and roll around laying waste to just about anything else on the ground. The really low softness of such a division meant that INF/ART formations would sit there firing uselessly at the division, while enemy panzers would be ground to a fine powder by the combined TD and HARM firepower.

Their low speed made them less than ideal for exploits, but that's of small comfort when a player can open a gaping whole in the opposing line with a HARM division (supporting perhaps some cheap INF/ART formations) and then pour a bunch of LARM/MOT/AC/AC divisions through the gap.

 

[Paglia]

No, I don't think so.

SHARM were more often used defensively, but HARM had a offensive purpose. In HOI3, SHARM started out with a speed of 3 kph, making them slower than even infantry. HARM started at 5 kph, making them still faster than foot infantry, although slower than ARM, MOT, and MECH.

HARM's main advantage was concentration of force. For a small amount of width and stacking penalty, you could put a ton of firepower into play (assuming you combined it with proper brigades). Under TFH, HARM's armor value made it difficult to oppose by all but the most dedicated anti-armor forces. It's penetration value combined with higher HA values allowed it eat ARM divisions for breakfast. HARM divisions were excellent for prying open a hole in the line.

For those players with tons of IC to spend and not very much manpower, it was also manpower efficient. You run something like HARM/MECH/TD/TD and roll around laying waste to just about anything else on the ground. The really low softness of such a division meant that INF/ART formations would sit there firing uselessly at the division, while enemy panzers would be ground to a fine powder by the combined TD and HARM firepower.

Their low speed made them less than ideal for exploits, but that's of small comfort when a player can open a gaping whole in the opposing line with a HARM division (supporting perhaps some cheap INF/ART formations) and then pour a bunch of LARM/MOT/AC/AC divisions through the gap.

I meant SHARM, not HARM, post edited


I agree with all you said on HARM.

 

[markhomer2002]

I'm gonna build a shit ton of SHAA for stopping nukes, and SHSPG for shelling the shit out of level 10 fort level 10 AA super citys.

 

[svennnnnnnnnnnn]

The inclusion of super heavy tanks in the first place is arguably ahistorical, since in reality the number that ever existed in WWII can be counted on one hand (there were all of two Maus in production for instance, neither of which ever actually entered service). There is a valid argument for taking the superheaviess out of the game altogether, never mind adding variants! So personally, I don't think variants should be encouraged. But that's just me.

I agree that it is ahistorical, but I think it kinda makes sense to include them. Most of the tanks of the war were designed with either the Eastern front, France (1939-1940) or Africa in mind, all of which place large emphasis on mobile warfare and encirclement, making medium and light tanks the most viable. If France had not fallen and a ww1-like situation had developed, I think heavy tanks and even superheavy tanks could have been more important since breakthrough becomes the critical part of the offensive. Thus it kinda makes sense to include a direction that tanks could have taken. If every battle became Kursk, why build light tanks that got destroyed from 3 km away?

 

[Scutatus]

I agree that it is ahistorical, but I think it kinda makes sense to include them. Most of the tanks of the war were designed with either the Eastern front, France (1939-1940) or Africa in mind, all of which place large emphasis on mobile warfare and encirclement, making medium and light tanks the most viable. If France had not fallen and a ww1-like situation had developed, I think heavy tanks and even superheavy tanks could have been more important since breakthrough becomes the critical part of the offensive. Thus it kinda makes sense to include a direction that tanks could have taken. If every battle became Kursk, why build light tanks that got destroyed from 3 km away?

I can kind of see your point of view. The British Churchill Infantry tank (and it's predecessors) were designed with trench warfare in mind, before it was fully realised WWII was to be so very different. And yet the Churchills certainly proved their worth, even in WWII as it was. If WWII had been WWI the replay, as expected, one can only imagine how the Churchill could have dominated (at least at first).

 

[Alex_brunius]

As a side question - I wonder if somebody will ever tech AA version of SH armour This one might be the only thing in the game that will never be produced by anyone...

I found someone that put a twin 88mm Flak gun on a Maus model turret. That gotta count as SH-AA

 

[Klausewitz]

I agree that it is ahistorical, but I think it kinda makes sense to include them. Most of the tanks of the war were designed with either the Eastern front, France (1939-1940) or Africa in mind, all of which place large emphasis on mobile warfare and encirclement, making medium and light tanks the most viable. If France had not fallen and a ww1-like situation had developed, I think heavy tanks and even superheavy tanks could have been more important since breakthrough becomes the critical part of the offensive. Thus it kinda makes sense to include a direction that tanks could have taken. If every battle became Kursk, why build light tanks that got destroyed from 3 km away?

Only in WW2 WW1-like situations could no longer develop.
It was already a huge problem how to keep the artillery from slaughtering all the infantry until it has properly dug in back then, but it is even worse in WW2.
There the only way something like that could develop would be areas of pre-planned fortifications as massive as the Maginot Line (the bunkers France had sprinkled over the border areas would insufficient) but those would be vulnerable to direct fire from bunker flak, storm troop tactics and airpower.
Yes, SHARM could be useful for a battle in the maginot line (though i have doubts whether it would be able to stay mobile enough while also being as heavily armed and armored as necessary) but if it is not already deployed there airpower and infantry+artillery will most likely already have done the work before it can be designed, produced & deployed.
And that completly ignores the possibilities of encirclement or indirect approaches to the problem.

 

[jtm-0]

It sounds like SHARM would be great for defending large ports from amphibious invasions?

 

[vector1]

Historically SHARM and indeed most tanks performed far worse in urban conditions against infantry than on open plains so I don't quite think that'll be the best usage. Furthermore in HOI4 we've already seen how hard it is to amphibious land against even untrained infantry, so I think having SHARM with a much higher cost than infantry doesn't seem quite effective.

 

[JerkyJerry]

I'm gonna build a shit ton of SHAA for stopping nukes, and SHSPG for shelling the shit out of level 10 fort level 10 AA super citys.

I just like cussin!

 

[Mannstien]

At that speed it's a defensive weapon or a siege weapon, nothing else. But honestly for the cost I'd rather just have HARM no matter what nation so that way I can build my SHBB's