Yeah, it's definitely an improvement! Now, it still pays to have _some_ armor or _some_ piercing. Before, if you had some piercing but just barely not enough, it didn't matter at all (and you just wasted a lot of resources, essentially). I mean, I never struggled against the AI having decent armor divisions that I couldn't pierce. But now you at least also won't have to worry about checking how much armor the AI is stacking on its divisions - so less micro/self-reminding.
Hey, can you explain paradrop changes? Now I'm confused if 50 transport planes are needed to drop 1 division, but of what weight/width? Can I drop 50 width para division by 50 transport planes and is it same as I'd drop 1 division with 2 with?
I think it depends on the weight of the division. Also notice that transport planes are very cheap to make now, so their default airwing size is also 100 like any other planes. I think 1 plane used to represent an entire wing for transport planes, now you need a 100 for the same job.
@@javierperalta7648 I had an issue where I was trying to drop like 14 10w divs and with 100 planes and only like 8 would drop and the rest would just sit there
A super fun thing I found is the new Spirit of Air Force Command: "Airborne Heroes." +50% effectiveness of Aces Not amazing for the aces with a 5% agility bonus, but the better ones go from 15% agility to 22%. Might be better than Centralized Control Furthermore, for this meta, the fighter aces get a buff to air attack. My best ace went from +10% air attack to +15% air attack!
Those changes just lean players even more to build "glass cannon" tanks. I was already doing that. Take base tank chassis, put a bit armor on for breakthrough/being unpiercable for infantry w/o AT and slap the best gun on it. And keep the speed around 8km/h. It will cost from 10-15IC depends on how many machine guns and the advancement of radio I put. And the tank is working mighty fine. Combine with running not 42 width, but 30width templates I am able to produce much more tank divisions that are still good at what they are doing.
Exactly. Welded armor should add at least 25% extra armor and maybe 5-10% extra breakthrough, while sloped armor should also add an extra 20% armor and no extra cost, but reduced breakthrough (-5 or so %) to make them relevant, but this way there is just no reason to use them. And riveted tanks IRL were deathtraps.
depends what you use your tanks for , if your using them to encircle then yes , if general purpose frontline tank then depends , infantry support tank? nope
The way to get armor in your tanks is to use another battalion type (spaa, spg, td) and put armor on that single battalion. That way, your whole division gets armor for a minimal cost.
@@bencom01 exactly, riveted armour should add so many maluses, like taking more casualties, you'd be inclined to change it to something better as soon as you can, riveted is also heavier for less protection value.
So basically, you should either go all or nothing by making mediums or heavies with maxed armor (sloped, cast, etc), or not even bother with armor and drop the IC cost of the tanks in half
I think a lot of base piercing values are pretty reasonable, only thing PD might want to look at is tech modifiers. If anything, dedicated AT guns might be slightly too high once you get to 1942. The 40-50% boost from techs give AT1 105 piercing which means that just 1 support company is already enough to counter a lot of medium and all light division. The 1943 AT guns are reasonable, but the modifiers make the early AT and TDs too good against 1943 tanks. (unless you spending a fortune on armor). Infantry AT upgrades could also probably be dropped to 50-60% per tech, or maybe just drop EQ3 down to 7 or 8 piercing, but fully equipping an army with EQ 3 takes time, so I'm not sure it's that important.
@@SuperThest the AT gun tech gain is admitedly high but from a single player perspective hardly any nations build AT guns in any number worth worrying and aside from Germany no nation is going to field a sizable number of tank divisions with more than 20 armour. In fact most divisions will sit around 10-15 armour between 1940-1945 when most of the fighting happens. Because of this most ai nations divisions are easily pierced with either AA or a tank battalion with anything better than a machine gun
If it's WW1, I'd great recommend watching The Seminal Tragedy by Extra Credits here on RUclips. ruclips.net/p/PLjLK2cYtt-VAqq6ZhlaLy0BVcEm5IfgTb I'd also recommend The Great War, but not if your deadline is so soon - that'll just be another procrastination hole 😂
@@MrNicoJac I appreciate the suggestions but this is a research paper on ww1 naval history. Also I already have sources I just haven’t written anything down yet
@@AlteryxGaming Ah, cool ^^ Good luck then! (if it helps, you can start here by discussing the subtopic/research question - maybe that'll jumpstart your writing muscle, since it's a more casual format?🤔)
I had 6/4 medium/mecha divisions where the tanks had 135 armor each, and the division still got 100% pierced by enemy divisions with a single support AT (giving them 74 piercing) so at that point I just dropped welded and sloped armor, making my tanks cost 15ic each instead of 20+, retaning the breakthrough but dropping the armor to 100, and they worked just as fine. Thing is: they shouldn't.
What was the average armor of the division? I had the same problem but the issue was that the mechs lowered the average armor + I had old tanks in the division that didn't get replaced.
@@RenzoVV98 I don't know off the top of my head, but it was very close, maybe 72 or something. I had mech II-s and advanced tanks, all upgraded. Although I also notice a lot of times that my division's armor is 0 (or below 10) when they are low on fuel/supplies, or crossing a river, etc, and that doesn't help either.
@@RenzoVV98 For armor its the division average, for piercing its a weighed average, thus piercing is always easier and cheaper to add, especially since how high the piercing stats are for the AT, heck even for the AA, and the later tank cannons are pure ridiculousness. I get that, what I don't get is why it drops to zero in some cases. I can only theorize about it having something to do with river crossings or supply.
What that also means is that heavy tanks are now even worse, because the only reason you'd make them was to get unpierceable tanks to get the bonus damage, but now it's basically impossible if you know how to make a tank to ocunter that.
But the video shows that you get the damage bonus as long as they don't have more piercing than your armor so it is still very possible to get the damage bonus, you'll just be taking more damage than before if they have more than 50% of your armor as piercing
@@zoroasper9759 that was the whole point, producing massively more expensive tanks in exchange for those bonuses, now it's better to produce way more medium tanks than focusing on heavy tanks
It was always better to focus on medium tanks anyways. Once you dilute the armor stats down with the motorized infantry you need for the organization, there was no difference anyways. As in, the same tier of AT guns could penetrate both mediums and heavies. So as soon as the AI got that tech and started making it, your heavies were no better than mediums anyways. (worse actually, due to speed and costs)
@@MrNicoJac well, I'm not talking about solo, I'm talking mostly about MP. Also, if you use heavy tanks, you have to use mech, not mot, because that's destroying your armor and hardness. Playing heavy tanks with mot is borderline griefing lmao
I only found your channel yesterday and you're a godsend. Trying to figure this game out when coming back to it after what was worth a 5 DLC long break used to be such a headache. Will you consider uploading full VODs? For your twitch streams that is. I would really love to watch them later at my own pace, especially since I live in a totally different timezone.
Paradox fucked this up so bad. The whole reason people wanted a partial piercing mechanic was back when AT was kinda mid well before no step back. Since then AT has gotten buffed, and the IC cost of armour has been hard nerfed. Really out of touch mechanic.
Looking forward to a new guide on Japan. The fight in China seems to be slightly harder now (or maybe I was just a bit rusty when I played). I did 2 collab governments on them as I usually do but i'm sure i had to take more land from them than pre bba. Also, with the new peace mechanics i am wondering if its viable to puppet most of china and do war reparations to super charge your civilian industry instead of simply annexing it.
Every infantry division even from 1936 or earlier should atleast a couple bundles of (anti-tank) grenades and anti-tank rifles like the germans had and soviets had. This way you cannot go around with class cannons anymore and face no penalty.
In my opinion this partial piercing mechnic work as opposite of reality. To pierce a tank should be needed at least the armor penetration. when the bullet hit a tank armor with some degree of angle inclination a ricochet should be expected, so normally to penetrate a 100 ARM should be needed a 130 PIE or something like this in order to simulate that the shots not always hit armor with a perpendicular angle...the only way to make this system more realistic is to make a random partial penetration in order to simulate that sometimes the bullet could hit a tank weakspot where a lower PIE is enough to pierce the tank
random is already in calculation is system no single tank. Bradley can penetrey t90 from site. 100m is do not matter what tank vs other tank you use. So pls do not think in tank vs tank. is no warthunder is not realistic.
Didnt really feel like tanks needed to be worse. 10 widths still completely outmatch them. biggest reason tanks are still used is because 10w are banned
This makes tanks viable or just a luxury tool for fun? And I think minor nations may find a bit difficulty to make unpierced armors. Just my opinion. Good job at explanation as always. ^^
It is nearly impossible to make unpiercable tanks but they can be viable for their high breakthrough regardless. I like them but if I can't afford to make them, I can achieve pretty much the same with good infantry divisions.
Tanks are specialised weapons and depending on your division template and tank template, you might have tanks for breakthrough or huge defensive stats. At the end of the day tanks are unnecessary in singleplayer and mostly just a fun addition, in MP its pretty much essential for the majors to have some form of tanks.
From this video it seems that unless the enemy as more piercing then you have armor you are going to get a damage reduction bonus and a damage bonus, which means that tanks are still absolutely viable.
My guess is it's gonna buff adding some armor to infantry divisions at an earlier date, if you can afford any of it. Even if you throw in a single battalion of janky WWI light tanks and get partially pierced in 1939 you're getting a bonus to your damage. Maybe I'm missing something tho, will have to be tested.
@@pubcollize No, AT piercing got buffed a ton, while tanks are relatively expensive. It's much easier and cheaper to add piercing to your divisions than it is to add armor. Even the AI does it now. But since hard attack is harder to come by than soft attack, proper armor divisions (with high hardness) can be still viable.
I'm somewhat sad paradox made the combat so complex. It makes it so hard to make strategic decisions. Things like the attack and defence are divided by 10 and rounded stochastically, or strength damage debuffs only come into effect after the battle ends. I get its probably for performance reasons but it makes things convoluted. There are also too many modifiers lol.
Armored divisions are all about mobility, firepower and breakthrough, and no longer need any armor at all, not even heavy tanks! It was always difficult to beat even "support AT" with armor, but this adjustment is too much!
So you need to build heavy 2s to get a half decent armor, SHBBs will be like borderline unbeatable with air superiority and a mix of good torpedo dds and uparmored light attack cruisers? My early game research is pretty heavily compromised at that point. Too many things to rush and put into production ahead of time and an insane amount of refitting to keep templates relevant
SHBBS are pretty bad. They are so slow and expensive that they die pretty quickly without doing enough damage. Heavy cruisers will still be the fighting meta.
My meta build was too add one cheap tank to my infantry divisions to give them enough armor not to be killed too bad. Is that meta still viable? When does this change to piercing happen?
This piercing change is already in the game. 1 Tank in infantry is still viable. Space Marines are great. I love them. It might even be better now since cheaper, less armored tanks can still deal that extra damage. If you are looking at the damage reduction stat, its still better as piercing no longer instantly invalidates all your armor just because enemy has 1 more piercing than you have armor. Viva la Space Marines
@@xenosfur you misunderstood it actually, you still can fully pierce enemy tank if you have 1 more piercing than their armor, but now, even piercing that is a half of enemy armor will still reduce the effect of armor. So basically it's a nerf to tanks in general and space marines in particular
For me almost always also not so expensive if you have large unit. Main questionis how big armor you need to get bonus for damage. Full armor cost around 720inc in single player. Combat width is not impotent main issue is logistic.
Seems like a good idea that is poorly implemented. Just multiply damage dealt to a target with (Attacker's Piercing/Defender's Armor), clamped between 0 % and 100 % (Of course this means every weapon should get at least some nominal piercing). If you also want to include bonus damage then also have it be something continuous instead of arbitrary breaking points.
"New" supply mechanic fucked up speedy divisions because you cant' maintain speed in enemy territory.. This new armor /AP mechanic also fucks up armor because you can't make un-penetrable divisions without ridiculous industry. So, what's the point of tanks if you can't outmaneuver or withstand enemy guns? I think partial penetration is a good idea but implementation is a failure.
@@gabe75001 I feel like I will mostly be using them for meme speedy light tanks where I can just navel invade with a two with and take Berlin and scorch earth since axis always forgets to take the one danish island in the Baltic. It is still better to have the last slot used for auto loader or stabilizer just because stats
Partial Piercing?!? I went on a roller coaster of emotions on this one. I think it is a good change after watching your video. thank you.
it makes high armour tanks already more useless then they already are. though i guess the nerf to AT is a means to counter that i don't know
Yeah, it's definitely an improvement!
Now, it still pays to have _some_ armor or _some_ piercing.
Before, if you had some piercing but just barely not enough, it didn't matter at all (and you just wasted a lot of resources, essentially).
I mean, I never struggled against the AI having decent armor divisions that I couldn't pierce.
But now you at least also won't have to worry about checking how much armor the AI is stacking on its divisions - so less micro/self-reminding.
Love your channel. It helps me to understand hoi4 so much more😍
i've been a LARPy little naval goblin recently so i'm really glad they've put some proper effort into making my balanced designs a little better lol
What's a good naval build now?
Hey, can you explain paradrop changes? Now I'm confused if 50 transport planes are needed to drop 1 division, but of what weight/width? Can I drop 50 width para division by 50 transport planes and is it same as I'd drop 1 division with 2 with?
YES. PLS ANSWER THIS.
Commenting for him to notice and make a video, have same issue
I think it depends on the weight of the division. Also notice that transport planes are very cheap to make now, so their default airwing size is also 100 like any other planes. I think 1 plane used to represent an entire wing for transport planes, now you need a 100 for the same job.
Dunno but I dropped 5 20 wd Airborne divisions with just 100 transport planes
@@javierperalta7648 I had an issue where I was trying to drop like 14 10w divs and with 100 planes and only like 8 would drop and the rest would just sit there
The Pope's super heavy tanks shall now show everyone how it's done.
If you do the roman empire with no pope, you can have bonus for super heavy battleship too 😂
A super fun thing I found is the new Spirit of Air Force Command: "Airborne Heroes."
+50% effectiveness of Aces
Not amazing for the aces with a 5% agility bonus, but the better ones go from 15% agility to 22%. Might be better than Centralized Control
Furthermore, for this meta, the fighter aces get a buff to air attack. My best ace went from +10% air attack to +15% air attack!
Airborne Heroes will likely be the meta spirit going forward. The 10% mission efficiency only really matters if you don't have 100% to start with.
I use it as well. In single player aces tend to surrvive most of the time, so they are getting promoted. that 50% buff is good in opinion
Those changes just lean players even more to build "glass cannon" tanks. I was already doing that. Take base tank chassis, put a bit armor on for breakthrough/being unpiercable for infantry w/o AT and slap the best gun on it. And keep the speed around 8km/h. It will cost from 10-15IC depends on how many machine guns and the advancement of radio I put. And the tank is working mighty fine. Combine with running not 42 width, but 30width templates I am able to produce much more tank divisions that are still good at what they are doing.
Exactly. Welded armor should add at least 25% extra armor and maybe 5-10% extra breakthrough, while sloped armor should also add an extra 20% armor and no extra cost, but reduced breakthrough (-5 or so %) to make them relevant, but this way there is just no reason to use them. And riveted tanks IRL were deathtraps.
depends what you use your tanks for , if your using them to encircle then yes , if general purpose frontline tank then depends , infantry support tank? nope
The way to get armor in your tanks is to use another battalion type (spaa, spg, td) and put armor on that single battalion. That way, your whole division gets armor for a minimal cost.
@@bencom01 exactly, riveted armour should add so many maluses, like taking more casualties, you'd be inclined to change it to something better as soon as you can, riveted is also heavier for less protection value.
@@mimile4462 not really, since armor is averaged over your whole division
So basically, you should either go all or nothing by making mediums or heavies with maxed armor (sloped, cast, etc), or not even bother with armor and drop the IC cost of the tanks in half
If they have partial piercing they should also now reduce piercing for everything that's not an AT gun to make their role more needed against ai
I think a lot of base piercing values are pretty reasonable, only thing PD might want to look at is tech modifiers. If anything, dedicated AT guns might be slightly too high once you get to 1942. The 40-50% boost from techs give AT1 105 piercing which means that just 1 support company is already enough to counter a lot of medium and all light division. The 1943 AT guns are reasonable, but the modifiers make the early AT and TDs too good against 1943 tanks. (unless you spending a fortune on armor).
Infantry AT upgrades could also probably be dropped to 50-60% per tech, or maybe just drop EQ3 down to 7 or 8 piercing, but fully equipping an army with EQ 3 takes time, so I'm not sure it's that important.
@@SuperThest the AT gun tech gain is admitedly high but from a single player perspective hardly any nations build AT guns in any number worth worrying and aside from Germany no nation is going to field a sizable number of tank divisions with more than 20 armour. In fact most divisions will sit around 10-15 armour between 1940-1945 when most of the fighting happens.
Because of this most ai nations divisions are easily pierced with either AA or a tank battalion with anything better than a machine gun
“We’ll get to it at some point. When? I dunno, I’m procrastinating!”
Sounds like me with my WWI history paper draft due today…
WAIT
If it's WW1, I'd great recommend watching The Seminal Tragedy by Extra Credits here on RUclips.
ruclips.net/p/PLjLK2cYtt-VAqq6ZhlaLy0BVcEm5IfgTb
I'd also recommend The Great War, but not if your deadline is so soon - that'll just be another procrastination hole 😂
@@MrNicoJac I appreciate the suggestions but this is a research paper on ww1 naval history. Also I already have sources I just haven’t written anything down yet
@@AlteryxGaming
Ah, cool ^^
Good luck then!
(if it helps, you can start here by discussing the subtopic/research question - maybe that'll jumpstart your writing muscle, since it's a more casual format?🤔)
@@MrNicoJac Good news: I finished it on time and got 95% credit!
@@AlteryxGaming
Holy crap that's a high grade...!
Congrats man ^^
I had 6/4 medium/mecha divisions where the tanks had 135 armor each, and the division still got 100% pierced by enemy divisions with a single support AT (giving them 74 piercing) so at that point I just dropped welded and sloped armor, making my tanks cost 15ic each instead of 20+, retaning the breakthrough but dropping the armor to 100, and they worked just as fine. Thing is: they shouldn't.
What was the average armor of the division? I had the same problem but the issue was that the mechs lowered the average armor + I had old tanks in the division that didn't get replaced.
@@RenzoVV98 I don't know off the top of my head, but it was very close, maybe 72 or something. I had mech II-s and advanced tanks, all upgraded. Although I also notice a lot of times that my division's armor is 0 (or below 10) when they are low on fuel/supplies, or crossing a river, etc, and that doesn't help either.
@@bencom01 Yeah I think the calculations use the division average so that's why they still do 100% damage.
@@RenzoVV98 For armor its the division average, for piercing its a weighed average, thus piercing is always easier and cheaper to add, especially since how high the piercing stats are for the AT, heck even for the AA, and the later tank cannons are pure ridiculousness. I get that, what I don't get is why it drops to zero in some cases. I can only theorize about it having something to do with river crossings or supply.
What that also means is that heavy tanks are now even worse, because the only reason you'd make them was to get unpierceable tanks to get the bonus damage, but now it's basically impossible if you know how to make a tank to ocunter that.
dosen´t this buff light tanks
But the video shows that you get the damage bonus as long as they don't have more piercing than your armor so it is still very possible to get the damage bonus, you'll just be taking more damage than before if they have more than 50% of your armor as piercing
@@zoroasper9759 that was the whole point, producing massively more expensive tanks in exchange for those bonuses, now it's better to produce way more medium tanks than focusing on heavy tanks
It was always better to focus on medium tanks anyways.
Once you dilute the armor stats down with the motorized infantry you need for the organization, there was no difference anyways.
As in, the same tier of AT guns could penetrate both mediums and heavies. So as soon as the AI got that tech and started making it, your heavies were no better than mediums anyways.
(worse actually, due to speed and costs)
@@MrNicoJac well, I'm not talking about solo, I'm talking mostly about MP.
Also, if you use heavy tanks, you have to use mech, not mot, because that's destroying your armor and hardness. Playing heavy tanks with mot is borderline griefing lmao
this is a very cool and more dynamic change
This basically buffs anti air support company
yeah and since it probably will lead to building tanks with low amout of armor having support AA + one lane AA might do wonders vs tanks
I only found your channel yesterday and you're a godsend. Trying to figure this game out when coming back to it after what was worth a 5 DLC long break used to be such a headache. Will you consider uploading full VODs? For your twitch streams that is. I would really love to watch them later at my own pace, especially since I live in a totally different timezone.
Paradox fucked this up so bad. The whole reason people wanted a partial piercing mechanic was back when AT was kinda mid well before no step back. Since then AT has gotten buffed, and the IC cost of armour has been hard nerfed. Really out of touch mechanic.
What are the armour losses though, that's my question. The mid-long term effectiveness would depend on that
Looking forward to a new guide on Japan. The fight in China seems to be slightly harder now (or maybe I was just a bit rusty when I played). I did 2 collab governments on them as I usually do but i'm sure i had to take more land from them than pre bba.
Also, with the new peace mechanics i am wondering if its viable to puppet most of china and do war reparations to super charge your civilian industry instead of simply annexing it.
Every infantry division even from 1936 or earlier should atleast a couple bundles of (anti-tank) grenades and anti-tank rifles like the germans had and soviets had. This way you cannot go around with class cannons anymore and face no penalty.
That's represent by the small amount of piercing guns 1 gives and the increased piercing infantry get from some of the techs.
In my opinion this partial piercing mechnic work as opposite of reality. To pierce a tank should be needed at least the armor penetration. when the bullet hit a tank armor with some degree of angle inclination a ricochet should be expected, so normally to penetrate a 100 ARM should be needed a 130 PIE or something like this in order to simulate that the shots not always hit armor with a perpendicular angle...the only way to make this system more realistic is to make a random partial penetration in order to simulate that sometimes the bullet could hit a tank weakspot where a lower PIE is enough to pierce the tank
random is already in calculation is system no single tank.
Bradley can penetrey t90 from site.
100m is do not matter what tank vs other tank you use.
So pls do not think in tank vs tank.
is no warthunder is not realistic.
Pdx want to say do not use light tanks for encirclement divisions
Didnt really feel like tanks needed to be worse. 10 widths still completely outmatch them. biggest reason tanks are still used is because 10w are banned
Please make best way to deal with resistance after Blood Alone
This makes tanks viable or just a luxury tool for fun? And I think minor nations may find a bit difficulty to make unpierced armors. Just my opinion. Good job at explanation as always. ^^
It is nearly impossible to make unpiercable tanks but they can be viable for their high breakthrough regardless. I like them but if I can't afford to make them, I can achieve pretty much the same with good infantry divisions.
Tanks are specialised weapons and depending on your division template and tank template, you might have tanks for breakthrough or huge defensive stats.
At the end of the day tanks are unnecessary in singleplayer and mostly just a fun addition, in MP its pretty much essential for the majors to have some form of tanks.
From this video it seems that unless the enemy as more piercing then you have armor you are going to get a damage reduction bonus and a damage bonus, which means that tanks are still absolutely viable.
My guess is it's gonna buff adding some armor to infantry divisions at an earlier date, if you can afford any of it. Even if you throw in a single battalion of janky WWI light tanks and get partially pierced in 1939 you're getting a bonus to your damage.
Maybe I'm missing something tho, will have to be tested.
@@pubcollize No, AT piercing got buffed a ton, while tanks are relatively expensive. It's much easier and cheaper to add piercing to your divisions than it is to add armor. Even the AI does it now. But since hard attack is harder to come by than soft attack, proper armor divisions (with high hardness) can be still viable.
I'm somewhat sad paradox made the combat so complex. It makes it so hard to make strategic decisions.
Things like the attack and defence are divided by 10 and rounded stochastically, or strength damage debuffs only come into effect after the battle ends. I get its probably for performance reasons but it makes things convoluted.
There are also too many modifiers lol.
Armored divisions are all about mobility, firepower and breakthrough, and no longer need any armor at all, not even heavy tanks!
It was always difficult to beat even "support AT" with armor, but this adjustment is too much!
So you need to build heavy 2s to get a half decent armor, SHBBs will be like borderline unbeatable with air superiority and a mix of good torpedo dds and uparmored light attack cruisers?
My early game research is pretty heavily compromised at that point. Too many things to rush and put into production ahead of time and an insane amount of refitting to keep templates relevant
SHBBS are pretty bad. They are so slow and expensive that they die pretty quickly without doing enough damage. Heavy cruisers will still be the fighting meta.
My meta build was too add one cheap tank to my infantry divisions to give them enough armor not to be killed too bad. Is that meta still viable? When does this change to piercing happen?
This piercing change is already in the game.
1 Tank in infantry is still viable. Space Marines are great. I love them. It might even be better now since cheaper, less armored tanks can still deal that extra damage. If you are looking at the damage reduction stat, its still better as piercing no longer instantly invalidates all your armor just because enemy has 1 more piercing than you have armor. Viva la Space Marines
@@xenosfur you misunderstood it actually, you still can fully pierce enemy tank if you have 1 more piercing than their armor, but now, even piercing that is a half of enemy armor will still reduce the effect of armor. So basically it's a nerf to tanks in general and space marines in particular
@@s4le Ah shit, I misunderstood. thanks for clarifying.
What do you think these changes will mean for heavy tanks ?
death
No difference.
As in, heavies were already not worth it.
(in SP against the AI, at least - no idea for MP)
@@MrNicoJac in mp vanilla it’s even worse to do heavy tonk instead of medium tonk simply due to the fact you will have so many divisions
So Space Marine divisions are dead?
Wish there was a way to disable tactics so you could test these in a way that didn't have to deal with tactical randomness.
So... Armor is worthless now?
For me almost always also not so expensive if you have large unit.
Main questionis how big armor you need to get bonus for damage.
Full armor cost around 720inc in single player.
Combat width is not impotent main issue is logistic.
Seems like a good idea that is poorly implemented.
Just multiply damage dealt to a target with (Attacker's Piercing/Defender's Armor), clamped between 0 % and 100 % (Of course this means every weapon should get at least some nominal piercing). If you also want to include bonus damage then also have it be something continuous instead of arbitrary breaking points.
"New" supply mechanic fucked up speedy divisions because you cant' maintain speed in enemy territory..
This new armor /AP mechanic also fucks up armor because you can't make un-penetrable divisions without ridiculous industry.
So, what's the point of tanks if you can't outmaneuver or withstand enemy guns?
I think partial penetration is a good idea but implementation is a failure.
Try adding fuel drums to your tanks so you can go for those big encirclements
@@gabe75001 I feel like I will mostly be using them for meme speedy light tanks where I can just navel invade with a two with and take Berlin and scorch earth since axis always forgets to take the one danish island in the Baltic. It is still better to have the last slot used for auto loader or stabilizer just because stats
man i wish pdx fixed their shit
Are they going to ruin my current game again ? They're spamming updates like russians spam BS. Put a cork in it !
Tanks were already all but obsolete unless playing multiplayer with mods, this is an odd change