That is correct, maces and war hammers were pretty much developed to counter heavier armors because the Force from blow still carriers to the enemy body, crashing bones, causing tissue damage, internal bleeding and severe pain.
Maces and War Hammer often had a pointy spikes to “bite” into armor (so it won’t glance) transfering the whole Force of a blow into that one place and cause great damage under armor. Blunt weapons don’t need to pierce armor as Force is always transfered and can cause a lot of damage. Reason why people die in crashes or hitting a ground- their skin is intact but the insides are destroyed, that is caused by kinetic impact. They were also relatively small and weight no more than 1,5-2 kg as they already had a lot more kinetic energy due to being tip-heavy instead of balanced like swords, which have considerably less force behind swings.
Example of such “spikes” on blunt weapons:
So yes, Mace should have armor piercing, same as 1h hammer and 2h hammer. Axes should not have it though if we go by history accuracy as axes were weapons that worked the best on light armored opponents and chainmails as it allowed to hack into opponent and cause massive damage. They were not heavy at all (even Dane Axes have very light and thin blades) as it was about speed and momentum focused on heavy-tip weapon to hack into something or slice a deep wound on unarmored opponent. There were not effective vs plate armors as you can’t cut plate armor at all with any melee weapon or hack into it with axe and since axe need relatively “soft” spot to hack into - the round shapes of plates made it mostly glance off without the necessary “bite” to transfer kinetic energy. Axe blades were many times even thiner than swords to not make them too heavy:
Dane Axe or so called 2h axe (yes, there were no stupidly big 2h axes in history, they would be not possible to wield effectively at all, speed > weight always in real life when it comes to melee weapons):
Hence why war hammers, maces, pole axes were created.
Also as you can see some war hammer and all poleaxes had a long narrow spike at top to pierce through enemy armor gaps or holes in helmet. Very deadly and painful stabs.
Basicelly any blade-based weapon is totally ineffective against plate armor or even chainmail (expect for axes which can with enough force or medium quality chainmail penetrate rings) as you can’t cut reinforced steel (despite what stupid movies and anime shows) and blunt and heavy weapons like war hammer, maces, poleaxes, halberds (blunt side) were very effective at it.
Honored mention are specially designed long daggers with very narrow blades there were used to pierce through plate armor gaps. Blades were narrow enough and double-edge to be able to cut open a chainmail rings below plate armor too. Since Knight had plate armor, chainmail under it, then padded armor and then skin and muscles it was necessary for such blades to be long to actually reach vital points.
Also two-handed swords (though primary developed to fight cavalery) were also effective due to their weight and blunt force (hence why most weren’t even sharpened well). Though it was not their primary role but they defintelly had more “armor penetration” than 1h axe or Dane Axe :).
Despite what movies try to tell- if you are to battle any sort of semi-well equipped enemy forces (chainmails at least with maybe breastplates and helmets) - swords become worst weapon that you can bring. Of course you could do “murderous blow” with sword or use half-swording technique to try to strike gaps but you’d just be better smashing a guy with mace or hammer.