Unfortunately there is still so much 'mythology' about wave piercing bows or reverse bows etc. None of which is supported by hydrodynamics and naval architecture.
This type of questions have been posed endless, and the basics of understanding are described
HERE regrading the effects of pitching and
HERE, noting the effects merely adding waterline length, and a more general discussion explaining the overall basics in a simple Q&A
HERE.
Which is also supported bye endless research we have done summarised here too:
We tried endless different types/sizes of bow extensions -
ala wave piercing bow - and you can note the difference in pitch angle and vertical acceleration to the naked hull.
Zip.
These tests were conducted in the large 240m
Haslar tank.
So others like to "think" or "feel" a difference. Great - but it is not supported by any evidence.
However, when you get into the shorted and heavy hulls... is there a difference - yes -, but it is only because you're increasing the waterline length. The increase in viscous damping and changes to the moment of inertia of the waterplane are insufficient on their own, simple maths and analysis of the factors governing the equations of motion clearly support that too. As noted in those old threads, as examples.
Thus, many use them as "fashion" statements of having something "new" or "radical" ..or for some... something "patent-able" as a major breakthrough in resistance/seakeeping.
If you wish to believe the hype... go ahead, that's your prerogative... but it is just adding waterline length which increases the LD ratio whgich lowers resistance and which has the secondary knock on effect of lowering vertical accelerations, as it does
for any hull, with or without a bow extension. Nothing fancy at all...