M1A1HA in TOAW3?

[CommC]

Is there a M1A1HA MBT or equivalent in the equipment database? I can't find it, is it in there by another name?

Thanks.

[golden delicious]

What's the difference between this and the standard M1A1 (which is definitely in there)?

[DuckofTindalos]

HA stands for Heavy Armor. The HA model had depleted uranium armour added to parts of the construction, increasing its toughness over regular steel by some 250%.

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Terminus

HA stands for Heavy Armor. The HA model had depleted uranium armour added to parts of the construction, increasing its toughness over regular steel by some 250%.

OK. Well in the database, the only difference between the M1A1 and the M1A2 is improved armour. So you might consider using the M1A2 for the M1A1HA.

[DuckofTindalos]

"Chassis"-wise, the M1A1HA IS the M1A2. The differences are an extra thermal sight and IVIS integration on the A2.

[CommC]

I've tried the M1A2 ... in scenarios it stomps all over Warsaw Pact equipment. I thought it may have been additionally uparmored from the HA version. There is a large difference between the M1A1 and the M1A2 in TOAW and was thinking that the HA version may fall somewhere in between.

Never mind that the HA has been the major tank fielded by the US army for almost 2 decades now, with thousands in service. Very few A2s are in service. I think this tank (HA) should be in the database.

[DuckofTindalos]

Nope... That's why so few new A2's have been built... They can be converted from A1HA's...

[tc237]

Most tanks in service that we consider as M1A1 are actually M1A1HA. I think there was only a small production run of straight M1A1's before production and conversion to M1A1HA began. (don't think I ever served on a non-HA M1A1)
There should be a differance between M1A1 and M1A2SEP in rate of fire and target acquisition. Also (don't know if this is possible) there should be a cordination bonus for Digital units attacking from different hexes.
 

[Heartland]

ORIGINAL: tc237
There should be a differance between M1A1 and M1A2SEP in rate of fire and target acquisition.

A big "in my humble opinion" warning on this post:

Dunno if its just me, but I find this kind of detail to be way out of scope for an operational level game. If there are scenarios with units representing single tanks or something it might have some bearing, otherwise it just clutters up the database...

[:D]

[nemo69]

ORIGINAL: Fredrik Rask

ORIGINAL: tc237
There should be a differance between M1A1 and M1A2SEP in rate of fire and target acquisition.

A big "in my humble opinion" warning on this post:

Dunno if its just me, but I find this kind of detail to be way out of scope for an operational level game. If there are scenarios with units representing single tanks or something it might have some bearing, otherwise it just clutters up the database...

[:D]

Someone buy this man a beer! [;)]

[Telumar]

Here it is! Cheers!

[golden delicious]

ORIGINAL: Fredrik Rask

Dunno if its just me, but I find this kind of detail to be way out of scope for an operational level game. If there are scenarios with units representing single tanks or something it might have some bearing, otherwise it just clutters up the database...

It would depend upon how significant the difference is. I mean, technical details don't generally win wars, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Of course, I'm not bothered about having something like this in the database since we should be able to edit the database soon enough anyway. That's the real point.

[geozero]

Couldn't you just use the A2, and give the unit a few less tanks for play balance?

Databases are fine, but play balance seems to be missing in a lot of scenarios.