"Team Yankee Playtests?" Topic

So, has anyone done any TY playtesting, with the cards and stats, as listed?

If so, just curious about how it went.

Granted, not all the rules, and things like artillery, airpower, etc. are available yet, but I suppose it should be possible for those familiar with FOW to get a feel for how things may look, when the full rules are released, at least for tank on tank, and tank/ifv combined arms actions.

I need to pull some microarmor out, and give the tank and IFV/APC stats a quick run through.

Is there enough so far to even play a small game?

Grunts too plus PCs.

Yea, plus those IFVs/APCs for targets.

Can probably work out the TOW stats from that provided for the Sagger, for the M-150s, and/or M-901s without too much difficulty.

Not sure on the ROF issue for tank guns vs. ATGMs.

Say, perhaps a ROF of one for missiles, and 2 for each tank gun?

Does FOW in WWII permit that, or is it one shot per turn for all vehicles?

Been a while since I've played, so can't recall.

Caught up with some old playtester mates who still work with BF today at MOAB in Sydney. They were very good at honoring their NDAs with everyone who was asking.

But you certainly heard their enthusiasm for the game from them.

Saw Sparker too, but he was in the zone playing Bolt Action so I didn't disturb him. Sorry Sparks, should have said hello but had to get back to the kids.

Looking at the cards again, I do see differentiations for guns vs. missiles, as far as rate of fire goes.

I just downloaded the WWII QRS from BF, and it appears that the stats for hitting the vehicles/troops is derived from their national/training skill (always subjective, of course), which explains why the M113 is a 4+ To-Hit, and the BMPs are 3+ To-Hit (not sure I agree with that, but that's the rationale, I suspect). No doubt, many, many hours will be spent arguing about that.

Anyway, will look over the QRS and Cards to refresh my memory a bit on how the WWII rules work, and will see how these plug in to that. Looks like it's just fine, with obviously a few special rules for Chobham armor vs. HEAT, Stabilization, firing ATGMs at long ranges (no penalty for that), etc., etc..

So, looks like some tank on tank, and/or IFV games can be played out now.

The one thing I've noted is that there are two completely different movement scales, apparently, for the individual movement cards for the vehicles, vs. those for the platoons/companies. The individual vehicle cards show some very fast, speeds. Those for the platoons/companies are a lot lower, being in the 8" – 12" range (makes me wonder if those are for smaller miniatures scales, or perhaps some sort of incremental movement, since the individual ones are about 2.5 – 3x those of the larger units).

Would be interested in hearing thoughts about that.

Oh, also appears that there's some major range scale compression too, since a .50 cal MG can shoot 20" (16" for the 7.62mm MG). Assuming that 20" equals perhaps 1,000 yds. the ATGM and Tank Gun ranges are pretty short, relative to the MGs, and rifles, e.g. 8" – 12" for AKs and M-16s, respectively, 32" for a Soviet 125mm gun, 40" for the American 105mm gun, and 28" for the Dragon, 44" for a Sagger, and 48" for the Spandrel.

That will take some getting used to, no doubt.

Then again, perhaps I'm misinterpreting the range values on the cards, and those listed are only for "effective" range, and their maximum ranges are longer (I doubt that, given the average size of a playing table, but that could be the case).

The ranges are still a gripe for me, they play into the cliche that soviet kit was rubbish.

I will say that the biggest difference between this and ww2 will be air and helo assets. Without those rules your only playing part of the game.

I also think the At ratings need to be relatively higher. Everyone I speak to who already plays moderns will tell you that most of the time one hit = 1 kill. The hard part, they say, is acquiring targets.It's all about getting the first shot.

By the way there is a fully fleshed out, unofficial, FoW game with loads of army lists etc.

stoppingtheredtide.blogspot.com

Mako, there is a unit card for platoons within each force, and a seperate unit card for the HQ element of your force. The vehicle cards for these troops are also seperate, hence the two different movement distances.

Ranges have always been compressed and often weird in FoW, but you get used to it.

Chatting with the lads, seems the design approach for the new game engine was around streamlining 3rd edition, and adding the new air/helo rules.

I've known these guys for more than a decade, and they were being very good about not giving away many details. I can be a very cynical chap, but I came away from the conversation feeling a lot more positive about Team Yankee than I did going in. Also came away deciding to cut BF more slack about the choice and breadth of the model range, but still think they should have led with the T80 for the Soviets.

I remember the feeling back after 1st ed FoW came out and the anticipation I had with the first army lists they released. Hitler's Fire Brigade, Diving Eagles and especially Desert Rats – was a great time when it all felt very fresh and new. I got burned out on Flames about five years ago, but I'm starting to feel that mojo coming back with Team Yankee. Just got to budget the time and money to make this happen, if you want to play Soviet Motor Rifles at full strength all those BMPs are going to cost a bomb.

The M72 66mm Law was the platoon anti armour weapon and the gunners were speacialy trained..
The M47 Dragon was a company level weapon while the Tow was a Bn asset..

Thanks for the reply, McWong.

I do see that, but still don't "get it". Why are the movement rates for the platoon, company, and HQ cards so much lower than those for the individual vehicles?

"The ranges are still a gripe for me, they play into the cliche that soviet kit was rubbish".

Well, to be fair, it isn't just a clichι. A lot of Soviet weaponry is really rubbish, as we've seen from how well it has worked overseas, time and time again.

Granted, Russian/Soviet kit is probably better than what they export, but it is still pretty horrid compared to the high-quality vehicles and weaponry the West produces.

The optics, fire control systems, gun stabilizers, etc. of the West are all superior to Russian-produced items.

While that may not be true in every case, it is very true for the vast majority of it.

The card for leg infantry show their movement range on foot, the card for their ride shows the vehicles movement rate. The reason for the seperate vehicle card is that it contains all the game info for the vehicle, which in both the M113 and BMP is quite substantial.

Mako, a really great example I was given about the quality of Soviet kit was the modern Finnish army. They use BMP 2's, onto which they've performed all sorts of upgrades. The Finns can easily afford alternatives to the BMP, have tested alternatives to the BMP, but are very happy with the vehicle (albeit with native Finnish and outsourced upgrades and mods).

The quality issue also depends on what year we talking about. Up to 80 their kit is arguably better, up to 84 they're still hitting heavy, by 87 the NATO tech curve really kicks in and they're looking pretty average, by 90 they'd be insane to take on NATO.

My thoughts are that for tanks and afvs this has more to do with the Soviet economy tanking than Soviet engineering going backwards (and their inability to get computing right also contributes). In the air, different story mind you. Western avionics was and is far superior.

Ah, that makes more sense – I was looking at the pics of the vehicles, and not thinking about the dismounted infantry.

Oh, I agree with you on some things for the Soviets/Russians, e.g. very powerful weapons, lower vehicle profiles, innovative vehicle protection systems – especially the Kontakt-5 reactive armor, etc., etc..

However, supposedly their optics and fire control systems leave a lot to be desired. I know the T-55 and T-62 have a max effective range of about 1,500m. I thought their 125mm guns had a lot more reach than that, e.g. perhaps 2,500m+, but read where someone seemed to think 2,000m was more likely, which is why they're fielding all those missiles for their newer tanks, instead.

I've run the numbers, and here's what I posted on another thread on TMP, which I think is relevant here as well, if people want to try them out. This speeds up the combat a little, if you just want to simplify that for a straight head-to-head fight between the T-72 and M-1 formations.

So, if I've done the math correctly, for front on front engagements only, it appears that the M1, with its 2 x ROF per turn, can kill, or force a bailout of a T-72 about 67% of the time (cumulative percentage for both shots in a single turn).

The T-72 can only kill/bailout the M-1 about 33% of the time, assuming a 50:50 split between firing on the move (+1 shooting penalty for that), and when standing still. It's ROF is only 1 per turn. Also, its gun range is 32", vs. the 40" range for the M-1 tank, so if you factor that in, it appears to only be about 40% of the effectiveness of the M-1's lethality.

Granted, I'm glossing over a lot of other factors, e.g. side armor, special rules, vehicle speed, etc., etc.. However, for a straight up, frontal attack battle, that's the way things appear to stack up to me.

If you can negate the range advantage of the M-1s gun, in close terrain, the T-72 is about 50% as effective as the Abrams tank, from a firepower and armor standpoint.

The M-1 costs 8 points per vehicle, and the T-72 is 4.7 points. Not sure why the latter isn't a bit lower, so will need to investigate that a bit more. Perhaps some of the special rules for the T-72 make it a bit better than it appears at first glance.

Given the D6 dice system used for FOW/TY, there doesn't appear to be a lot of room for differentiation between different quality levels of the armored vehicles. From the stats, it appears that the Soviets/Russian are being treated as "Trained", and the US forces are getting the benefit of "Veteran" units, as far as their ability to be hit by enemy fire (at least for the Tanks and IFVs/APCs).

Of course, some issues like armor penetration of weapons, ranges, and armor can be easily differentiated, but the ability to adjust the "To-Hit" and "Save" values are a bit more limited.

Oh, I nearly forgot, if you want, the Soviet To-Hit/Destroy/Bailout % when moving vs. the M-1 works out to about 25%, and the same when halted is about 40%.

The M-1 doesn't suffer for firing on the move, due to its superior stabilization system.

Trance,

I'm not following you. I was a Marine, and that makes sense for us (Dragons at in Wpns Plt at Company level, TOWs at Wpns Co at Battalion level), but if the Army guys had Dragons at Company level, isn't that de facto in the rifle platoons? I thought the doggies didn't have a Weapons Platoon, though I have heard of such a thing as them having Weapons Squads, like a platoon being three rifle squads and a weapons squad. I dunno, they've changed their T/Os so many times.

Also, I'd never heard of guys being specially trained for LAWs. Hell, everybody gets trained on LAWs/AT4s, I thought (we did in the Marines).

V/R,
Jack

I suspect you mean that to apply to the Marines.

From what I've read, for the Army at least, and seen in their FM manuals, LAWS were dispensed like ammo, within individual squads, as needed (I suspect like grenades were). Seems like as many as every other guy might normally carry one (perhaps even every man), when expecting to encounter enemy armor.

Doctrine was to fire 3 or more of them at the same time, in a volley at a single vehicle, in order to try to ensure a hit, since the chance to do so at anything other than pointblank range was considered slight – that is from one of the US Infantry Field Manuals.

Also, for the Mech. Platoons, there seems to be one Dragon per squad as well, a M60 MG, and the rest carrying rifles (2 – 3 men with M203s attached to them).

Could you possibly switch to a D8 or D10 for the "to hit" rolls and modify the "to hit" number to something that you feel is more realistic?

Given the above, if desiring simplified, quick play, I'd go with a D20 for more granularity.

That would make things easier to round off, modify, adjust, as desired, say perhaps for issue like tanks being in hull down, or concealed positions, etc.

Probably easy to figure out the values for flank shots as well, if desired too, and using the simplified values would make it possible to run larger games, more quickly.

Yes you guys are spot on for the infantry. US Infantry don't have weapons squads. Each of the squads was assigned & M 60 and & M 47. It was up to leadership decide which weapon to use. Laws were issued like grenades with each soldier carring one or two each. The TKs I've seen also say the the Dragon can be fired while the squad was mounted through the back hatch.

Yea, and apparently they can also mount it, like where the TOW launchers were mounted (for the M150), or forward of that (not 100% sure), but supposedly by mounting the Dragon and firing it from the M113, it is believed to be a bit more stable for tracking purposes, than from the ground mount.

At least that's what I've read in the FMs, IIRC, though I suspect it could have been on another site too, instead.

TGunner,

"The TKs I've seen also say the the Dragon can be fired while the squad was mounted through the back hatch."

1) What's a "TK"?

2) Are you saying the squad would fire a Dragon from inside an M-113 or M-2/3?

If that's true, I haven't been giving you Doggies enough credit. Or you're even less clever than I've been giving you credit for ;)

I've been next to AT-4s, TOWs, and Javelins being fire; I can't imagine firing them from an enclosed space. How do you handle the backblast area? Hell, even being next to them outside is enough to cause a little urine to leak out ;)

V/R,
Jack

I suspect he means the horizontal, rectangular hatch, near the rear of the M113, as seen on some of them, cause otherwise that would be a neat, and probably dangerous trick to fire it from the rear, vertical hatch opening.

What he may mean by "The TKs I've seen also say the Dragon can be fired while the squad was mounted through the back hatch." was it could be fired by the TC (Track Commander)from his hatch. He would slew the 50 cal to the 9 o'clock potion and the Dragon would be ready to fire. In the carry potion the Dragon would be sitting about the 4 o'clock potion. The Dragon was held in a M175 mount, sling type mount with a very thin alumni shield in front of it (basically a brush guard, with a small hinged window so if it did fire by accident it would fly out threw the window). When the Dragon was in the stowed postion it faced the shield.
Going back to the memery banks… I was in the Scout Plt, 2/13th Inf, 8th ID. All three of our M113's had the M175. And all of the M113's in the Line Co's had them mounted. Note you could not use it with the Chicken Cage.

Here it is mounted on the M2 50 cal mount.

link
link

Note: I cannot remember ever firing the M47 Dragon from the M175 mount on the M113. Or seeing it done that way. We trained to fire it from there and from the M2 50 cal mount, but all three of my missiles were fired from the seated or kneeling potion dismounted.

Those are great drawings and pics.

Thanks for sharing them.

That helps to clear up a lot of the confusion on how it was expected to be mounted and used for me.

Well I'll be damned! I'd never seen, nor even heard of that before. Thanks for sharing that 11th ACR.

V/R,
Jack

The idea of firing backblast weapons from an enclosed space is to put the weapon outside of the enclosed space, this goes for trenches, buildings and vehicles. If there is something behind you, you get hurt. If you stick your head and weapon outside of the enclosed space and make sure the backblast doesn't find its way into said space, you're fine!

I know of people firing the Charlie G while mounted on the CV 90. The trick is to only open one of the hatches and then fire "broadsides".

Yea, any of the weapon systems with a back blast you need to take very serious. Just firing the M47 Dragon you felt the heat on your back. It felt like your back was out in the Summer Sun to long. Then after about a min it was normal. And all of those big chunks of foam from the rear shock absorber thrown every were.
YouTube link
YouTube link
And dealing with those gyro rockets firing as it went down range was a big distraction.
YouTube link