"Team Yankee Comp and Mega Game - MOAB" Topic

Was held in Sydney this weekend. Full report here:
link

This pic clearly shows what makes me cringe about Battlefront's rules; tanks seem to always to be deployed bumper to bumper, side by side… :/

First of, the table looks amazing, very deatiled. Definetly going to read this AAR.

*Lonkka1Actual,
to be fair, I think thats as much to do w/ the miniature scale than anything. More than a 'company' (15 vehicles) in 15mm takes up a 'lot' of space, before you know it, it looks like a parking lot.
Functionally, I think TY works best at micro scale, but doesnt have the same visual appeal.

Been there Read It, LOVED IT. The "mega game", was a mega-great read! That "ton" of pics was wonderful. But have to say the best surprise was that touch of sneak-peak at the soon to be released British Forces.
Lets see.. stubborn (west) German and toss in some angry Aussie and mad Marines.. its not nice too fool with POWER!

Man, one or two FAEs, and half the force will be toast.

Nice looking terrain.

Nicely done, and a great write up. Still think comp games should be 75 pts, but everyone was having a ball which is the real measure of success with games like this.

You missed the Hinds stacked up side to side, so close they had to take the rotor disks off to fit them on the table.

Makes it look like a bunch of kids playing in the sand pit

I think 6mm is the way to go for this. It looks a lot better on the table.

The terrain here looks good and the game seems to work pretty well, but it is so packed with armor that it just doesn't look right.

I think it looks fine. The 15mm models look better than 6mm and i can see them at normal viewing distance.The trade off is the minis on the table are more crowded.

In 6mm the miniatures are little better than cardboard counters unless you bend down and get very close.

Splendrous looking scenario table. As for the endless discussion about the tank to tank parking, almost any miniature game could have the same result if the rules don't require a enforced minimum distance between tank models. Tighter formation means more shots at the same target…. a common lure for all wargamers, unless the rules prevent converged firepower on one target by different game units. Plus modern warfare…. if seen you are dead, forces the player to hide the miniature between or behind the tabletop terrain, a limited surface area on most terraced tables.

Some think its heresy to base vehicles, as noted in a previous TMP thread, but basing does set apart the vehicles and creates gaps between the tank fenders.

Should note I play FOW using 1/72 (20mm) based vehicles. The modern era tanks are larger than most WWII vehicles, in reality, and model scaled… so the 15mm TY vehicles nearly equal the size of my WWII 20mm vehicles/tanks on the tabletop. Something which I took away watching a local recent TY game.

Thanks for all the positive comments guys!

7th Panzer Division advancing in France 1940 – real photo of real tanks and support veh in the advance to contact phase!

Did you come up with a map/table generation system or just made them "look" right?

Yes the initial comp tables were based on scaling down real areas – for my 2 tables for example a valley in SW Germany and an area of Northern Germany I once exercised over.

More of B.F. "PANZER PARKING LOT'S!"

I know this is talked about and talked about…"If more arty was used" or "an air strike would cure that(never minding that both air attack and "more"(whatever that even means in this goofy game)arty are always in game, it seems to me…I just could'nt be interested in playing a game that "looks" like this.

Mean to say, reguardless of ground scale, does it really take an "imagined"threat of an air strike to stop packing vehicles on the table like that? At what point does it become a valid tactic(DERP) of this game to stack tanks on top of each other? Really? If ground scale is so out of whack in FOW, why NOT just use old avalon hill counters?

And before I get gang raped with "every game has this problem", don't bother. In the late '70's my friends and I, the teens that we were, would play massive micro armor games on my 8'x8' sandtable and if one of us would have put tanks side by side like these pictures show, it would'nt have taken arty to destroy the formation or a well timed air attack.

We would have made the offender the butt of many a joke and then told to spread out or go home.

And that pic of the german unit?

Real pic of units under fire, right?

But I will say that if you had fun, thats really all that matter.

I don't mean to come between anyone and his fun.

I never quite get this either. Our group plays Flames of War regularly. We only ever end up with this kind of mess when units try to rush a chokepoint or something (which is a place it may have happened in real life as well). One of our guys has had spent some time playing in regional tournaments as well. He reports that when he goes there he sees these same tank parking lots. Against one opponent, despite airstrikes crippling the unit he just kept packing the vehicles together as losses made holes.

Is there anyone out there that can tell me what advantage you gain from this? Unlike FoW though, I think Team Yankee actually promotes this. Soviets have units of 10 large tanks in 15mm scale, and the rules inflict penalties if you don't keep them all within 6" of the command vehicle. No daisy chaining allowed. I think that's a stupid rule in this scale, but it might explain the sight that more or less ruins an otherwise great looking game.

Dan you might like to reread the TY rules, you can even move out of command to anywhere you like in TY. You just get a +1 to hit for being out of command. Quite the opposite of Flames.

Nice pic of 7th Panzer, too, Sparker. Stupid Germans, using bumper to bumper tactics.

LOL

Still, haters gonna hate and TMP'ers gonna hate, I guess. The one constant in gaming.

"And that pic of the German unit?"

Well if you know the history pictures taken in that ravine it was an assembly area before an invasion started. I'm thinking it was Rommel's 7th Pz Div. So combat operations were not started and it was in a rear area with ground and air superiority in place.

I did 20 years active duty and we always kept at least 50 meters (woods, towns, night) or 100 meters min the rest of the time.

@11th ACR. Thats the point I was getting at; That the picture certainly WAS'NT of vehicles anywhere near the front(or battle line, if you will) or where they were in danger of anything amiss…

Hey, have fun. But again, I'm no rules snob(far from it, in fact)and its good that people think TY is the bee's knee's.

But I don't see anything interesting in playing a game that says PACK 'EM like that.

Serious question which is somewhat related:

On the link, 5th pic down, we see a unit of T72's and packed and pointing at the flanks of the tanks are BMP2's.

Now, BELIEVE ME, I AM NOT TROLLING! But what the heck is going on with that?

Thankyou,
A picture is worth a thousand words. The game is definitely not for me. But I would love to be just one man with a few LAW on the flank of the idiot tank commanders. A couple of rounds from an MG to button up and they would never see me till it was too late.

I was just referring to what "rules" would make someone put the BMP'S pointing AT the sides of the T72's like that?

10 large tanks in 15mm scale, and the rules inflict penalties if you don't keep them all within 6" of the command vehicle. No daisy chaining allowed

This is only partially correct. TY makes an exception to the 6" requirement if the unit is in line abreast. In that case, IIRC, the distance is 16".

I think the crowding is often caused by a unit seeking to take advantage of cover that's not big enough to hide/conceal the entire unit.

The way targeting/hit allocation works in TY allows the firer to shoot at the easiest target but then allocate hits to vehicles in the same unit as the target and within 6" of the target. So, often, you need to get the entire unit into cover to actually get the advantage of cover. Thus, all the tanks are jammed into that tiny woods.

I did read the TY rules. I didn't say they couldn't move outside 6", just that there were large penalties if they did. I was referring to the cover bit and the -1 to hit (a significant difference in a d6 system). It was a poor choice for a game that is already criticized for being a tank parking lot.

"john lacour" I totally agree with you, I cannot under stand why BF – FOW -TY cant do something right. I guess that's why I don't play it as well. I go to a convention were it is being played, I watch for a few minutes sack my head walk away laughing to myself. It reminds me of the good old days in the 0's and 80's with D&D.

P.S. they – "BF" have very nice model Vehicles, Troops ect, and that I will give them a + for but they need to get with it if they want my vote.

I enjoyed the entertaining write up and all the great pictures. I think I can forgive the overcrowding. I know this isn't the first convention mega game I've seen with perhaps a few too many figures on the table!

Tis but a game to be enjoyed not simulation of real world tactics,

Tally Ho!

Then it's just D&D with Tanks!

Checkers is a game as well, TY is slightly above it. Doctrine states that Tanks should be 100 meters apart, which equates to 4" between vehicles. But you cannot sell enough models when someone want to play realistically. Proof in fact is the Raketenwerfer LARS, which has a minimum range of 6,000M (240"). Why would anyone want this on their table?

7th Panzer Division advancing in France 1940 – real photo of real tanks and support veh in the advance to contact phase!

Yes it is a real pictures of real tanks, but it is not an advance (movement) to contact. This is a situation where enemy is expected and actively sought out.

Movement to contact is a type of offensive operation designed to develop the situation and establish or regain contact (FM 3-0). A commander conducts this type of offensive operation when the tactical situation is not clear or when the enemy has broken contact. A properly executed movement to contact develops the combat situation and maintains the commander's freedom of action after contact is gained. This flexibility is essential in maintaining the initiative. All of the tactical concepts, control measures, and planning considerations introduced in Chapters 2 and 3 apply to the conduct of a movement to contact. Many of the attack preparation consideration introduced in Chapter 5 also apply.

4-1. Purposeful and aggressive movement, decentralized control, and the hasty deployment of combined arms formations from the march to attack or defend characterize the movement to contact. The fundamentals of a movement to contact are—

Focus all efforts on finding the enemy.

Make initial contact with the smallest force possible, consistent with protecting the force.

Make initial contact with small, mobile, self-contained forces to avoid decisive engagement of the main body on ground chosen by the enemy. This allows the commander maximum flexibility to develop the situation.

Task-organize the force and use movement formations to deploy and attack rapidly in any direction.

Keep forces within supporting distances to facilitate a flexible response.

Those bumper-to-bumper tanks are 25-50m apart.

Doctrine states that Tanks should be 100 meters apart, which equates to 4" between vehicles.

Tell me sir, do you play games with 15mm figures? If so, what is the ground scale in the rules you use? If it's 1" = 25 meters then your model tanks are about 25 to 50 meters long. That's not realistic.

Why is it that the space between the models should be perfectly to scale but it's ok for the models themselves to be tremendously out of scale?

Why would anyone want this on their table?

Because it's a fun game. There are people who are looking to enjoy a game, not pour over US Army Field Manuals.

I think it is the sight of a troop of modern tanks whizzing around in a nice line rather than conducting fire and manouevre that puts some folks off, but tis but a game,

Tally Ho!

I think it is the sight of a troop of modern tanks whizzing around in a nice line rather than conducting fire and manouevre that puts some folks off

How does the proximity of the tanks prevents you from using "fire and maneuver"

I do not use 15mm troops, with that scale. With that scale 1" = 25M, Pico armor is close. Because it is not ok.

Well, then you must not care about the look of the minitures because the 1/600 minis aren't very nice looking. And you can't see them in any case unless you stick your head down on the table.

Why don't you just play with cardboard counters?

LOL, you really stick to the sinking ship don't you. When I use 1 to 1 ratio minis, I use the appropriate scale. The Pico is good for 1" = 25M.

I think it is the sight of a troop of modern tanks whizzing around in a nice line

You mean like during Desert Storm/GW1 in 1991?

"You mean like during Desert Storm/GW1 in 1991?"

If I remember my time in both places the terrain is ever so slightly different to West Germany!

"How does the proximity of the tanks prevents you from using "fire and maneuver""

Not so much the proximity, just the fact that one just has to shoot the vehicles in the open to take out the vehicles in cover providing cover fire/overwatch.

Tally Ho!

LOL, you really stick to the sinking ship don't you. When I use 1 to 1 ratio minis, I use the appropriate scale. The Pico is good for 1" = 25M.

My criticism of what you enjoy is no less valid than your criticism of what I like.

The difference is that if you were to post a battle report of your 1/600 game, unlike you, I wouldn't be rude enough to gratuitously criticize it.

Not so much the proximity, just the fact that one just has to shoot the vehicles in the open to take out the vehicles in cover providing cover fire/overwatch.

Still don't understand how that affects the ability to use fire and movement tactics, but it is a valid point in itself and one I've wondered about.

I think there are two explanations.

One is that while individual vehicles are represented on table, it's a unit game. So one runner in the open in effect gives away the entire unit's position.

Second, i imagine it's just an ease of play thing. You in effect shoot at the unit instead of individual models so you don't need complicated rules for which modle is shooting at which target. This makes the game play faster.

LOL, you really stick to the sinking ship don't you. When I use 1 to 1 ratio minis, I use the appropriate scale. The Pico is good for 1" = 25M.

So in your games you're mounting one 1/600 tank per square inch. Do you use a tweezers to pick them up and move them? Must take you forever to play a game (or should I say "mlitary simulation" lest i insult you?)

Or you're mounting a number of 1/600 tanks on a base, by platoon. So your bases are about 4-5" wide with 4-5 tiny tanks on them. You can't change formation or facing of any individual runner. Very unrealistic, that.

Looks like a fun time, really cool terrain and nice paint jobs!

The "I don't like it therefore everyone who enjoys it is inferior and an idiot" mentality on display on this board is staggering.

"One is that while individual vehicles are represented on table, it's a unit game. So one runner in the open in effect gives away the entire unit's position.

Exactly my point well above, "Tis a game to be enjoyed, not an attempt to simulate real world tactics"

Second, i imagine it's just an ease of play thing. You in effect shoot at the unit instead of individual models so you don't need complicated rules for which modle is shooting at which target. This makes the game play faster."

So in effect one could use 1 model = a troop

Tally Ho!

So in effect one could use 1 model = a troop

I suppose. A number of modern games do that: A Fistful of TOWs; Coldwar Commander come to mind.

So in effect one could use 1 model = a troop.

And I have a hard time seeing a tank model and thinking it represents several.
If you don't like the look of FoW type games, I get it. It does get very tiresome reading the same lame objections every time someone posts pictures.
Do you have a Bat Signal to alert you every time someone posts pictures of an alleged hub to hub battle?
I did the math on this a while back.
If a unit has 3 "hub to hub" tanks, they are on game scale 50 feet apart.
If you have a unit of 10 tanks "hub to hub", they are 150 feet apart. I may be a bit off, but it's based on relations in the "logarithmic ground scale".

But haters gotta hate, even (especially?) when it gets tedious.
In our group, clumped tanks are an automatic air or heavy artillery target.

Lol! Thanks Winston!

Yes we had fun, and no we weren't trying to recreate a School of Armour Sandpit game to demonstrate small unit tactics…get over it!

"If a unit has 3 "hub to hub" tanks, they are on game scale 50 feet apart.
If you have a unit of 10 tanks "hub to hub", they are 150 feet apart. I may be a bit off, but it's based on relations in the "logarithmic ground scale""

Hub to hub tanks will occur in most rules at some point, however with no attempt to model the fire and manouevre tactics at both small unit and BG levels it is just a line abreast of tanks zipping around the battlefield. But as I said in my first post a game to be enjoyed not an attempt to simulate real world tactics,

Tally Ho!

however with no attempt to model the fire and manouevre tactics at both small unit <\q>

However, with all due respect, you still haven't explained the basis of this observation.

What in the TY rules in your opinion prevents a player from employing fire & maneouver tactics?