"Team Yankee - British?" Topic

Good to see the release of the nice looking FOW armor for the British, but I'm a bit surprised by the lack of postings and battle reports about them (other than the ads for the nice looking new armor releases).

So, is everyone just furiously assembling and painting their models, or too busy decimating the Soviet hordes to post a battle report with those lovely and powerful 120mm cannons?

Perhaps they've all been wiped out by the communists, so can't report back.

Thoughts?

Always love seeing nice looking armor in battle on the tabletop for inspiration – especially those lovely Chieftain Vs.

I always got the feeling that the "cold war hot" thing was more popular with Americans.

Personally, any chance to field Centurions and Chieftains is a good one as far as I figure it :-)

So, is everyone just furiously assembling and painting their models, or too busy decimating the Soviet hordes to post a battle report with those lovely and powerful 120mm cannons?

The Soviets do just fine against the uber Nato tanks. The game balances things by points costs and limiting the size of the Nato tank units.

The US/WG/British tanks have a razor thin edge for error/bad luck. The Soviets can be fielded in sufficient numbers to survive a mistake.

There are a fair number of AAR's on the web if you look for them. Just not so many on TMP.

Ah, I see, a pity, since there was so much interest and many postings here initially.

Haven't checked the TY forum lately, myself, so guess I need to do that too.

They just came out a month ago. I'm still collecting my force… slowly but surely. I'm still a ways away from having a decent force to field. Maybe January for me.

It's a bit behind the curve – we were selling masses of Cold War late last year and early this year. We are busier than ever but people seem to be buying Freikorp and mid WW2 over the last few months, although our postwar German infantry and vehicles suddenly had a surge last month, and Stillbrew Cheiftains in the last week for some reason…

Based on sales, I get the impression that it's getting more media publicity from a smaller group of wargamers than it is widespread. I do think the 'tank park effect' seen in recent games (which the rules seem to encourage by the formation sizes, formation command and control restrictions and table limits) are putting some off.

Www.quickreactionforce.co.uk

And that's why I'm going the micro-armor route. Leave the game the same just swap out the figures. That way a 4" command radius allows for 3" between tanks.

If I were to play it in 15mm I would use nothing smaller than a 6x10 table and play the long way.

In the Facebook Team Yankee page there are a good many players readying British forces. I'd say they get love and it's only time…

I do think the 'tank park effect' seen in recent games (which the rules seem to encourage by the formation sizes, formation command and control restrictions and table limits)

This is a myth that's continually repeated by those who haven't played and/or aren't familiar enough with the game (not the tank parks, but the cause of them).

The rules do not require or reward you for jamming the tanks together like that. Tanks can't shoot through each other so there is actually an incentive to spread out so you don't block your own shots.

While there is a 6" command radius, there is also a 16" command radius if you deploy your tanks in one line, abreast of each other. So the command distance isn't the cause.

In any case, a tank functions normally even if outside of the command radius, with the exception that if the tank moves and shoots while out of command. But if you just drop it off, for example to provide covering fire while the rest of the unit moves off, the tank left behind works normally as long as it just sits there.

No, the cause of the jamming is to either avoid the effect of terrain or take advantage of terrain.

So tanks might form into a compact mass in order to move between two terrain pieces. Every time a tank in the game moves in or through terrain it has a chance to bog down, which means it stops and is lost for the turn.

Tanks also form into a compact mass to hide behind terrain to block LOS and avoid being targets. The terrain pieces are often to small when compared with the size of the tanks.

That way a 4" command radius allows for 3" between tanks.

The Command Radius is 6" and, if the unit is in line abreast, the Radius is 16".

If I were to play it in 15mm I would use nothing smaller than a 6x10 table and play the long way.

I agree that a 100 point game looks too crowded on a 6x4 table.

But you can have fun with a 75 point or less game too.

"Tanks also form into a compact mass to hide behind terrain to block LOS and avoid being targets. The terrain pieces are often to small when compared with the size of the tanks."

This applies to pretty well all games where the intent is to cram as many barrels in at a single tgt to ensure a hit, and hide as many vehicles behind a single garage as possible!

But it is a game not simulation of actual tactics, arcs of fires, axis of advance, fire and manouvre etc,

Tally Ho!

But it is a game not simulation of actual tactics, arcs of fires, axis of advance, fire and manouvre etc,

Nick, can you identify the Cold War games that are simulations of actual tactics, arcs of fire, axis of advance, fire and maneuver, etc.?

Pretty well any, we use Sabre Sqn, WRG, Contact (Used by the Forces in the 70s/80s) and Battlegroup.

However nothing will stop the players using 2 troops to engage a target because "they can see it, just!" even though it is one the far side of a third troops's arc!

Then there are orders, a Troop/Battlegroup/Brigade do not simply move from A-B, we love orders, actions on, NAIs, TAIs etc etc, elements of which might not affect all levels of wargame.

Tally Ho!

This is a myth that's continually repeated by those who haven't played and/or aren't familiar enough with the game

The reason behind it may be mythical, but multiple after action reports would suggest it is very much the norm.

If the unit is in line abreast, the Radius is 16"

Because a 32" line across a 48" table looks much better…

Tanks also form into a compact mass to hide behind terrain to block LOS and avoid being targets

Which would again suggest that rules scale and model scale are struggling to work together. We had a similar issue doing FFT in 15mm on too small a table.

The reason behind it may be mythical, but multiple after action reports would suggest it is very much the norm.

I never said the jammed up tanks aren't real. I just said that those who say they're caused by the rules are mistaken.

And the point is that any game using lots of 15mm vehicles on a 6 x 4 table is going to look crowded.

Because a 32" line across a 48" table looks much better…

To some it might. But again, that's caused by the size of the playing space, not by the rules.

Which would again suggest that rules scale and model scale are struggling to work together. We had a similar issue doing FFT in 15mm on too small a table.

So just use larger terrain pieces on a 6 x 4 table. We've been playing 100 point games on a 9 x 6 table and it looks fine. Except that sometimes when we make the terrain pieces too small you can get the jams. (Although this is more of an issue with Soviets). There is a lot of empty space. 9x6 is probably too big.

Pretty well any, we use Sabre Sqn, WRG, Contact (Used by the Forces in the 70s/80s) and Battlegroup.

I have and have played Sabre Sqn. I haven't played WRG- seems like a lot of work. I haven't heard of Contact. Is the Battlegroup you're referring to a modification of the Battlegroup WW2 rules by Warwick Kinrade?

But just taking Sabre Sqn since I know it, are you saying it's "simulation" as opposed to a "game" because it has rules for overwatch?

"But just taking Sabre Sqn since I know it, are you saying it's "simulation" as opposed to a "game" because it has rules for overwatch?"

Yes, Battlegroup as has been discussed on the Wargames Guild.

To simulate tactics, then overwatch is important as, taking British for example, in any advance or withdrawal there will always be a vehicle or even Troop on overwatch as the others leapfrog past or move level with, at speed or slowly, taking advantage of cover depending on the tactical situation. Or the concept of jockeying into various fire positions.

One thing to bear in mind is that simulation over game can lead to longer game turns etc, so for evening games, competitions a certain amount of abstraction is required so players can get past the start line!

Tally Ho!

Yes, Battlegroup as has been discussed on the Wargames Guild.

Can you say how this plays? Is it essentially the WW2 game with better equipment?

"Puddinhead Johnson" must work for BF.
He sure sounds like there PR department.

Pud,

same system, better kit, more reliable comms, ATGM and ATGM avoidance, command adjusted – I.e British where decision making and initiative can go down to JNCO level, compared to the Sovs where it is much less flexible.

I have done little for a good while, however the reins have been taken on:
link

And some discussion on:
link

Easy to see whatever rules are in use, a table can become crowded!,

Tally Ho!

Just wait until the GDR range shows up.

Easy to see whatever rules are in use, a table can become crowded!,

This is true.

By the way, I checked Saber Squadron's command and control rules.

In order to be in command each Soviet element (tank, infantry stand) in a unit (which is the equivalent of a platoon or, in Soviet parlance, a company) has to be in an area the size of an A4 size sheet of paper, so about 8.5" x 11".

That's not much different than TY's 6" radius from the unit leader (In fact, is the TY space larger?).

"Puddinhead Johnson" must work for BF.
He sure sounds like there PR department.

Ha, I see what you did. I disagree with the knee jerk claim that the TY rules force players to group their tanks bumper to bumper and so I'm just like an employee of BF. Clever!

No, I don't work for BF. I am just bothered by people who make a negative statement about a game when they haven't played the game or read the rules and thus lack the knowledge to back up their statements. Just like people will jump all over someone who gives a negative review of a rules set without having played the game.

Mmm, Command radius, what is the range of a 353 or C42?!! In modern rules I see "command radius" and disregard in favour of orders and drills.

If a Troop as part of an advance has to move, as part of the op order/plan, out of a "Command radius" it does not suddenly go out of control, it follows the plan. If something happens it carries out "actions on". Before anything happens there will be a plan and orders, at all levels, start lines, axies, objectives etc.

The same way that the Easty Beaties will drive along in line of advance and when something occurs will shake out into line as per the drill.

But here we see the simulation/ game balance. I will deploy 1RS Battlegroup not 50 points, with AD Spartans whizzing around firing from open rear hatches! However deploying 50 points and having command radiuses allows for a quick setup and game in an hour or two.

Tally Ho!

Mmm, Command radius, what is the range of a 353 or C42?!! In modern rules I see "command radius" and disregard in favour of orders and drills.

I didn't write them. I just read them. :)

By the way, i checked again and found that Sabre Squadron, like TY, also doesn't have overwatch fire.

It sounds to me like Sabre Squadron is no more of a simulation than TY is.

They're really both just games. But only posts about TY will inevitably draw someone to observe that TY is just a game, not a simulation

Yes lack of overwatch is something that we have discussed on the Sabre Sqn forum. In our games we have added a few house rules such as overwatch and jockeying tanks.

It is odd considering that overwatch, maintaining one foot on the ground is integral to modern tactics (UK/US/NATO) be it at Tp, Sqn or BG level.

Tally Ho!

I have no opinion about FOW TY, (I am planning to play CW circa 1984 in 20mm with Battlefront WW2 cold war update), however I do have an opinion about tank dispersal.

My understanding is that for example a soviet tank platoon occupied, according to doctrine about 400m in attack. If we were playing Napoleonics we would create a base the frontage of the unit and populate it with model troops. this would prevent the unit (and its firepower) being wedged into too small a space and force the player to deploy his forces realistically.

I play at 1mm =1m roughly. According to that, my Soviet platoon should be 40cm wide. Now I'm not suggesting that you put a tank model on a 40cm base, but you do need to reflect this somehow. One possibility is to suggest that if a unit shrinks below more than about 2/3 of its doctrinal frontage it suffers penalties on moving and firing, caused by the necessity for drivers to avoid one another, and the interference with optics caused by friendly muzzle blast etc.

Secondly I'm with NickinSomerset that for a good game you need orders, arcs of fire etc. this is because at 1500m it is much easier to shoot a target than to know who it is. Modern forces put huge amounts of planning effort into deconflicting axes of advance and fields of fire in order to avoid blue on blue. You cant just rush about where you like because you'll get shot by your own side (or fall under your own artillery).

Two sources which describe this very well are Mark Adkin's book on Goose Green (at Infantry level) or for armoured/mech attacks, Rat's Tales about the Staffords BG in Gulf War 1.

For me the nerdy minutiae of all this is the fun part of the game. For others it wont be, but it wont be forced on you by any ruleset or by any arbitrary 'Command radius' nonsense.

My feeling about FOW is that it deliberately encourages lots of models on the table, hence its rather daft artillery rules. If you like that, great, but its not for me. And anyway keeping your Arty off table and imaginary is cheaper!

It is odd considering that overwatch, maintaining one foot on the ground is integral to modern tactics (UK/US/NATO) be it at Tp, Sqn or BG level.

It does seem a bit odd. But these rules authors (TY, Saber Squadron) must not think overwatch fire is so essential to making a credible game about modern warfare that it has to be included.

It doesn't seem to me that it adds all that much rules overhead to include it. But it would change the games to make attack all that more difficult.

(I am planning to play CW circa 1984 in 20mm with Battlefront WW2 cold war update),

I'm sure your 1/72 kit will look amazing, but this will create its own visual problem. It reminds me of 40k. There are these gigantic tanks, with gigantic guns, that can only shoot 24". Yes, I know it's a limitation imposed for gameplay, but it just looks so odd.

My understanding is that for example a soviet tank platoon occupied, according to doctrine about 400m in attack. If we were playing Napoleonics we would create a base the frontage of the unit and populate it with model troops. this would prevent the unit (and its firepower) being wedged into too small a space and force the player to deploy his forces realistically.

Rules where each model represents more than one vehicle sort of do that already. (e.g. Command Decision, Fistful of TOWs, Cold War Commander, Battlefront WW2). The problem arises when each model represents one vehicle.

for a good game you need orders, arcs of fire etc. this is because at 1500m it is much easier to shoot a target than to know who it is. Modern forces put huge amounts of planning effort into deconflicting axes of advance and fields of fire in order to avoid blue on blue. You cant just rush about where you like because you'll get shot by your own side (or fall under your own artillery).

For others it wont be, but it wont be forced on you by any ruleset or by any arbitrary 'Command radius' nonsense.

Don't be so quick to dismiss the command radius concept. It in a sense produces exactly the limitation on keeping your force together in one place that you're saying is necessary to reflect reality.

Just because it's not called "the rule that says you have to keep your tanks together to avoid blue on blue fire" doesn't mean that that is not part of the rationale for the rule.

My feeling about FOW is that it deliberately encourages lots of models on the table, hence its rather daft artillery rules.

Yea, I don't like the idea of using artillery in a direct fire role. But when I raised this issue with respect to the Soviet SAU-122, I was advised that this weapon at least was also intended to be used in a direct fire role.
And when I looked into it I found that, at least according to the U.S. Army Field Manual (FM-101 or whatever) that was in fact Soviet doctrine.

Still doesn't explain the M109 firing direct at my BMP's. But honestly, I've found that that really doesn't happen very often in TY anyway because while it's possible to do, there are better uses for the M109 in an indirect fire role.

And anyway keeping your Arty off table and imaginary is cheaper!

I'm with you there.

Thanks for the detailed feedback Puddinhead.

I take your point about large models, but even using the 15mm groundscales in BFWW2/CW a chieftain for example ranges out to 80 inches, so there is no 24" limitation. This however, means you need a large table, at the club I have access to a 8x8ft, at home only a 6x4.

I agree that scaling vehicles at 1:3 (or whatever) is the way to go, but really its a matter of how many vehicles you choose to put in your imaginary 40cm deployment box. At 1:3 it would be occupied by a single solitary model, at 1:1 by three or four – you pays yer money and you takes yer choice. I also try and keep the exact ratio flexible to match unit structures, so a model = a troop, be it 2, 3 or 4 actual vehicles.

I am also careful not to pack the table with units, CW frontages, especially defensive are very large, so if your table only scales to 1.2km @ 1mm to 1 yard, then only deploy the units which would doctrinally have defended that space. This leaves you with quite an 'empty battlefield' but that doesn't bother me.

As far as a command radius goes as an abstraction to make a game work, fine, but perhaps there should be a 'minimum' separation as well as a maximum one?

As an aside, that a rule is not called something is a stronger argument for it being not part of the rationale than that it is. I know FOW players use this argument about the daft 'bail out – bail back in' system in WW2, saying it doesn't really mean that, but if it doesn't, why call it that in the first place?

Anyway we should all play what we enjoy, and in fact I will be painting some old Airfix 105 light guns 'cos I like the models, and may well place them on the BAOR baseline just for decoration, so I cant be too snooty.

105 Lt guns, in BAOR?!!!! AAhhhhh my head explodes!! Get the games police!

Tally Ho!

As far as a command radius goes as an abstraction to make a game work, fine, but perhaps there should be a 'minimum' separation as well as a maximum one?

I forgot to mention that Saber Squadron has a rule that deals with your point about units avoiding becoming intermixed to avoid blue on blue fire. I don't remember the details, but I know it's there. It's the only rules I can recall addressing that issue (and I'm something of a rules junkie).

As an aside, that a rule is not called something is a stronger argument for it being not part of the rationale than that it is. I know FOW players use this argument about the daft 'bail out – bail back in' system in WW2, saying it doesn't really mean that, but if it doesn't, why call it that in the first place?

I think you're reading way too much into the name.

Using the "bail out" rule for instance, I believe that it's a concept used to represent all kinds of things that might make the tank temporarily ineffective, and that could encompass a temporary equipment failure or disabling the crew (a tank only bails when it's been hit but the shot doesn't kill).

So why didn't they just call it "temporarily disabled" instead? I think it's just because "bailed" sounds better, more "tanky" and less clinical than "temporarily disabled."

The guys who wrote the rules aren't idiots. If you read what they write or listen to interviews of them you'll see that they do a lot of research and have a keen interest in the subject. I don't think they really believe that a tank crew would be jumping in and out of the tank several times in the course of an action.

I will look forward to seeing photos of your 20mm kit. I plan to buy Battlegroup's modern version and give it a spin when they release it.

One of the nice things about historical miniatures is that you can use your toys for any rules you like!

Sorry Nick, I stand corrected! Does that mean I can't have the 1 ton Rovers either? Oh you are a spoilsport, and Elheim do that lovely crew set too….

Can't have the 1 Tonne Rovers because they are impossible to get hold of! 2 Div units had them, recall a mate from the KOSB Milan Platoon in the 1 Tonnes being chased by some Marders on Lionheart! I had to get some too, just like all Elheim stuff!

Tally Ho!

Didn't 2 Div have a couple of Yeomanry batteries of light guns? Or is tinterweb leading me astray?

I will probably have to settle for resin Rovers anyway as the Airfix ones are as you say rocking horse poo.

It was Elheim and Airfix that pushed me into 20mm anyway, lovely figures, and nostalgia for the kits of my youth….

Yes the TA Gunners had the 105 Lt Gun, not sure what their prime mover was, still tis but a game!

Tally Ho!