"Team Yankee v2" Topic

Nice!

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

Ugh! Wheel to wheel deployment. Major reason why these rules are crap.

Chris

I must confess it looks awful to me! Helicopters deployed with with interlocking roters! Its either fantasy (which is
what I suspect) or the groundscale is inappropriate for the model size. Hinds and the like have an optimum range for the gun at about 1km, about 1/2 normal tank tange so on a table that size and a sensible ground scale they would NEVER appear.

It does the hobby no good for publishers to call such games other than fantasy, as it portrays us to outsiders as idiots that have no real understanding of the real world.

Is that a parking lot?

Grognards from the U.K. are so f'ing boring.

Glup!….

Amicalement
Armand

Sheer game support clutter apart from the dense nicely painted miniatures in fender to fender formation (first photo). Always thought modern artillery or aerial bombardment would "fix" that look.

The models' proximity to each other in TY and FOW is well known and a dead horse subject on TMP, but OTOH you couldn't get so many well-painted models in one picture without zooming so far out in birds' eye view that you wouldn't be able to appreciate the details and eye-candy factor of said well-painted miniatures. As you can see, the same applies to video games:

The battlefield looks nice, sans the parking lot of vehicles, dice, and rules on the tabletop.

The vehicles do too.

Anyone have an opinion on V2 of the TY rules, other than that, for use with smaller scale minis, and/or by eliminating the overcrowding by doubling shooting ranges?

TY has the same groundscale that FoW does, and it's pretty heavily distorted compared to the minis scale.

4" is 25m
8" is 200m

So by definition, you're going to have vehicles very close together, even when they're a scale 25-50m apart.

Though it doesn't help when you have people trying to put an entire Motor Rifle Regiment on a 4x6 table…

Much better in 6mm or 10mm

EERRM!!! If 25m is 4" then 8" is 50m Or you have distorted time and space to the extent its realy curved. Sort of Mr Tomkins in Wonderland for Geography.

link

Neli Creoruska – Dictionary definition curtasy odf wikapeadia.

grognard (plural grognards)

An old soldier.
(historical) A soldier of the original imperial guard that was created by Napoleon I in 1804 and that made the final French charge at Waterloo.
(games, slang) Someone who enjoys playing older war-games or roleplaying games, or older versions of such games, when newer ones are available. quotations ▼

James is such a grognard, he only plays the original edition of Dungeons and Dragons.

Yoiu clearly have used the wrong word. I play a modernised carfully modeled simulation that does not require time space distortion, so clearly you should be more careful with your choice of insults. You should always correctly and politely insult peapole it carriesso much more weight than an asinine comment.

Yoiu clearly have used the wrong word. I play a modernised carfully modeled simulation that does not require time space distortion, so clearly you should be more careful with your choice of insults. You should always correctly and politely insult peapole it carriesso much more weight than an asinine comment.

Your response only reinforces my point.

I think that as a whole it looks dreadful- although the individual models are very nice. But one of those lovely Hind models would look much better than four of them wrapping their rotors round each other, etc etc.

Also- this doesn't look like any configuration of Soviet forces I've ever come across- it's certainly a long way from the SOPs they drilled with year in and year out. Where would you ever get four Shilkas even in the same square kilometre- let alone track to track (apart from a Red Square Parade)? In what combat circumstances would the recce BRDMs be right next to the Shilks? Hind pilots knew well enough that AAA or a heat seeking missile which missed one heli could hit another one that was too close- so they stayed well apart. Even with the famous logarithmic scale, and lets say that the Hinds are actually supposed to be just the size of the models' rotor hubs- from this picture they still look like they are flying maybe 50-100 metres apart- really??

I know TY is a game not a simulation and we have aim off for that, but the only unhistorical thing (I know the the war didn't happen but the training for it certainly did) that's missing here is the infantry in a close order phalanx.

Perhaps I'm a grognard too but the way these forces are being used here- you might as well be playing hover marines on Mars.

As far as the logarithmic ground scale is concerned- it is one way to help simulate the distances between two points along a single axis, and thus simulate the long ranges of 1980s weapons on a small table, although the results are visually odd to some people including me. But logarithmic scale comes completely unstuck when simulating the spatial relationships between objects on table which are on different axes to each other. All of the distances go wrong then, and nothing is in anything like a real-world relationship to anything else. Back to hover marines but on some weird time/space shift planet.

Personally, I find that negative comments from people of any country who are not willing (or maybe not able?) to contribute any supported opinions relevant to the actual subject are pretty f'ing boring too.

Glup!…

Amicalement
Armand

Perhaps this set should be posted on the fantasy boards. I would then have no problem at all with it at that point. I assumed the Modern and Cold war board were for history, or at least on some plausible interpretation of such.

What is the alternative? Fistful of Tows? Sabre Squadron? Love them but I don't know anyone near me that plays them.

Can't people come up with house rules that changes the absurd requirement of keeping the vehicles so close together? Wouldn't it be a simple fix?

Gulp, I said the "s" word…simple…

I will duck and run for cover now…

Ahhh – all the hub to hub action of Flames of War but now with missiles

My group uses the ranges they list in cm as the distance in inches. So a in command range of 6"/15 cm we count as 15 inches, a 125mm gun range of32"/80 cm is 80 inches. The movement distance though is still in base inch range. We feel it gives a more spread out natural look to the game. Also our tables are laid out in a realistic terrain look. Lots of trees, bushes , hedges , little details( crates, cows, tractors, etc.) Our group disliked the parking lot unit set up and openness of the terrain of the standard game.

The rules will never get over the fact that the logarithmic distance scale, while just about sensible and acceptable in point-to-point distance, grotesquely distorts the overall battle area. But when you move into two dimensions, nothing on the battlefield (particularly the terrain) is in the correct spatial relationship with anything else. Try setting out an armoured killing area/fire pocket.

Stillsenneffe, not a problem with 1/144 models and ground scale 1mm represents 1m. Northern Europe battle range typically 500 to 1500m so lots to spare on an 8ft by 6ft board (2400mm by 1800mm). Hexon II terrain for hills and it's at least vaguely plausible

Hey, what's the problem? He's just a big boy playing with his toys and having fun. Isn't that what the hobby is all about?

I prefer the 1" = 25m for 1/144 and micro scale models on a 6-12 foot table. I was gifted a large set of the 1/300 scale old-style hex terrain that is 4" across so it works perfectly for me. No measuring tape is needed either.

We also have a rule (Known Range) that if you hit a target you now have all targets within 100m "Ranged In" which means your first shot at a new target within 100m of the last target uses the Ranged In (most accurate) row rather than Ranging (least accurate). This forces players to realistically spread out.

Wolfhag

UshCha, I certainly support using smaller scale models (1/200 Skytrex in my case) and definitely Hexon terrain. However, the problem of logarithhmic ground scale persists whatever with TY. The distorted distances between terrain points mean that the fire of troops deployed on them is either more or less effective than it really should be- there's just no getting around it. I think Wolfhag's workaround is a good one, but ultimately it is a workaround to force more realistic behaviour.
For me, a much better solution is to use the rules of a decent tactical boardgame, hex terrain, and nice models.
Also, we need to be wary of the now famous stats of lines of sight in cold war Germany. Certainly, in the 1 (BR) Corps area, these distances varied greatly from less than 1000m in the southern part around the Harz, to 3-4000m on some parts of the Hildesheimer Borde. I was discussing this with a 1980s Armoured Brigade commander and a Divisional CoS a little while back. It made for significant tactical variation between how units would fight.
Back to TY, I do love the models. Just don't think the rules really work.

Fanatic and wolf,
Agree. They appear to be having fun which is the goal of the exercise at the end of the day.
I prefer a tad more realism but hey to each his own.

Joe