Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Looking forward to giving it a read the lore part is what I am most interested in... Is it a new Theatre opening in the existing WW3 Team Yankee universe or is it a totally Non Nato... splintered alliance such as the movies setting?...

Im looking forward to putting some Wolverines with my Americans... Technicals and all ...Lets kick some Ruskie/Cuban ass...

We are finally playing our first game Thursday, a demo really by someone who has some experience. He's running it for three of us.

I don't have the Red Dawn book just yet, but I wager it is the former of the options. We'll see. Cheers and post your paint progress!

Its the former. Within the World War 3 alt-history lore they have been creating, its roughly a slightly more (or less, depending on your perspective) realistic version of events from the film of the same name, without the dissolution of NATO and all that other stuff.

I remember suggesting something like that back in the old Battlefront forums shortly after Team Yankee had been released. I was roundly mocked at the time.

/rolleyes

Eumerin wrote:
I remember suggesting something like that back in the old Battlefront forums shortly after Team Yankee had been released. I was roundly mocked at the time.

/rolleyes

the forums that saw such a glowing reception for the realism and accuracy in Team Yankee and the stunning reception for Flames v4 that Battlefront got rid of them?

mind you they did manage to turn WW1 into a tank v tank game

leopard wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
I remember suggesting something like that back in the old Battlefront forums shortly after Team Yankee had been released. I was roundly mocked at the time.

/rolleyes

the forums that saw such a glowing reception for the realism and accuracy in Team Yankee and the stunning reception for Flames v4 that Battlefront got rid of them?

mind you they did manage to turn WW1 into a tank v tank game

The only real Team Yankee long-running complaints that I remember back then were the Russians (actual Russian nationals, and not just people who were playing Soviet formations) who were upset that the Soviet tanks weren't better than the Abrams for half the points. And of course that the Soviets generally weren't as flexible or skilled as the US volunteers. And a half-dozen other things. IIRC complaints were just starting to emerge about the presence of the Sgt. York (the at the time new US book basically added the full Marines line-up - most of whom had also just been added for the Vietnam game - and the Sgt. York; as someone who ran a US Army list at the time, I never did buy the book) and the absence of the Bradley in the new book (which had been widely anticipated during the pre-release lead-up). It's true that there was a rather loud rumble starting at the time as player questions regarding the two vehicles were pointedly ignored by Battlefront. But the forum closure happened so soon after the questions started that I'm fairly confident that the decision had already been made to shut the forum down before the players had a chance to get upset about the Sgt. York. I think one of my favorite complaints by the Russians was when one of them objected to the Americans getting the never completed Sgt. York while the Russians still waited for stuff that they thought should have been added... and being informed by a fellow poster that the American players on the forum had never asked for the Sgt. York, and wished that it would go away.

And did v4 get released before the forums shut down? I don't really remember the timeline on that. I just remember hopping over to the Facebook page to ask why the M18 Hellcat had suddenly been removed from the game when the Normandy lists were released (even though they were present during the later stages of the campaign, and the Task Force A list from a previous version of the game had prominently high-lighted the vehicle).

do you guys find Team Yankee to be that awful? I was supposed to play tonight for the first time, but Bronchitis has gotten in the way.

I've heard criticism of parking lots and bad rules floating around for a while, but they seemed more aimed at FoW than TY

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
do you guys find Team Yankee to be that awful? I was supposed to play tonight for the first time, but Bronchitis has gotten in the way.

I've heard criticism of parking lots and bad rules floating around for a while, but they seemed more aimed at FoW than TY

I liked it. I don't play it now for reasons that aren't related to the gameplay (one of them being that the COVID shutdowns appear to have killed the game at the local store). You'll notice that the complaints I mentioned were either related to Russian nationals being prickly about anything that might suggest that the Soviets had less than amazing equipment, tactics, and training (mind you, this was at game launch when it was generally understood that a BMP horde was the most effective force in the game, so...), or players trying to get answers from Battlefront about why the Sgt. York - a vehicle that historically had a disastrous development cycle that ultimately ended with the fifty or so vehicles that were built being unable to do their job, and were handed directly to National Guard units - had been added to the game. I didn't buy the American book because it wasn't really aimed at me. The new book felt like largely a way to recycle some Vietnam SKUs, with the few extra bits of equipment (the M60 Patton, for instance) needed to fill out the US Marines. Some of that - again the Patton comes to mind - also could be used by the Army. But the book largely felt like a Marines and Airborne (again, largely using recycled Vietnam vehicles) book that had some grudging nods toward foot-slogger Army players. Plus the Sgt. York abomination. Someone like myself who ran a mix of Abrams and infantry could already get everything needed from the lists in the 1st edition rule book. So there wasn't really any reason to buy the new book.

Note that I'm not talking about the current US book. The current one is a later release that finally added the Bradleys that players had been asking for since practically Day One. Though it also added that goofy light tank that historically the Army never showed any interest in. Why they went with that instead of either the M8 AGS (which the Army did want) or the Stingray (which competed against the M8, and is actually used in the real world by the Thai Army) is another of those things that AFAIK Battlefront refuses to discuss.

There's a rumor - no idea whether it's true or not - that someone over at Battlefront was the son of someone who worked on the Sgt. York, and that's why it made it into the game. But it's just a rumor, and I don't know the supposed details.

I do have one thing to note about the game, though. It plays a *lot* better on an 8x6 table than on the usual 6x4. Your vehicles have the speed and your weapons have the range to make it work, something that often isn't the case in Flames of War. And it helps to deal with the "parking lot" factor by giving you about twice as much square footage on the table.

You'll notice that the complaints I mentioned were either related to Russian nationals being prickly about anything that might suggest that the Soviets had less than amazing equipment, tactics, and training

I love how suggesting that the Soviet army shouldn't be depicted as subhuman animals rushing forward in death waves makes you a Russian national or a Russian nationalist. Tells you a lot about the mindset of many Team Yankee Fans.

If you want a less insane account, I played Flames of War 3rd ed for years and Battlefront was well known for having a staggeringly distorted view of the Eastern Front (this is a company that released a book which wrote up rules to allow SS troops to target Soviet Commissars - a bizarre gameification of a literal war crime), while the standard 'Russian' list was just a mass of bodies with no options for veteran units (no serious historian refers to the USSR as 'Russian', to cite David Stahel) and claims by Battlefronts writers the Soviet army had by the end of the war not even reached the competency of the American army at the start of the war (a blatant lie). When Team Yankee came out, everyone rolled their eyes when these ridiculous Cold Warrior tropes continued en masse.

Which just goes to show how little you understand what Battlefront was attempting to do.

First of all, I distinctly said Russian national, and not Russian nationalist. Those have two distinct meanings, even if you try to conflate them. A national is a member of a nation. A nationalist is someone with a fervor for their nation that exceeds simple patriotism and typically extends into "My country right or wrong.". I used the former term because it fit. The individuals in question were nationals of the Russian Federation.

The Soviet battle plans post-WW2 focused on more casualties now for fewer casualties later. Or as I quipped at one point on the Battlefront forum, the Soviet plan was to reach Amsterdam before the Americans did regardless of the cost. Backing this up, one poster on the forum described his conversation with a Soviet Colonel during the outbreak of amiability immediately following the end of the Cold War. According to what was posted, Soviet tactics didn't have the same emphasis as NATO on taking advantage of every bit of cover. The goal was to close with the enemy and wipe him out before he could escape to fight another day. Looking for every bit of cover on the way in would delay that, and provide more opportunities for the enemy to disengage. The stats in the game do their best to portray that. The Soviets aren't Stalingrad-era conscripts that are hit on a 2+. But neither are they as good as the Americans who might spend more time in training than a Soviet conscript might spend on his entire term of enlistment. NATO also has it's NCO system, providing greater flexibility and a core of experience to even the greenest butter bar lieutenant to draw upon. The Soviets did not.

As for SS targeting Commissars - that was only 5th SS Wiking when I was playing the game. And given that it's the SS that we're talking about, war crimes are kind of assumed, yes?

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
do you guys find Team Yankee to be that awful? I was supposed to play tonight for the first time, but Bronchitis has gotten in the way.

I've heard criticism of parking lots and bad rules floating around for a while, but they seemed more aimed at FoW than TY

oh for all the grumbling its not a bad game as such, however there are a few things to keep in mind

1. it needs a large table, 8'x6' is good, weapon ranges are long and accuracy can be high, you need space to move and to be able to get actually out of range occasionally
2. don't take it too seriously
3. seriously don't take it seriously

think of it as a bit like "the game of the film based on the book that was fiction in the first place"

my main issues are basically "where the heck are all the non-armoured units?", e.g. tube artillery stuff

that and the not always accurate formations, but that comes under points 2 & 3 above, trouble BF have is with WW2 a lot is memory, for 1985 there are people who were around at the time and know the stuff thats wrong.


and yes the BF forums were shut down after the reception of "team Hitler" aka Flames of War v4.. proving beyond all doubt that WW2 artillery units had excellent radio communications and coordination and didn't use spotters on the end of a bit of wire among many other things - e.g. a morale system so laughably bad it could have been written by Games workshop..

TY/V4 are not all bad, some good concepts, like having an actual movement stat, and some seriously bad ones, the near total lack of granularity in unit point values for example

leopard wrote:

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:
do you guys find Team Yankee to be that awful? I was supposed to play tonight for the first time, but Bronchitis has gotten in the way.

I've heard criticism of parking lots and bad rules floating around for a while, but they seemed more aimed at FoW than TY

oh for all the grumbling its not a bad game as such, however there are a few things to keep in mind

1. it needs a large table, 8'x6' is good, weapon ranges are long and accuracy can be high, you need space to move and to be able to get actually out of range occasionally
2. don't take it too seriously
3. seriously don't take it seriously

think of it as a bit like "the game of the film based on the book that was fiction in the first place"

my main issues are basically "where the heck are all the non-armoured units?", e.g. tube artillery stuff

that and the not always accurate formations, but that comes under points 2 & 3 above, trouble BF have is with WW2 a lot is memory, for 1985 there are people who were around at the time and know the stuff thats wrong.


and yes the BF forums were shut down after the reception of "team Hitler" aka Flames of War v4.. proving beyond all doubt that WW2 artillery units had excellent radio communications and coordination and didn't use spotters on the end of a bit of wire among many other things - e.g. a morale system so laughably bad it could have been written by Games workshop..

TY/V4 are not all bad, some good concepts, like having an actual movement stat, and some seriously bad ones, the near total lack of granularity in unit point values for example

This is helpful Leopard, thanks. Seems a good bit of dice chucking and explosions and laughs could be in order, again, with no hint of seriousness. I'll see if we gather to play it again, and will let all of you know how it goes. The one element that seems a bit confusing is army building, but that may be just because I haven not literally put pen to paper and done it yet.

the army building works ok once you work out its basically "pick you top level thing and that thing tells you want you can have under it"

its something easier to do than to explain but you'll figure it out fine

I have a ton of fun playing Team Yankee, so don’t let the naysayers shoot you down. Best if you can find a like minded group of players for some varied lists, rather than just meta chasers. Larger tables do enhance the experience IMHO but is not necessary.

 bullyboy wrote:
I have a ton of fun playing Team Yankee, so don’t let the naysayers shoot you down. Best if you can find a like minded group of players for some varied lists, rather than just meta chasers. Larger tables do enhance the experience IMHO but is not necessary.

you can avoid the need for a huge table by having a decent amount of line of sight blocking terrain, basically make movement matter and stop there being a single point NATO armour can sit on and work like a death ray.

the absolute nail on the head though is finding like minded players, however you want to play is better with people who want the same.

it can be a fun game, don't take it seriously and relax with friends. if you don't want bumper to bumper parking lots don't do it etc.

another thing that works I've found is just make up some batpoo nuts story as you go along