- 22/10/2019 at 18:41 #124950
That’s the ORIGINAL Team Yankee, not the compromised second draft! While packing up for an impending move (several months off, but one wants to be prepared) I found the remnants of the old Frank Chadwick design, with the majority intact including the rules, but many counters missing. I thought I had tossed the whole thing after Hurricane Katrina but here it was! And since I’ve gotten into 3mm scale in the intervening years, it has me thinking!
The game is super simple, mainly a slugfest, but that kind of gives it promise for quick pickups at the club. A little model terrain, a little 3mm work and some base labels for game stats, a hex to inch conversion, and everything old is new again. Better than, in fact, since minis will be easier to hold facing with.
And although the points values aren’t given, there’s a whole section at the back on other nations’ forces to supplement the relatively thin US vs. Frontline Soviet forces. Why not?22/10/2019 at 21:42 #12495622/10/2019 at 22:38 #124959
Yes! Published by GDW in 1987. I’d Place its level of complexity somewhere just to the north of Ogre – facing is an issue, guided missiles are in play, different infantry types. Still pretty simple, nothing on the level of, say, the World at War series (before Mark H Walker et al added all the werewolf nonsense and the impossible scenarios that railroaded the Americans, and effectively broke the game). But I remember it being a fast and fun play, with a very heavy casualty rate.23/10/2019 at 00:32 #124960
Yeah, I have thought about doing something like this, too. Or simply an expanded version of Ogre.
We get slapped around, but we have a good time!23/10/2019 at 13:32 #124980
Yes! Published by GDW in 1987. I’d Place its level of complexity somewhere just to the north of Ogre – facing is an issue, guided missiles are in play, different infantry types.
Cool. I only knew of the Battlefront game
Sounds like a very interesting project.23/10/2019 at 14:42 #12498223/10/2019 at 14:46 #12498323/10/2019 at 14:49 #124984
Yeah games that have special characters and superpowers (or what amounts to that) turn me way off. When you rely for victory on having some Super Kill-Guy on your side who can draw an I Automatically Win card, it kind of goes downhill fast. As far as I go is Epic and 40K but I don’t use any of the characters, just the plain troops.23/10/2019 at 15:07 #12498523/10/2019 at 15:35 #124986JozisTinManParticipant
Go for it! I think 3mm is the best way to get realistic looking ranges and unit spacing on a reasonably sized table. And given he troop densities, a slugfest is probably appropriate. Share pictures as you go!
http://jozistinman.blogspot.com/23/10/2019 at 15:46 #124988
The 2 games have almost diametrically opposite design intents. The boardgames was indeed designed as a very basic way to get people to not only play cold-war-gone-hot games but to also think about the consequences of such actions should the politics break down. Hence the high casualty rates, intended to be horrific on purpose to display the savagery of modern weapons. The BF version is designed to be a tournament game with points buy system that can be min/maxed and loopholed, but still be “fair and balanced”. I’ve never heard of war being such, but horses for courses…
I think doing it in 3mm is a great idea. Should be smipler than something like FFT3 and give a bloodier result.
Hop to it dude, let us know how it goes!
"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."23/10/2019 at 18:19 #124998
Absolutely no judgment involved, naturally! People who like that sort of thing find it to be the sort of thing they like, and I’m not meaning to talk it down. But yeah, my formative gaming years were the 1980s, and I have a somewhat more gritty view of warfare generally, so I’m more attracted to the former rather than the latter. I’m a casual and not a tournament player, and I like historical gaming without slogans or getting too “into it.” So it’s a good match for me.23/10/2019 at 20:07 #125005
I like the idea, can’t wait to see it in action
"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."24/10/2019 at 03:03 #125018
My one suggestion would be to take a page from Ogre and reduce the factors, to speed up and simplify the game.
So an M1 would be 4-5-5-4 while a T-72 would be 5-4-3-3. Less granular, but faster.
We get slapped around, but we have a good time!24/10/2019 at 06:18 #12502424/10/2019 at 13:23 #125055Just JackParticipant
This is fascinating, but please forgive my ignorance regarding Ogre. The base labels look fantastic, but what do they mean?
Jack24/10/2019 at 14:06 #125066
The numbers are cribbed from Team Yankee. On the left side, too to bottom, they are Attack Strength, Range and Defense Strength. On the right is Movement. The shaded box represents Missiles (TOWs, Saggers, etc.). Shaded movement means (I think I remember rightly) that the unit can’t move and fire missiles at the same time.
Also, Thaddeus, I’m not sure I see how halving all the numbers helps? The CRT is ratio based so it’ll be the same regardless, and eliminate borderline cases because it has a 2:3 and 4:3 line, so it’ll skew results. I’m interested to know what benefits you’ve had from it in terms of game speed.25/10/2019 at 03:30 #125118Just JackParticipant
Thank you, Sir, now I get it!
Jack25/10/2019 at 04:49 #125121
Just that there are fewer and smaller numbers to deal with. Sure, you lose a little granularity, but if you play with younger gamers who are not used to CRTs, like I do, having no number higher than a six helps with the math.
We get slapped around, but we have a good time!26/10/2019 at 01:35 #12520626/10/2019 at 20:03 #12526926/10/2019 at 22:52 #125275
Opposing forces – both potential allies and potential enemies. Hardline and Reformist factions in the collapsing post-Soviet state of Zaftra. The Blue force (Republic of Zaftra) is appealing to NATO for assistance in defending its nascent democracy; the Red force (Democratic People’s Republic of Zaftra) is clinging to power in a death grip that isn’t even being loosened by the collapsing Soviet Union.27/10/2019 at 21:30 #125351
After a reminder from a friend that I left out an “R” in USAREUR, it occurred to me that, with a game set in Zaftra being a NATO operation, the A ericans et al would probably be deployed as part of ZFOR, not directly from USAREUR or SHAPE. So off come the labels, new ones made… I’m so hard to satisfy. But it also gave me the time to consider painting some M60s I found as part of a Turkish contingent contributing to ZFOR.
It also made me think: in a confused, multinational End-Of-Cold-War battle environment, an interesting idea (one I’ve been tossing around for a long time) is that the non-native powers involved might not be predictable. NATO and Russia (or the Soviet, if I go that route) might have priorities that change during the game.
At the moment I’m not sure how to manage that in a game like this, but my mind’s eye goes to those little decodes you could find in cereal boxes when you were a kid, where a slip of colored acetate would reveal a secret message. If there were a way to make two messages on a single card, such that you could capture and potentially decode your enemy’s next order, but not necessarily with certainty, it would make a very interesting meta-game.
For example, say NATO and the Reformists decode with blue, while the Hardliners and the Soviet decode with red. Get the card first by reaching an objective and you get to decode it, along with a level of confidence as to how accurately it reflects what the other side would read. Or, alternatively, you may only be able to reveal SOME words in his orders and would have to guess at the remainder. Then you pass the card to your opponent and he decodes it for his next objective: do you know his next orders or not?
I have zero idea if it would work, just a thought.27/10/2019 at 21:46 #125352ian pillayParticipant
Wow they are fantastic!
Tally-Ho!28/10/2019 at 01:31 #12535528/10/2019 at 01:59 #12535628/10/2019 at 11:38 #125393ThomastonParticipant
That looks really good, maybe camo works too well.
Why did you do labels differently for infantrya nd tanks?
Tired is enough.
I like tiny miniatures28/10/2019 at 14:31 #125407
In perspective and under decent lighting the tanks and infantry show up all right. But the main protagonists, the Zavtrans, get bright colors for easy recognition. As for the infantry labels, I’m not quite sure why I do it that way. Visual appeal I guess – there’s no mistaking infantry for tanks and vice versa.30/10/2019 at 14:44 #125540
This project is looking pretty good.
I don’t know if you ever played the ARMA series of video games, but one of them take place in a collapsing Soviet republic (ARMA II) and this sort of story line opens up all sorts of interesting possibilities for complex battles as well as special operations skirmishes. I’m sure there’d be partisans and paramilitary units on both sides, as well as likely political and/or ethnic frictions among civilian neighbors that could get out of hand and provide tons of gaming opportunities. (some quite horrific I’m sure)
"I saw this in a cartoon once, but I'm pretty sure I can do it..."30/10/2019 at 18:58 #125559
Yeah the point system specified in the base Team Yankee game is limited to the base components, which is enough to play quite a bit, and also to pit the Zavtran factions against each other. Thereafter I imagine I’ll work the scenarios up on the fly, and with a NATO/Russian intervention as a framework, an asymmetric setup will probably be the order of the day anyhow. With up to four or more players, if I end up rolling it out at the club, my method for balance would be to build forces and then randomize who you get to play. Maybe your force, maybe someone else’s!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.