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.

A friend from work has some extra models he is offering to sell me, along with the US book and a spare copy of the rules. There are a few guys that play it each week on Saturday nights here and I am interested.

Is there anything I should know before I make my decision?

What's your opinion on Flames of War? The rules are almost identical. Kit doesn't necessarily work the same. But your opinion on one will probably carry over to the other.

If you haven't played FoW - the rules are pretty simple and straightforward. And a lot of people like it.

Eumerin wrote:
What's your opinion on Flames of War? The rules are almost identical. Kit doesn't necessarily work the same. But your opinion on one will probably carry over to the other.

If you haven't played FoW - the rules are pretty simple and straightforward. And a lot of people like it.

I've never played FoW, so this is all new to me.

I guess for me, I'm looking for something that is fun to play, first and foremost. I'm hopeful that the game isn't one of those hyper competitive type games where 2-3 armies rule the roost.

I also do not want to drop 500$ on an army and a ton of books, so I am hopeful that the game isn't as expensive as playing 40K.

 Togusa wrote:


I guess for me, I'm looking for something that is fun to play, first and foremost. I'm hopeful that the game isn't one of those hyper competitive type games where 2-3 armies rule the roost.

I also do not want to drop 500$ on an army and a ton of books, so I am hopeful that the game isn't as expensive as playing 40K.

You should like it, though I have to warn you there's going to be a new rulebook around november, to align Team Yankee with v4 FoW.

Good idea, I can probably wait until then to pick up the book. Another friend of mine wants to give it a go with me, so I'll pass this on to her as well.

I've only played FoW...which is decidedly "okay", nothing special. I found it paled in comparison to Battlegroup titles....and Battlegroup has a Cold War game coming out...so I'd consider skipping Team Yankee unless you get in real cheap.

Also beware, Battlefront's miniatures are often sub-par and expensive as hell. Look to PSC for better alternatives. Being a 15mm historical game, you don't need to use any 'official' models unless they're packaged with cards/rules (which you could probably locate easily enough).

Battlegroup NORTHAG is worth putting on your radar.

 Elbows wrote:
I've only played FoW...which is decidedly "okay", nothing special. I found it paled in comparison to Battlegroup titles....and Battlegroup has a Cold War game coming out...so I'd consider skipping Team Yankee unless you get in real cheap.

Also beware, Battlefront's miniatures are often sub-par and expensive as hell. Look to PSC for better alternatives. Being a 15mm historical game, you don't need to use any 'official' models unless they're packaged with cards/rules (which you could probably locate easily enough).

Battlegroup NORTHAG is worth putting on your radar.

He's got a group currently playing Team Yankee. As the saying goes, a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

As for Battlefront's miniatures, quality varies widely. Some are pretty good. Some are pretty bad. I'm a fan of their M1 Abrams model. Their A-10, on the other hand, is an absolute disaster.

Have they finally gotten full out of resin+metal tanks? When I first started FoW back in the early 2000's it was an okay game, but more importantly miniatures were extremely reasonable. The second they gained in popularity their prices went through the roof.

I'd imagine the Battlefront plastics might be okay, but with PSC outdoing them in quality and price...I see no reason to send them money.

Battlefront plastics are quite great, and more importantly for gaming pieces, easy and fast to build.
PSC are kits, not gaming pieces, and I'm still cursing the day I had to give their M3 Stuart a go. Any money saved was burnt on the time I had to spend trying to build the bloody things.

As for the game itself, v4 rules are easy to grasp, with a nicely tactical gameplay, just don't go in expecting a hardcore simulation, that's not what it is.

I actually quite enjoyed the dirt cheap Zvezda WW2 kits...literally two or three piece snap-together models. A nice option if you don't want to fiddle with PSC. I can see the more difficult builds being a turn off for people.

Agree that Battlegroup is superior to FoW.

That said, NorthHag is not out yet and Team Yankee is.

From the game play videos I have seen, Team Yankee prefers a GW-esque chuck dice and remove models like crazy method of game play. If you like that style, then you will like Team Yankee.

 Easy E wrote:
Agree that Battlegroup is superior to FoW.

That said, NorthHag is not out yet and Team Yankee is.

From the game play videos I have seen, Team Yankee prefers a GW-esque chuck dice and remove models like crazy method of game play. If you like that style, then you will like Team Yankee.

Yes, this is what we are looking for in terms of gameplay. I watched a few of the battlereports on youtube last night, it seems right up our alley. I couldn't see anything bad about any of the models featured in the game-play videos, what seems to be the trouble with them?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Elbows wrote:
I've only played FoW...which is decidedly "okay", nothing special. I found it paled in comparison to Battlegroup titles....and Battlegroup has a Cold War game coming out...so I'd consider skipping Team Yankee unless you get in real cheap.

Also beware, Battlefront's miniatures are often sub-par and expensive as hell. Look to PSC for better alternatives. Being a 15mm historical game, you don't need to use any 'official' models unless they're packaged with cards/rules (which you could probably locate easily enough).

Battlegroup NORTHAG is worth putting on your radar.

Money isn't an issue for me, so the cost isn't likely to be a factor in my decision to play.

I mentioned the A-10. The fuselage and wings is a two-piece resin model. And the connection point on mine was really bad. They have a large but shallow part on the rear fuselage that's supposed to be inserted into the front fuselage. The problems as I recall them were -

1. The part on the rear fuselage needed to be cleaned up on all four of the planes I had.
2. The part on the rear fuselage is too shallow of a connection point for what it's trying to support.
3. The rim of the connection point - which is on the front fuselage - is too thin, and thus brittle. On my planes, it broke in small chips far too easily.
4. The fit between the two parts was poor.

I have no complaints about the other Team Yankee models I've worked with, which include the mech infantry platoon, M1 Abrams, M113, Cobra, ITV, and Vulcan AA vehicle.

How about someone who was interested in Team Yankee and stopped themself from taking the plunge into Team Yankee?

One can squeeze a lot of information from the Team Yankee website as follows:

11 points for a Leopard 2 - https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5254
8 points for a M1 Abrams - https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5056
7 points for a Chieftain - https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5326
5 points for a T-72 - https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5057

In my understanding, there are some Team Yankee players that believe that the game should be played as NATO versus Warsaw Pact, that is, "blue versus red", and not "blue versus blue" and neither "red versus red", because the NATO armies were configured to fight against the Warsaw Pact.

Thus, in Main Battle Tank (MBT) terms, someone has to put more money, time, and effort into building and playing a Warsaw Pact force. Or, each player should have and bring two armies to play, that is, a NATO army and a Warsaw Pact army to play either side in a "blue versus red" game.

I like the tank models of Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, and Chieftain, but not enough to overcome my lack of enthusiasm to build and play a Warsaw Pact army.

The force diagrams give you an example of the diversity of a force as follows:
https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5872 Team Yankee Force Diagrams (2017)

That's too much diversity for me in a game where my focus is on the MBTs. And, as an example, I feel that field artillery should be off-board.

One may like or dislike BMP "spam" as follows:
https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5341 Blair's Motor Rifle Battalion

So, one could field 4 Leopard 2s in a 50 point force and have to face a 50 point force with 17 BMP-1s and 12 BMP-2s.

I have no desire to play a "spam" force nor to play against a "spam" force.

Here's an article that shows the high commitment of some of the Team Yankee players:
https://nodicenoglory.com/2019/07/19/historicon-2019-team-yankee-tournament/

The game looks like both sides deploy, and then one side starts shooting to start the war.

If the war remained conventional and did not go nuclear, then what would the composition of the forces look like after Day 1? On Day X? Likewise, the idyllic villages and countryside? Do the MBTs survive more than anything else?

If there is a Team Yankee version such as "On Day X" where the MBTs survive more than anything else and the "spam" is destroyed leaving very few support units, then Battlefront Miniatures would probably have me buying the MBTs and a few support units to play.

 Elbows wrote:
Have they finally gotten full out of resin+metal tanks? When I first started FoW back in the early 2000's it was an okay game, but more importantly miniatures were extremely reasonable. The second they gained in popularity their prices went through the roof.

I'd imagine the Battlefront plastics might be okay, but with PSC outdoing them in quality and price...I see no reason to send them money.

Battlefront and flames of War are joined at the hip, but not in any way propriatory due to scale and setting.

If you dislike Battlefront resins and metals, and I cant blame you if you do, buy someone elses models. Battlefront plastics are good minus their first run of tanks, but you need not wait for them if you don't like what they have. PSC is good and there are a vast range of high quality resins and metals to choose from.

Humanoid wrote:

Thus, in Main Battle Tank (MBT) terms, someone has to put more money, time, and effort into building and playing a Warsaw Pact force. Or, each player should have and bring two armies to play, that is, a NATO army and a Warsaw Pact army to play either side in a "blue versus red" game.

I like the tank models of Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, and Chieftain, but not enough to overcome my lack of enthusiasm to build and play a Warsaw Pact army.

The force diagrams give you an example of the diversity of a force as follows:
https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5872 Team Yankee Force Diagrams (2017)

That's too much diversity for me in a game where my focus is on the MBTs. And, as an example, I feel that field artillery should be off-board.

One may like or dislike BMP "spam" as follows:
https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5341 Blair's Motor Rifle Battalion

So, one could field 4 Leopard 2s in a 50 point force and have to face a 50 point force with 17 BMP-1s and 12 BMP-2s.

I have no desire to play a "spam" force nor to play against a "spam" force.

The "spam" is an artifact of the real-world situation. The Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO by more than 2-1. And whereas NATO doctrine encouraged careful use of terrain to delay an enemy, Warsaw Pact doctrine encouraged a "more casualties now for fewer casualties later" mentality. That meant hitting hard and fast with maximum force to take the objectives before they could be reinforced, and crushing any screening forces before those forces could withdraw to fight another day. Finally, in the year that the game is set, the Pact didn't have any tanks that were a one to one match for the latest NATO designs. There's no way around this.

And remember, while you can play a small-model count NATO army, you don't have to. Germans were released with the lower-cost Leopard 1 alongside the Leopard 2. The US got the M60 when Stripes book was released. And infantry is cheap no matter which army you're running. A US mechanized infantry company (HQ and three platoons) costs the same (19 points) as a Soviet BMP-1 company (19 points).

You identified BMP spam. It's worth noting that while that list requires a lot of purchases and work to put together, it was also considered the best list in the game at launch.

Finally - if you want to run a Pact army, but don't want to buy a lot of stuff, then don't. Play low-point games. There's nothing forcing you to play higher point games. And if you only bring thirty points worth of troops, then your opponent will have to adapt to you. All NATO armies are capable of fielding low-point companies. Yes, you have to leave out the late-generation MBTs. But there's no nation that can *only* take the Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams.

 Orlanth wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Have they finally gotten full out of resin+metal tanks? When I first started FoW back in the early 2000's it was an okay game, but more importantly miniatures were extremely reasonable. The second they gained in popularity their prices went through the roof.

I'd imagine the Battlefront plastics might be okay, but with PSC outdoing them in quality and price...I see no reason to send them money.

Battlefront and flames of War are joined at the hip, but not in any way propriatory due to scale and setting.

If you dislike Battlefront resins and metals, and I cant blame you if you do, buy someone elses models. Battlefront plastics are good minus their first run of tanks, but you need not wait for them if you don't like what they have. PSC is good and there are a vast range of high quality resins and metals to choose from.

Oh, I've zero interest in FoW/Team Yankee anyway - just pointing out the changes over time that FoW/Battlefront had. I'm patiently awaiting Battlegroup NORTHAG...and may even tackle that in 10mm (PSC has shown previews on "armies in a box" at 10mm scale which would be even more conducive to this type of game/scale.

 Elbows wrote:
Oh, I've zero interest in FoW/Team Yankee anyway - just pointing out the changes over time that FoW/Battlefront had. I'm patiently awaiting Battlegroup NORTHAG...and may even tackle that in 10mm (PSC has shown previews on "armies in a box" at 10mm scale which would be even more conducive to this type of game/scale.

Our local crew is having the Great Debate preparing for Battlegroup NorthAG. While we've all got some 15mm stuff, and will use that for early days, we can't come to a consensus on making 10mm, 6mm, or even 3mm our go to scale for regular play.

Yep, I won't be picking up anything until I get a proper read-through of the game. See what scale really fits/works. The 10mm is obviously tempting because it's cheaper/easier and probably still a reasonable scale for the game on a normal 6x4 table. We shall see!

Having popped down to the Tank Museum recently I've been looking into 15mm or 1:100 tanks.

You're basically looking at between £5 and £7 where ever you get them from, dunno how that compares to your deal!

What puts me off Team Yankee is it is 'cold war run hot' rather than actual history.

Well I'm happy to say my little venture seems to be paying off. There were two of us interested on Friday, so I started a little FB group for us. It has now blossomed to over eight interested parties!

I'm also really happy about the spread of nations being chosen by the potential players, Soviets, Warsaw Pact, IDF, USA, Iraq and Iran.

Looks like WWIII is about to heat up!

 Kroem wrote:
Having popped down to the Tank Museum recently I've been looking into 15mm or 1:100 tanks.

You're basically looking at between £5 and £7 where ever you get them from, dunno how that compares to your deal!

What puts me off Team Yankee is it is 'cold war run hot' rather than actual history.

I don't follow it, but they definitely have some of the Middle East conflicts as books/expansions I think (or was that an entirely separate game - an offshoot of FoW?)

PS: If you base it on actual history you'll more or less never get to do the insane stuff. I don't think anyone would enjoy playing the first gulf war...

Yea if you like playing with the high tech kit it would be good!

Dunno why, but pitting the best tanks of the era against each other is less interesting to me than less well equipt forces making do with what they have.

For example, I'm more interested in playing wars like Arab-Israeli, Indo-Pak and Iran-Iraq where you have a jumble of some modern tanks, some local custom jobs, some kit leftover from World War II and/ or some flawed designs that have been sold off cheap!

Arab-Israel - Fate of a Nation and Oil Wars.

Kroem,

I agree with you - my interest lies less in major powers and more in 2nd world countries. I'd imagine Battlegroup will continue to add new books/campaigns etc. The basis should hopefully be good enough that my buddy and I will be running an Imagi-Nations campaign in the 80's.

We've talked a lot about creating a deep between-game phase where you politically maneuver, court favor with the Warsaw Pact and NATO (achieving a "reputation" score with each - which impacts whether or not you can buy certain products which will be offered in trade, etc.).

We're considering building quite a bit to justify how/why our nations are fighting and with what. I don't follow Team Yankee - but I'd imagine you could come up with a bit from that if really necessary?

Thats a really cool idea Elbows! I hope it turns out really fun to play.

Reminds me of a PS2 RTS game where one faction would unlock technology by evacuating refugees and delivering aid, whilst the other faction would unlock technology by having camera crews near there units when they destroyed enemies, you would then see a little propganda news report pop up.

 Carlson793 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Oh, I've zero interest in FoW/Team Yankee anyway - just pointing out the changes over time that FoW/Battlefront had. I'm patiently awaiting Battlegroup NORTHAG...and may even tackle that in 10mm (PSC has shown previews on "armies in a box" at 10mm scale which would be even more conducive to this type of game/scale.

Our local crew is having the Great Debate preparing for Battlegroup NorthAG. While we've all got some 15mm stuff, and will use that for early days, we can't come to a consensus on making 10mm, 6mm, or even 3mm our go to scale for regular play.

I joined what Facebook group I could find for NORTHAG and yes, scale choice is ripe with various possibilities.

I'm so glad I encountered this thread. I wont' touch Team Yankee or anything from Battlefront / GF9 after a horrible customer service / Adepticon experience. Discovering Battlegroup Northag's exciting upcoming release, and PSC products as well, was an unexpected benefit.

 Shrapnelsmile wrote:

 Carlson793 wrote:

 Elbows wrote:
Oh, I've zero interest in FoW/Team Yankee anyway - just pointing out the changes over time that FoW/Battlefront had. I'm patiently awaiting Battlegroup NORTHAG...and may even tackle that in 10mm (PSC has shown previews on "armies in a box" at 10mm scale which would be even more conducive to this type of game/scale.

Our local crew is having the Great Debate preparing for Battlegroup NorthAG. While we've all got some 15mm stuff, and will use that for early days, we can't come to a consensus on making 10mm, 6mm, or even 3mm our go to scale for regular play.

I joined what Facebook group I could find for NORTHAG and yes, scale choice is ripe with various possibilities.

I'm so glad I encountered this thread. I wont' touch Team Yankee or anything from Battlefront / GF9 after a horrible customer service / Adepticon experience. Discovering Battlegroup Northag's exciting upcoming release, and PSC products as well, was an unexpected benefit.

Everyone, I'm happy that you have this NORTHAG game, but could you take it to another thread? This is a thread for TY and it's getting difficult for me to keep up with all the posts, I've come back three times today to find replies that aren't helpful to my situation.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Eumerin wrote:

Humanoid wrote:

Thus, in Main Battle Tank (MBT) terms, someone has to put more money, time, and effort into building and playing a Warsaw Pact force. Or, each player should have and bring two armies to play, that is, a NATO army and a Warsaw Pact army to play either side in a "blue versus red" game.

I like the tank models of Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, and Chieftain, but not enough to overcome my lack of enthusiasm to build and play a Warsaw Pact army.

The force diagrams give you an example of the diversity of a force as follows:
https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5872 Team Yankee Force Diagrams (2017)

That's too much diversity for me in a game where my focus is on the MBTs. And, as an example, I feel that field artillery should be off-board.

One may like or dislike BMP "spam" as follows:
https://www.team-yankee.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=5341 Blair's Motor Rifle Battalion

So, one could field 4 Leopard 2s in a 50 point force and have to face a 50 point force with 17 BMP-1s and 12 BMP-2s.

I have no desire to play a "spam" force nor to play against a "spam" force.

The "spam" is an artifact of the real-world situation. The Warsaw Pact outnumbered NATO by more than 2-1. And whereas NATO doctrine encouraged careful use of terrain to delay an enemy, Warsaw Pact doctrine encouraged a "more casualties now for fewer casualties later" mentality. That meant hitting hard and fast with maximum force to take the objectives before they could be reinforced, and crushing any screening forces before those forces could withdraw to fight another day. Finally, in the year that the game is set, the Pact didn't have any tanks that were a one to one match for the latest NATO designs. There's no way around this.

And remember, while you can play a small-model count NATO army, you don't have to. Germans were released with the lower-cost Leopard 1 alongside the Leopard 2. The US got the M60 when Stripes book was released. And infantry is cheap no matter which army you're running. A US mechanized infantry company (HQ and three platoons) costs the same (19 points) as a Soviet BMP-1 company (19 points).

You identified BMP spam. It's worth noting that while that list requires a lot of purchases and work to put together, it was also considered the best list in the game at launch.

Finally - if you want to run a Pact army, but don't want to buy a lot of stuff, then don't. Play low-point games. There's nothing forcing you to play higher point games. And if you only bring thirty points worth of troops, then your opponent will have to adapt to you. All NATO armies are capable of fielding low-point companies. Yes, you have to leave out the late-generation MBTs. But there's no nation that can *only* take the Leopard 2 or M1 Abrams.

I'm not too concerned about these kinds of issue. All of us in this group are here for the "beer and pretzels" games and no one has any plans to go balls to the wall WAAC on the rest of us.

 Elbows wrote:

I don't follow it, but they definitely have some of the Middle East conflicts as books/expansions I think (or was that an entirely separate game - an offshoot of FoW?)

PS: If you base it on actual history you'll more or less never get to do the insane stuff. I don't think anyone would enjoy playing the first gulf war...

Before Team Yankee was released, Battlefront had three other "side games". The first was Vietnam, then there was Fate of a Nation (Six Day War), and Great War (1918 - WWI, including tanks of course ). After Team Yankee was released, Battlefront made a conscious decision to fold it into three time periods. The game proper is now classified as "Mid-War Team Yankee". You don't generally see it referred to as that, but that's Battlefront's thinking about it. The most recent Vietnam book and Fate of a Nation book (the latter added the Yom Kippur War) are now in Early War Team Yankee, and the points costs in the two books are fully compatible with each other. Yes, this means that you can run a Vietnam-era US Armored Cavalry list against early-70s Syrians if you so choose.

Up until this year, the main Team Yankee setting was limited to North Central Europe (none of the southern nations on either side have been introduced yet). Earlier this year, Battlefront expanded the game's setting by adding the Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, and Israelis. Historically, Iran and Iraq were locked in a long war in the '80s (the Iran-Iraq War), and the international community was largely supporting the Iraqis. In the setting, the Soviets wanted to draw American forces from Europe, and decided that a threat to the Middle-Eastern oil fields would be the best way to do so. The Soviets secretly approached the Iranians and cut a deal with them, effectively bringing them in on the side of the Soviets when World War III started. The Iraqis are still fighting against the Iranians (and wouldn't want their oil fields wrecked by the Soviets in any case), and thus end up on the same side as NATO. Meanwhile, further West, the Syrians had been tipped off by the Soviets that something was up, and launched a new offensive against the Israelis. Thus you have the Iranians and Syrians appearing as allies of the Warsaw Pact. And you have the Israelis and Iraqis as allies of NATO. Israel is pointedly not sending troops to assist the Iraqis (because of the Arab attitude toward Israel), and the Egyptians (who concluded a peace treaty with Israel in the late '70s) are quietly supporting Israel, albeit without committing combat troops.

The Israelis are brand new, of course, and have a mix of new and familiar weapons systems. The Iraqis and Iranians change up the familiar force paradigms. The Iranians have a lot of older American equipment that they purchased while the Shah was still in power, and are backed up by newer Soviet equipment and possible Soviet allied forces. Meanwhile, the Iraqis are using a mix of largely Soviet and French equipment, and can take NATO forces as allies. The Syrians are closer to the standard Warsaw Pact list.

 Kroem wrote:


What puts me off Team Yankee is it is 'cold war run hot' rather than actual history.

well there was no actual large sized armed conflict during the historical cold war now was there?
cant make a wargame if there is no conflict in the background.


as for models, they are as said above, gaming pieces, not display models and yes, prices are a bit steep.
plastic kits quality are good but small fiddly parts that stand out has a high chanse of snapping either during transport or from sprue removal, old metal and resin is more or less allways flawed or in bad quality.