A simple "thought experiment" that started more than two years ago regarding "miniaturizing" the GDW Team Yankee "First Battle" system rules is wrapping up! THis year's theme really has to be minis/boardgame crossover.
As some of you may remember, I tinkered around with the GDW boardgame to make it "feel" a little bit more like a miniatures game. I added a "To Hit" roll and also tinkered with the QRS before deciding I needed to do alot more research into the topic. The ultimate issue, though, was the 1D6 QRS which didnt feel like I was playing a minis game at all. Even making it 2D6 never felt quite right.
The Fistful of TOWs rules - which are great - but in this case not what I'm looking for |
After reading FFT3, which compares the attack and armor differences, I knew I was on to something. (hats off to Darren, the "Duc de Gobin" also, who playtested these modifications and offered lots of friendly advice and thoughts along the way). Adding a "To Hit" roll was solid, but I could wanted to unravel the CRT from Team Yankee to make it feel like a minis game. FFT did this but changed the outcomes a bit (as well as the armor and attack values).
Updating the Combat Results Table
Instead of comparing the difference in attack to defense strength like FFT and other microarmor games, I kept the ratios from Team Yankee, but I was sneaky about it. I laid everything out in a QRS so you dont have to compute ratios. You just cross reference your attack strength with the defense strength and you arrive at the number of D6 you must roll for effects.
The effects from Team Yankee's original CRT are as follows:
No Effect / Pinned (infantry) / Damaged (AFV) / Destroyed
I kept those effects to remain aligned with the intent from the boardgame but, similar to FFT, you roll a number of D6 to get your effects - the worst result takes priority. THe number of D6 you roll is based off of the ratio of attack strength to defense strength (so a 3:1 ratio you would roll 3D6.) looking for the following results (very similar, but not completely similar to FFT). FFT has the target pass a quality check on a roll of 4 or 5, which, if failed results in the target's destruction. Frank Chadwick's original CRT has a vehicle as damaged and infantry as pinned.
- 6: Destroyed
- 5: Damaged/Pinned
- 4: Pinned (Infantry Only)
- 1-3: No effect
THis is all well and good but how does it work out?
Cross referencing a BMP2 firing its missile (Attack 22) at an M1 (Defense 10), you cross reference the 22 row with the 10 defense column. The resulting number is "2". So you roll 2D6, looking for "6" to destroy, or "5" to damage. The QRS also contains the original vehicle and troop values from the game so you could, if you were familiar with the rules, play it all off of this QRS.
The Combat Results Table from my modified Team Yankee game |
In many cases, you're still only going to be rolling 1D6, or 1D6 minus 1 which was the case in a recent game but it is alot of fun. A T-72 shooting at an M113 is going to roll 6 dice and is most likely going to destroy it. A T-72 shooting at an M1 is going to roll 2 dice up close (double attack strength), 1 die from standard range, and 1D6 minus 1 from long range. Easy peasy!
If you'd like to check out my modified QRS for GDW's Team Yankee (and probably the entire First Battle series) click here. My aim is to play a scenario from the Team Yankee board game and try these out.
Here are some pics of an experimental battle occurring at the "disgruntledfusilier academy of wargame sciences":
They came on in the same, old way.... |
TOW Missile destroys the Soviet reconnaissance BMP (6 result) |
The valley of death! Interestingly, playing this game made me want to play more Battlegroup: NORTHAG |
American Battle Positions |
Finally - Captain Bannon's Tank during the First Battle!
So there you have it. The end to what has been a very fun and thought provoking project. I'm keen to give this a go using hexes and then again without hexes to see how it plays, but I will be honest - it plays very much like a miniatures game now but still holds true to the designer's intentions (in my humble opinion) by retaining the values of the original counters, and the results from the original CRT.
That's it for now. A quick, light hearted game testing my modified QRS and CRT. Putting some more Napoleonics on the table soon, and making some "progress" with painting the Epic figures but you'll have to wait until WIP Wednesday for more on that topic!
Great to see this Steve. Actually, I think you have improved both systems - TY and FFT3, with your system.
ReplyDeleteIt allows for that neat tactical feel that both TY and West End's 'Fire Team' did, but from a much needed and tactically more gripping perspective.
Now - interesting that you mention doing it with hexes - I think that is a natural progression to improve TY (by going back to its roots in many respects) ..and I have just managed to get my hex boards ready for the Peter/Steve HEx version for company/battalion level stuff.
Just to complicate matters further - GDW upgrade the tactical unit to a full platoon in the 'Sands of War' series, so we have options using both PeterHex rules and your own TY variant for all of those lovely scenarios :)
(I have not even mentioned Command Decision scenarios just yet ...LOL)
We must get that zoom meeting organised sir :)
Darren I wondered when I would be hearing from you sir! I am keen to try the "Sands of War" scenarios using Peter's modified WW2 rules, as this year seems to be my "desert" year in addition to also my "boardgame crossover" year :) so in addition to Peter's rules, I may try the scaled up First Battle Rules with my mods .
DeletePerhaps a joint Kasserine game via zoom? Do we dare give it a try? Martin Rapiers original scenario was built for zoom/virtual delivery I think.
Absolutely Steve - count me in for that one. Talk soon sir.
DeleteThat’s a nifty CRT. What a shame ‘First Battle’ died with the company, there was a lot of scope for that system to become a bed rock of tactical gaming. I had the big Stand & Die game, from memory the hexes were probably big enough to use 1/300.
ReplyDeleteI bought the "stand and die!" Borodino game on ebay recently Norm! My intent was to play it with microarmour as one of my big Christmas mega games then I started gaming almost practically solo....
DeleteI agree with you there was so much nuance a d flexibility inherent within these "first battle" rules that no game was alike.
It is always fun play testing an idea. Do you find using a free movement on the tabletop automatically reduces the board game feel?
ReplyDeleteI agree Peter. I love to see something I helped come up with played on the table, even if it was a small idea or minor modification.
DeleteYes definitely. As an example, some of the Series 120 boardgames from GDW, Lobositz and Guilford Courthouse were spiritual predecessors to Volley and Bayonet. You can see this in all of the inner workings of combat, morale (especially morale) and movement. Taking the Grid away it makes it feel like a completely different game even though they share the same DNA. Removing the grid, though, allowed Volley a d Bayonet to become a more universal game, encompassing 1700s to 1890s if that makes any sense.
Wow I am amazed by the scope of your thinking and experimenting around different rule sets and gaming mechanics Steve - seems like every second week, you are playtesting another adaptation you have made of an existing system!
ReplyDeleteThanks Keith - ever since I played Lock and Load Publishing's "World at War 1985" game (which have a wonderful and genius miniatures-esque feel), it's become an obsession of mine to reverse-engineer some games to play better as tabletop games, among those are Panzerblitz/Leader/AIW, and the First Battle series. Or at least cultivate that feel as a tabletop game.
DeleteThe rantings and ravings you've seen on this site are really an outgrowth of the attempt to bring those systems closer to the tabletop, without having to start over completely.
You might say it's been a hobby within a hobby.
Peter's WW2 rules that I love are heavily influenced by panzerblitz and are a perfect example of this endeavor and what I'm trying to go here -marry up a tabletop experience with a board game experience.