Team Yankee Aircraft

[James23105]

Howdy all, searching has turned up nothing so far so I thought I would ask the community. Has anyone made a Team Yankee unit card for either an F-18 Hornet or a Kiowa helicopter?

Somewhat related, how would an AC-130 Spectre Gunship be represented? Would there need to be any special modifications or just try and get a unit card with the right weapons, etc?

Thanks for any input,

James

[Daeothar]

Due to the limited granularity of the game, I think most units of comparable performance and/or weaponry will come out roughly the same. So your Kiowa could easily be represented by either the Lynx or BO-105, without armament.

I am just getting into the game, and I'm thinking of proxying the F-16 with the Tornado stats. I'm certain the F-18 could be used like that as well.

And I'm also planning to make PSD templates for the unit cards. So if you're like me, and you want the cards to represent the actual models on the table, I'd be happy to share them, once they're finished

[James23105]

Thanks Daeothar, that's likely what I will go with. I would indeed appreciate any templates for the cards  cheers!

[Arrigo]

I would not go with Tornado stats for an F-16. We are talking of F-16A in 1985, not really optimized for AtG and with less bombload than a Tornado (yes we can argue why the Tornado was included rather than the Jaguar, the G-91, and the Alpha Jet!). Even with the lack of granularity in TY certainly an F-16A should be less capable than a Tornado. Espacially considering that they had range problem and usually had carry at least two drop tanks. Same for the early F-18. Remember the Hornet started as the YF-17 Northrop competitor to GD YF-16.

AC-130. No need for it. It is a sitting duck for any decent AAA and the way it delivers ordnance is very  different from the fast CAS Team Yankee attempts to reproduce. You have an orbiting transport plane doing circles over the battlefield. As long it fires it is stuck to a fixed pattern.  Do you want such a thing in a battlefield where your opponent will bring at least Shilkas and SA-7? A Spectre would not even survive close enough to be relevant in a TY battlefield.  Remember USAF practices forbidden day operation; the only Spectre that stayed on station in daylight was shot down (Kafji) and in that occasion the pilot asked his crew to volunteer before staying. The mission was suicidal.  I know it is cool  but it is not a TY asset. There other planes you may want before the spectre... F-111? Jaguar? G-91? F-104G with cluster bombs? Mirage F-1 in fighter bomber role? F-4E (that should be scary!)? A6E? Buccaneer?  A7D or A7E? These are the things you want coming to mudtown!

[Daeothar]

Although we could argue ad infinitum about which fighter had the edge over which, what version was in use at the time and what doctrine and weapons available (and we could; I was an absolute fighter aircraft nerd back in highschool ), it really does not matter in this context.

Team Yankee is a pretty simple game, with very simple, abstracted stats, and because of the way it uses fighter aircraft in the game, there really is very, very little to no difference in the way different fighters behave.

Armament is limited to a cannon and a type of cluster (read: template) munition; each aircraft mentioned would be able to field those. At the scale of the game, speed is no differentiator either; 800 kmph or Mach 1; it's all the same, gamewise; very, very fast and distance does not ocme into play either. About loading capacity; a typical game would take somewhere between 4 to 10 turns? Most planes could carry enough to last at least 6 turns, even when they are firign or dropping bombs every turn (which they often won't). And even if they ought to be winchester after a given amount of turns; they're representative of an airstrike; the next turn, the second element of the flight would swoop in and take over...

We might look at the Mirage 5's stats when it is released; when those are vastly different from the Tornado, it may be ground to perhaps slightly alter the idea of the F-16.

But the Dutch get their airsupport from German units in the game, and I simply want to represent mine by Dutch units. And in those circumstances, simply replacing the Tornado model with that of an F-16 (or F-18, in James' case) would be perfectly acceptable to me...

Oh, and as for the Spectre; I'd represent that by using off the board artillery strikes perhaps? Or else as an entire flight of Cobra gunships? i.e. using the Spectre model to represent two or more Cobra's...

[James23105]

Fair points gents, I am building a Canadian combat team, and would like to have Canadian aircraft represented. I have a 1/144 CF-18 Hornet and am trying to source some 1/100 CH-136 Kiowa's 3D printed with the rocket rails mounted (like the one in front of 408 Sqn in Edmonton).

I also have a 1/144 AC-130 Spectre built, basically since it is awesome, and would like to include it for friendly games, but have a somewhat realistic representation in points values and stats. Don't get me started on "realism" in wargaming, I'm a tanker and get first rounds hits at 4 km , so having to move to within basically 200m represented on the board doesn't make sense, but I understand it's needed as a gaming mechanic. I figured us Canucks could rely on US air support if we were in the same area (4 CMBG was eventually the reserve for an American division in Germany) much like in modern operations.

[Arrigo]

Fair points gents, I am building a Canadian combat team, and would like to have Canadian aircraft represented. I have a 1/144 CF-18 Hornet and am trying to source some 1/100 CH-136 Kiowa's 3D printed with the rocket rails mounted (like the one in front of 408 Sqn in Edmonton).

I also have a 1/144 AC-130 Spectre built, basically since it is awesome, and would like to include it for friendly games, but have a somewhat realistic representation in points values and stats. Don't get me started on "realism" in wargaming, I'm a tanker and get first rounds hits at 4 km , so having to move to within basically 200m represented on the board doesn't make sense, but I understand it's needed as a gaming mechanic. I figured us Canucks could rely on US air support if we were in the same area (4 CMBG was eventually the reserve for an American division in Germany) much like in modern operations.

lucky you that you have a firing range so big! And you do not have illegal housing (read luxury villa) built inside the range ground but outside the fence  (because it is an illegal building you do not have to pay the taxes)... but we were told that if we hit those it was not a big problem... after all they were condemned property... 

Daeothar sadly your high school was in the Netherlands and mine in Italy! I was a fighter nerd too, and my granddad was a fighter pilot too... I have some friends and acquaintances too...

While I agree that TY is not very granular, there are still some differences between dedicated bomb carriers used in CAS and light fighter thrown in (F-5, F-16, F-18 to a point, F-104). The latter carries fewer bombs, thus worse coverage and reduced hit number/AT capability in game terms

My suggestion for an Hornet is to reduce the bomb load (increasing the number to hit to a 4+) and using a 6 5+ for the gun being a 20mm.

I still do not see the use for an AC-130 in TY it is not the type of game were you use fixed wing gunship. They are basically low threat environment and could really work only at night. They also are not as flexible as an helicopter gunship (no missiles or rockets, unable to quickly switch targets).

Of course anyone is free to house rules as he or she likes, but asking for suggestions means that people is free to contribute.