Battlefront Flames of War Team Yankee

BF Q&A – Team Yankee

 

 

In a follow up to Mark G.’s article concerning the Q&A session Battlefront ran, and their answers in regards to the Flames of War V4 questions that were posed, Mark N. now reports on the answers to questions regarding Team Yankee and what the future holds.

The follow up

Mark Goddard has already posted an article on the Questions and Answers Battlefront have provided in regards to Flames of War, which can be found here: Q&A V4 FOW. Below, I have compiled the Q&A regarding Team Yankee, and all I can say is I’m pleased that Battlefront are being a bit more transparent about what’s coming up next. Read on to see what they were saying.

 

Questions and Answers

Q – NATO will soon have 3 books with a NATO book also previously mentioned. Warsaw Pact have 2.  Will we see another Warsaw Pact book and if so when?

A – Yes, definitely. Not sure when though at this stage.

 

Q – With the cheapness and effectiveness of AT missiles will we see any balancing to encourage the use of MBTs rather than infantry forces?

A – Every model (including Infantry AT) should have an effective role to play in the game otherwise there is no point including it. Lets see what the new options in Stripes do to change the game.

 

Q – Are there any plans to expand the army lists to other nations outside of NATO or Warsaw Pact for making it a truly world war setting? If so when?

A –  No plans at the moment, but we would like to do so. The team in the office have a few favourites that they would like to see:

  • Evan – Iran-Iraq War
  • Peter – Cuito Cuanavale
  • Chris & Phil – Lebanon 1982
  • Wayne – Hungarian Revolution of 1956

 

Q – Will there be a TY army builder and if so when?

A – Yes, we are working on it.

 

Q – Will we see command cards for Team Yankee?

A –  No plans at the moment but never say never

 

Q – When will we see TY V2 bringing it in line with V4?

A –  It will happen. They will be aligned. (sounds ominous – MN)

 

Q – Artillery in V4 has proven excellent for stopping infantry camping. Could the V4  artillery ranged in rules be added in to TY before V2 by a LFTF update?

A – We wouldn’t look at changing them via FM101, but it is on our list per the question above.

 

Q – Will we see Engineers in TY?

A – We would like to add some engineering vehicles/models over time like Bridgelayers etc. However we won’t be including combat engineers like the ones that you see in Flames Of War.

 

Q – Why haven’t we seen non mounted guns and artillery yet?

A – Our desire has been to focus on the mobile elements like the Tanks and Mechanised Infantry and there are plenty of these that we are yet to do.

Q – Will we ever be able to get infantry platoons without the transports?

A – No plans at this time – you can always choose to leave your transports off the table if you want.

 

Q – What will the next Firestorm Campaign be? (Please say Iceland! Mark [Not me])

A – Our Firestorm: Stripes campaign will start early next year will and carry on from where Red Thunder left off.

 

Q – How will ‘Nam be compatible with TY?

A – Same rules but different points structure, i.e an M48 in ‘Nam is comparable to an M1 in Team Yankee. ‘Nam will be compatible with Arab-Israeli though.

 

Q – What books can we expect next year? (V4 and TY)

A – Avanti (Italians in the Desert), 8th Army (British in the Desert), two Eastern Front Mid War books, as well as a book covering other Western forces for Team Yankee.

 

Q – You teased us with the EM-50 from Stripes, will this be the 2018 TY tournament objective?

A –  Yes

 

Conclusion

So, there we have it. Some very succinct answers. Hopefully some of these answers have addressed some of the more burning issues players have been waiting to hear from Battlefront. I, myself, am eager to see V4 and TY become a little more aligned (due to confusion when switching from one to t’other). Why not let us know what you think over on our Facebook page, and maybe sometime soon Battlefront will ask for another Q&A session.

Related Posts

8 comments

Frank the Tank

Q: Is BF planing to make more money?
A: Probably we are working on it. Stay tuned

So again a very general Q&A with nothing special. Hope those V4 TY alignement of rules helps a little to at least solve some mix rules issues. But probably it won´t improve the game to much.
Cliff

I wish they had plans to do more WP sooner rather than later. But what are you going to do?
Les Parsons

Q – Will there be a TY army builder and if so when?

A – Yes, we are working on it.

They’ve been saying that from just after TY came out, must be getting on for nearly 3 years !
Austria958

They are killing this game with the way they are treating the WP. And now Danish and or Canadians next? How about some Czechs or Poles! They will likely turn out a book on Luxemburg before we see the Czechs or Poles.
    Lee

    I’m not sure about killing the game but I do agree that Pact need some love.

    I’d like to see Czech and Poles with their kit; VDV air landing forces with BMD/BTR variants, MIL-8 with rockets, ASU-85; Naval Infantry with T-55 upgraded tanks (perhaps the latter two forces in a “Northern Front” series with Norwegians, Danes and the Anglo-Netherlands RM force. Get some Jaguar GR1 in nifty winter camo).

    Then do the southern flank – Hungarians and Bulgarians vs Italy/Greece/Turkey. Get some use out of a plastic T-62 model (along with AIW and Iran-Iraq war).

    My continued frustration is that there is lots of scope in the ’85 Team Yankee theatre yet BF do seem to be reluctant (or lacking resource) to go balls deep on it.
Eumerin

You had the opportunity to ask questions about Team Yankee, and you didn’t ask the SINGLE BIGGEST QUESTION that everyone has about Stripes?

Seriously?

Or did Battlefront tell you beforehand that you weren’t allowed to ask about the missing Bradley?
    Lee

    No, its just that the Bradley question has been done to death and, given the answers we can see, unlikely to get any more insight than previous attempts.
      Eumerin

      Did I miss an answer from BF about the Bradley? Because the last comment I saw from them about it was the statement on the official forums that (paraphrase) “We never said that the Bradley would be in Stripes.” You seem to be saying that there have been answers, albeit vague ones. What are they? Where are they? All I’ve seen is player speculation that it got held back due to the need to put something popular in the next US book.

      It would be nice to have BF actually on the spot about the subject. When you read a post on tanks on the official forum and find snark about the missing Bradley, it suggests that the players are troubled about the missing vehicle. We need a response.

      I run US Army, and the missing vehicle is one of the reasons why I’m not buying Stripes. If Battlefront would actually engage the customers over this, then that might change. But again, I haven’t seen a word from Battlefront on the subject. As a result, the only way that I can show my dissatisfaction in a way that Battlefront cares about is by not buying the associated book. And in the long run, not buying the book likely won’t hurt me. I have no interest in USMC or 82nd Airborne. And all of the “normal” Army lists will need to be rewritten to include the Bradley whenever BF gets around to adding the vehicle. So it costs me nothing in the long run to not buy Stripes.

Comments are closed.

You May Have Missed