"Crossfire in the Crosshairs" Topic

I played Crossfire as my game of choice for some years and I enjoyed the effortless way in which it produced quick exciting games. However over time that satisfying feeling of war-gaming utopia came to a sudden crashing halt with my group. The problem would come to be unaffectionately known as the ‘Crossfire teleporter effect'.

This effect was produced when a unit (platoon or number of squads) engaged at one end of the board could potentially `beam' across to the other side of the table in support of another engagement. After lending a hand it could then happily fly back to continue with its original objective as if no time had past! In time and with great reluctancy this situation eventually caused our group to abandon Crossfire.

I have addressed this question to the Yahoo Group but its main response is that its down to my bad maps, my bad scenarios and I must be tactically inept to try them out. While all this may very well be true, if the only solution to the problem is designing a scenario and map that suit the mechanics and I can't recreate any historical engagement does that not suggest there's something broken? Or am I misunderstanding the broader picture of what crossfire is representing?

I'm wondering how people with experience of the system deal with this situation.

John

I understand the potentiality of what you're describing. In the rules there are some things which act to limit it. Except for Germans, stands cannot move about willy nilly without being at some point within LOS of their PC. So that, as i think you are describing, moving a platoon from the left flank, across the rear of the table out of LOS of enemy units (opp fire, etc) onto the right flank where it gets mixed up with some action, and then back again is both too fiddly than just getting on with your attack and also there's a possibility of that platoon getting pinned/suppressed or in some manner inconvenienced in its new location and initiative being lost.

Also, since the time scale in Crossfire is elastic it is not unrealistic that a platoon in an engangement shouldn't be ordered to support an attack elsewhere. That is would emerge unscathed and then zoom accross to the other side of the board would be pretty uncommon in actual play – it would seem odd in a multi-company engagement if it starts the battle with Company A, skips across to join in with Company B, than hops back to Company A again.

You say it's happened with your games – did the platoon/stands in question never draw opp fire as they withdrew from one point and then attacked in a second? I'm hesitant to blame your scenarios as others have done but to me it sounds a bit like the possibility in the game of one side never losing the initiative and that player cleaning up in one turn – possible but in effect unlikely.

Well, my own rules Company Commander are based on the mechanics in CF. I love the core concepts! However, there were some things I thought could cause some problems so I changed them. I use bounds in my game. Infantry can move a bound per Initiative. Vehicles 2-3. A bound can be 6-12 inches depending on what scale figs you use. So, you can still move quickly but not across the board in a single Initiative.

In regular Crossfire, terrain really is what prevents this happening. Gotta block those line of sight and avenues of approach.

Thanks,

John

Yes, this could happen. Since nearly all of the common Crossfire table is usually covered with terrain is quite easy to order a platoon to "retreat" out of LOS of enemy stands and then reposition itself into the other side of the table.

Fixing this would need some kind fo house rule who limits the activation of your own units. For example, you could perform as many actions as you want but, after a succesful order you must roll a die: 4+ allows you to perform another action with the unit. If you fail, that unit can´t be given any more orders but you won´t lose initiative. You simply must cease to act with this unit and swap to another. You could add a +1 for veteran units and -1 for green ones.

With this house rule, units could have a lot of activations but, at some point, they would stop. This could help solve the situation you have adressed.

Alex Kulic wrote:

"You say it's happened with your games – did the platoon/stands in question never draw opp fire as they withdrew from one point and then attacked in a second?"

Yeah there usually was a degree of opp fire when the unit withdrew but our games were normally Normandy situated so against the heavy cover of the bocage the fire was usually ineffectual. Then the unit could pass uninterrupted as it swung over to the over side. Generally these moments would be very rare but I think the very fact that it was possible began to undermine our confidence in the whole infinite movement mechanic.

The games never ended in the 'one single initiative', in fact I doubt they contributed a great deal to the overall outcome but it just seemed wrong to those involved. And I have to say there was variable degrees of animosity amongst the players towards it. But it was to those dissenting voices that brought the game demise.

The elastic time scale was an element in which I tried to persuade the others to persevere but to no avail. I wanted to take a look at splitting up the table (we usually used an 8 by 4) in imaginary sections but this was never tried.

Well, my own rules Company Commander are based on the mechanics in CF. I love the core concepts! However, there were some things I thought could cause some problems so I changed them. I use bounds in my game.

Have you play tested much John and do you have a link? They sound very interesting.

Not a bad idea Ruben, I've tried all sorts of house rules myself (I've pages and pages of the things) but they never saw any serious play testing

Hm? this sounds like some ungainly gamesmanship. I dont know the rules in depth enough but this seems out of context with the spirit of the game. But while it seems it would rely on scenario and terrain layout I'm surprised that they were unable to suppress the unit being beamed. But yes I can see how that would get frustrating. But really it sounds like someone was taking advantage of a rule and being a clown.

"But really it sounds like someone was taking advantage of a rule and being a clown."

Well thats the other thing these situations I suppose could be deemed 'ungentlemanly conduct' but rules are rules and the fact that the system allowed it annoyed us…but I take your point and in fact thats more of the way I viewed it myself

Company Commander has been around for 11 years now. Here's a link to my Yahoo group. Over 1250 folks on board. Not tons of traffic but I reply pretty quickly to any questions.

link

Thanks,

John

In the example it was said that the game was doing a battle in Normandy. Part of the problem for the attackers in Normandy was not knowing where the defenders were. Lots of concealing terrain and difficult fields of fire for the attackers. In a miniatures game, all the troops tend to be on the table; therefore it is easy to use that information in Crossfire and "teleport" to one flank, and back again all in the same initiative in Crossfire.

If I had that happen to me in one scenario, I'd make sure that in the next scenario the defender had mines and hidden units. Neither were mentioned in the posts above. Just a couple thoughts.

Mike

You could give each player a number of 'Interrupts' that allows a player to take the initiative away from a player. There should be limits such as not allowing an assault to be stopped this way. I don't remember the rules well enough to come up with the limits off hand. But you get the idea.

Ditto the FM wrote:

To prevent that, define a line down the middle of the table. The line can only be crossed once in an initiative.
Sometimes, we might get complicated and have two lines, ie, dividing the table in three, depending on the nature of the scenario.

Its actually so simple an idea I'm kind of embarrassed I never thought of doing this! We tried something along the lines of splitting the table up but it was a much more complicated affair that ended up ruining the whole fluidity of the game (which was one of the reasons I enjoyed Crossfire so much in the first place)..it sounds like a perfect solution…thanks for that.

If I had that happen to me in one scenario, I'd make sure that in the next scenario the defender had mines and hidden units. Neither were mentioned in the posts above. Just a couple thoughts.

Yeah Mike that makes sense and probably what we should have done but I guess we didn't really want the rules (or what if felt was a fault with the rules) dictating to us how to deploy our forces. Or if we were recreating a historical engagement we didn't want to have to move the church so that it gave a clear fire lane.

You could give each player a number of 'Interrupts' that allows a player to take the initiative away from a player.

Funnily enough Bladesman I've been playing and enjoying Fireball Forward recently and they use the 'interrupt' (I believe they call it an initiative chip) idea that you mention…I really like the idea of implementing something of that kind in there too. Might be one way of representing a particularly inspirational CC or PC. Maybe only to be used once or twice a game?

Layouts and scenario designs do have an awful lot to do with things for sure, but believe you me, as I described in my first post above, the potential teleporting is always there and in fact the potential increases with a dense table.

Well Tim the scenarios and terrain set ups I've used in the past have led to really enjoyable games (apart from this problem every so often) and the nature of Crossfire certainly calls for a decent amount of cover terrain so I'm not sure that my map designs/scenarios were completely to blame…

Tim you mentioned you play with other house rules. What other areas have you changed?

John

By the way I just checked out Company Commander by John Leahy and my word it looks brilliant! I love the idea of the condition of suppressed units being unknown until the rally roll (they may be dead, scared, lightly wounded or ok.) …I'd be really interested in giving it a try. Thanks a million for the link John.

John

I consider CF as the biggest advance in small action rules ever, but, it is more of a rules "kit" than a finished work and so needs lots of house rules.
I have problems with armour engagements when early war tanks find it near impossible to hit even though barrels are almost touching. (a house rule fixes it). As for the origonal problem, can't say that this has happened in our games.

My friends don't want to play Crossfire because they think it is too simple…….
Bah…..

Roby

I forgot about that ability in CF. I think it is what I have been looking for to game Indochina. Restrict the French and let the Viet Minh hit and run.

This is all too intriguing…

I treat tanks exactly as per infantry with respect to command and control and movement.

Well to be honest in my mind the whole system never felt right without an attempt to do this. Considering armor has so much greater movement capacity did you feel a need to balance out the effectiveness, (or ineffectiveness) of armor MG fire?

To avoid infantry being powerless, they can perform reactive fire to seize the initiative (without necessarily damaging a moving tank

So would the initiative change be determined by multiple d6 rolling to actually hit the armor, this being the equivalent of a pin or suppression and therefore the initiative change does not need the subsequent damage roll to be effective?

To avoid main armament blapping off like they are machine guns or rifles, I've got a mechanism for relative rates of fire.

What is this mechanism pray tell?

AT fire is adjudicated by one roll of multiple dice with 5,6s causing hits (pin effects are ignored).

Again I'd love to know more.

Indirect artillery fire is a persistent effect which lasts for the duration of the initiative whether phasing or reactive fire. It's an area effect in which targets within are diced for initially. Surviving targets will be attacked by the persistent effect of the artillery again each time they perform any action. If they just sit there and shut up, there are no more attacks from the artillery area of effect until the shoot ends.

I really love this idea…effectively pinning them down unless they're willing to take the risk to move…

One of the last things we did was yet another rework of the AT fire and in fact while that mechanism is now completed and has been play tested fairly well in a couple of games

I'd love to know more detail how that's going…unless you want it under wraps till it's done.

How do you treat the ‘no-fire' rule? By the sounds of things you haven't touched it. It's amazing how contentious even among veterans (or should I say especially.. ) this mechanism is. I think I had started using a no-fire converting into a low-fire if close assaulted.

my last game of CF or any kind of wargame was August 2011 last year

I know how that is. But as luck may have it I've moved to Alberta recently and inherited three brother in-laws and their buddies who are mad to play (never played a war-game in their lives but are very willing victims …I mean participants so I guess I've landed on my feet. I don't want to introduce Crossfire to them in its previous form, at least until I've ironed some things out…If we visit your part of Canada we'll have to organize something!

Great site by the way I'm really going to enjoy nosing around that for a while…

My suggestion: any element that withdraws from a terrain piece cannot fire or close assault during the same activation. You can pull units out of the front to form a reserve but they can't be put back in until the enemy has a chance to respond.

Or else just keep a reserve in the rear.

I forgot about that ability in CF. I think it is what I have been looking for to game Indochina. Restrict the French and let the Viet Minh hit and run

Yeah thats probably being the problem all along…I should have changed my theatre of war to the French Indochina War……in all honesty it probably would work great. I've never tried Crossfire outside of western europe WW2

My suggestion: any element that withdraws from a terrain piece cannot fire or close assault during the same activation.

That sounds like a good solution too but as Tim mentioned earlier within certain logically acceptable boundaries a strategic withdrawal and quick maneuver can have satisfying results but it is something I considered quite a bit in the past: should an already committed unit be simply allowed without penalty to slip away and out flank the enemy, all within the same activation or initiative?

Since nearly all of the common Crossfire table is usually covered with terrain is quite easy to order a platoon to "retreat" out of LOS of enemy stands and then reposition itself into the other side of the table.

It's also complete and utter historical nonsense. Real military units have well defined objectives and areas of responsibility to ensure that 1) the mission is carried out and 2) there is less chance of 'friendly fire' (which always isn't)

I would love to try playing out a game of "Tim Fire" though!

Since nearly all of the common Crossfire table is usually covered with terrain is quite easy to order a platoon to "retreat" out of LOS of enemy stands and then reposition itself into the other side of the table.

number4 (I always wanted to call someone by a number, makes me feel like James Bond) I completely agree but what amazes me even more is that so many Crossfire players are shocked if I bring it up. I've given a lot of thought to each particular scenario and terrain map used. Attempting to analyze the effects of terrain on Crossfire can't exclusively be from the point of view of the problem discussed here it must also be directed to the playability of the scenario, so there's a very fine balance needed if you want a compelling exciting tactical game.

Oh Ditto that's the most hilarious post I've ever read …brilliant

but really Tim no opinions on the 'no-fire'?

Why not? Play vanilla Crossfire, and just use the dividing line house rule.

Well that's mainly what I meant. I really want to avoid the same rigamarole that I encountered previously. Also I really don't care for the armour rules and would need to alter those for certain.

I'm really not sure you're right about the no-fire though, there's some very convincing arguments from the yahoo group, here's just one:

We eliminate No Fire entirely, a unit that is pinned by react fire may instantly attempt to rally by rolling the rally table. If it succeeds it continues
forward, retaining initiative and likely close assaults the shooter. If it
doesn't it goes to ground, suppressed and initiative shifts. It seems to
work and eliminates the gamey result. You can "John Wayne" it, if you wish,
but you won't always succeed, and worse you cost your side initiative.
Arty doesn't understand wargamers. What he thought was a deterrent turned
into a tactic.

… I thought you'd be interested in his enlightened view

I actually don't agree with the guy but for the sake of argument I wish I did (he's the same person who said I had bad scenarios so he obviously doesn't know what he's talking about…)

Yes Tim I'm glad to see religion is alive and well

John

OK, as a fan of CF, how do you play desert games? What do you use for scenery? If you have more than the odd dune and 1 oasis it doesn't look like North Africa anymore but without lots of "Terrain" you can't play CF……or can you? My Africa Korp are waiting.

Well Stormforce according to the Crossfire unofficial governing high command I'm a crap crossfire terrain map designer but I'll try to apply some of their recent wisdom to your conundrum: Try more bocage,lots more in fact, one or two Catholic churches, a small number of orchards, a couple of farm houses and this is important: place an oasis somewhere prominent (to give a strong North African feel) and Bob's your Uncle: A North African crossfire game. I suspect you will find this as helpful as I did.

Panda, We play on 2'x2' multi-positional boards. (Kinda) like Tim says, we don't allow troops to move to more than 1 board in an initiative. That still leaves 2'x4' of movement, you can "see & fire" into yet a third board, but you can't enter it. Works great if using terrain boards!
Check it out:
link

link
I'm with Tim on this one too, start with vanilla CF & enjoy!
Peter

We have only ever played Crossfire with a hidden enemy, the umpire and one player being the defenders with all troops marked on a map and only appearing when they shoot or spotted, the rest of players always player the attackers

I've never played crossfire outside of western europe but I do believe you would run into trouble. I'd imagine if I was being forced to use crossfire to play North Africa and didn't want to get ridiculous with the terrain…I think you would have to designate areas as separate terrain sections somehow…perhaps felt pieces (these would not necessarily need to represent dunes, elevations, wadies etc. but as far as I know be required as playing tools for the system to work as a table in crossfire. Because of the absence of rulers etc. crossfire, there is a certain need for terrain zones or sections

Really great boards Ceterman…I originally had all my terrain on boards too till I moved to Canada.(Had to leave them in Ireland) Now I use a sheet (painters drop cloth with flock and grass applied onto chalking…It's very durable and and as you can see their versatile when making hills but I miss my terrain boards

Church On A Hill by johndillon77, on Flickr

God's Perspective by johndillon77, on Flickr

Eastern Defence by johndillon77, on Flickr

We play on 2'x2' multi-positional boards. (Kinda) like Tim says, we don't allow troops to move to more than 1 board in an initiative. That still leaves 2'x4' of movement, you can "see & fire" into yet a third board, but you can't enter it.,/q>

Yeah thats definitely the way I'm going with this…as I said I don't play on separate boards like you anymore but I'll have to work it like that

Just saw you're other link for 2012 Historicon CrossFire Game…wow. Do you know who actually ran that table?

Yeah Steve W I've never had an umpire yet just using 'Ghosts' or 'Blinds' I'm hoping to be able to try that out soon…

I think it does improve he game with umpires, always good to see players worried about crossing a hedge line not knowing what on the other side

Oh and we have played Crossfire in N.Africa. We put hills under the cloth and then mark the edges of the hills with flock we do the same with dunes and other small terrain features. If you do that then we found it plays just like N.Europe

Oh we did make some minor alterations for a bastogne we were playing and used some new armour rules as we didnt really like the Crossfire ones ( they were taken from another game, thoug I can remember which)

If you would like yo see them let us have an email address I can send them to you

Oh and we have played Crossfire in N.Africa. We put hills under the cloth and then mark the edges of the hills with flock we do the same with dunes and other small terrain features. If you do that then we found it plays just like N.Europe

Right I did wonder how that would work so there you go. I know there can be some debate about how 'flat' or 'hilly' the desert is?

I think the desert would be as flat or hilly as the scenario designer needs it to be

Well exactly

I edited one my earlier posts about some rule changes etc, not sure if you saw it but if can give me an email addy I can let you see them

That sounds great thanks Steve…

Ok I've see the email addy

Panda,
That's my CrossFire game at H-con this past Summer. The dude who took the pics (Peter Sharp in NJ) did a hellofa good job! My boards weren't bad either…
Again, I'm with Tim, you gotta keep no-fire. It's part of what makes the game SO COOL!!!
Peter

…great something to read tonight…Cheers Steve

My boards weren't bad either…

Well Peter thats an understatement they look fantastic…great photos too…yeah 'no-fire' seems to be a must alright. How long did the boards take you? I know my ones back home took 3 months of every spare min! Tears me up to think I left them…especially considering all the pure we shipped over