"crossfire vis-avis PBI" Topic

which one is played more,? Crossfire here in the US and PBI in the UK. but……which one is a better game model. If been in combat and crossfire seems to carry into the game the ebb and flow of initiative. It only takes ONE GUY to be THAT GUY that changes the action. just sayin' advice?

Horses for courses my dear fellow.

I have played a little Crossfire and a lot of PBI. So my exposure and preference is skewed.

I like both, but find PBI more complete and more compelling.

I have always liked the way the zonal system (activate by, fire at etc. squares) breaks even quite big actions into localised firefights which develop their own, sometimes decisive, narratives.

For a tactical 'Company level' WWII game, within my local group, it works for us

Phil
P.B.Eye-Candy

Clay,
I've got both and would love to help but I don't understand what your question is/what you're trying to figure out.

I really love the concept of Crossfire but it never seemed to give us a good game. The core mechanism regarding the initiative change was the problem; we were all too scared to move someone out in front of the enemy and risk losing initiative. The games always started with a run of 'shadow boxing' until someone was cornered, which is where we'd run into the issue of nothing happening because of not wanting to lose the initiative. We'd end up with a bunch of rolling for smoke to mask movement, and, when those rolls failed, a lot of rallying a straightening of lines. We weren't scared of casualties, we were scared of losing the initiative, because if you can interrupt and force cause some casualties that allows you to take the initiative, create a hole, and roll up a flank. No one was saying this was ahistorical, it's just that when it happened the game could end real quick without an opportunity to turn the tide back the other way. Even with reserves, if you're doing as the book says regarding a lot of terrain, they might not see anything until the MLR has been demolished.

Regarding PBI, I've had it a few years but have only gotten in a few games. I'm not sure why; I love the concepts, but it just doesn't seem to catch on. A lot of folks seem to like the 'patrol' phase and the way forces come on the table, whereas I find the patrol phase a bit fiddly and the way forces come on the table can be a bit lop-sided sometimes (up to the Dice Gods). I love the squares concept as well as the orders, movement, and combat. Having said that, some complained about the orders aspect as "too DBA-ish," though I feel that's as good an activation system as any (I personally don't like card activation). The other issue was, being typical megalomaniacal wargamers, we wanted a bigger board with more units, which really slowed the game down. I loved stuff like armor without supporting infantry being skittish and it costing more activation points to leave cover than being in the open.

I'm not sure what you meant by the "…it only takes one guy… to change the action." I think that's probably represented in a relatively abstract way in most games.

I'm not sure that it does, but I hope this helps.

Jack

I really want to re-enter WW2 tactical actions, I really enjoyed Xfire, and I own PBI, but I am having "cmprehension" issues with it….. maybe Im tryinmg to understand deeper than it needs to be

Hey Clay. My own rules 'Company Commander' are a 1:1 scale set of rules based on Crossfire style mechanics. They have been playtested for almost 12 years.

There are over 1300 folks on my yahoo group.

link

Thanks,

John

What are you 're-entering WW2 tactical actions' with, Clay?

Plastic 20mm again? 15mm metal? Micro? 54mm army men? Lots of choices.

Crossfire is the best out there IMHO. Been a long time since PBI, but I just think CF gives you the best outcome for good tactical moves. Of course, ya still gotta roll well! And Jack, ya just gotta go! Sometimes it works out, sometimes it don't. It's a game after all and taking risks is a big part of the fun, for us at least! I mean, if it were really me, I'd move around only if forced to (I think, never been in combat. But the system is SO fluid & SO different than all others, I just think it's brilliant, we just need better tank rules.
Peter

A slightly tighter CF type model can be found in Fireball Forward.

I would always hesitate to describe one game model as 'best' as it depends what you are looking for in the game.

I should perhaps add – in view of some of the comments above – that in championing PBI, I am talking about the 'on-table' game.

For the vast majority of my games, I don't use the points system, 'snakes & ladders' scouting, 'Company stances' etc. Nor do we use the scoring system at the end of the game.

Instead, we use a scenario approach in which I set up a typical or actual small action, the rhythm of which is controlled by active umpiring.

I have played the whole game quite a lot, so the active umpiring is informed by the balance the designer has intended for the game etc.

Just to clarify I am using the core mechanisms (squares, motivations, action points, saving rolls etc.) more than the bits bolted to the front and back of the game to make it a self-generating, 2 player, tournament-style 'start/finish' game.

With regard to picking it up, start with a platoon a side, with simple weapons, and get use to the basic infantry mechanisms (this is how Martin used to run participation games at shows) … then add in armour and special weapons as necessary.

Some of the best games involve relatively simple forces.

Phil

15mm zippy, I love those Peter pig guys, jay leno chins and all, and thier "kit" is accurate and easy to paint well. someone suggested "bolt action" John has company comander, I might take a look at that aswell

Martin, I agree. That's why I say, In My Humble Opinion. But to me, Crossfire are the best WW2 rules out there. Not that I've played them all, mind you. Again, just my opinion.
Peter

Martin, how do you like Fireball Forward?

I have some 20mm Germans and Russians, but some of my crew can't wrap their heads around Crossfire. I think the variable initiatives throw them off – the part I like.

Having played both I prefer PBI to Crossfire. The problems I had with Crossfire were the whole group move, crossfire, no fire combo which took a long time to get my head round. The tank rules look like they were written on the back of a fag packet 10 minutes before the rules went to press. Finally the ability to disengage through a suitably covered route to the rear of the table, sprint over to the other side and back to the front line again via another covered route is a flaw IMHO. I remember one game where I had taken out the troops that covered the only bit of open ground that I had to cross meant I was able to wrap the game up quickly by swapping back and forth between the wings overwhelming the remaining enemy in turn.

While i love Crossfire's concepts and many of the mechanics (I think aRTY c. is highly innovative) I think the armor rules are pretty weak. There are other aspects that also need improvement. That's why I did my 1:1 variant. Infantry in CF is vanilla. You also need to be very careful how you lay out terrain. Company Commander deals with these and many more.

Thanks,

John

Arty has a ww2 ruleset in my top three sets of ww2 rules, but it's not crossfire. PBI is in my top 2 overall ww2 rules.

Crossfire doesn't even make my top 2 company level rules. They are a good B+….needing some work to sort out the human sentry guns without initiative /initiative repositioning without hindrance

The only people who I know who may still use them do the pacific theatre.

Kevan,
You don't know me, or a lot of folks here in the States! I still say, thr best rules out there, period. Again, IMHO.
Peter

Played Crossfire for years and loved it, but it's only half a game. A lot of house rules are needed to cover loop-holes and the like.
PBI has a free downloadable "Lite" version. Try this because it is much better than the complete version that you have to pay for. Just my opinion, you may disagree.

Peter

I made no comment on knowing you or not knowing you.

my comment was to the original poster.

I stated I liked Arty Conliffe's rules
I stated how good PBI were in my opinion out of all rules, How good they were in company rules and compared them to crossfire.

I also reinforced his point that they are not played very much in the UK in my experience. I have no comment to make about how popular or played in the US they are, since that is outside my experience. I am fairly sure it is as immune from my gaming influence as I am to it's.

I play PBI regularly and like many others(I suspect)mainly play the on table elements.

I started using the quick fire rules and then added:
Snipers
Off Board Strikes
Armour/guns
Raw/Average/Veterans

Must admit we play much more scenario based games rather than "the meeting engagement" game that it is designed to be. Our games(son and me) are probably closer to the quick fire games than full PBI, but and this is a big but, it works wonderfully well, provided you place a decent amount of scenary on the table(as per rules).

We have 3 full PBI armies (8th, DAK and Italians) with an american army on the way.I find it fun and v enjoyable and the mechanisms are easy to pick up. Plus, you get great support from PP.

Crossfire, most innovative set of rules released
In the last 20 years, in my opinion. Love 'em,
Good work, arty.

John

Good discussion. Just played a first game of Crossfire recently, and enjoyed it. I haven't tried PBI, but might have a look at the PBI-lite set mentioned.

Finally, I didn't realise that CC was your baby, John L! I joined the CC group years ago but with no figures at the time I never played it. Will take another look when I get some free time.

Cheers,
Aaron

I got the PBI lite rules and they moved me sufficiently to buy the main rulebook. Still got to try them out – currently assembling some forces to try out…

Probably Hungarian vs German as those are the forces I have access to easily, though if I can get the Soviets painted I'd rather do that.

Is the 400 point standard sensible to start with, or do people recommend a lower total.

Once done I can compare the two systems :)