Help support TMP


"Crossfire With Individually Based Minis & Other Thoughts" Topic


15 Posts

All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.

Please do not use bad language on the forums.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.


Back to the WWII Rules Message Board

Back to the WWII Discussion Message Board


Areas of Interest

World War Two on the Land

Featured Hobby News Article


Featured Link


Featured Ruleset


Featured Profile Article

Gamers Sticking Together: The D-Day Project

How one group of gamers, despite individual setbacks, perseveres to create a D-Day memorial.


Featured Movie Review


1,579 hits since 25 Aug 2014
©1994-2024 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

War Panda25 Aug 2014 7:19 p.m. PST

Just posted some thoughts on Crossfire been used with individually based figs and some other rather random musings on the game…..

warpanda.blogspot.ca

Just Jack Supporting Member of TMP25 Aug 2014 7:37 p.m. PST

You're lucky you wrote those weren't your hands…

You're stuff is beautiful man, but I have to use more conspicuous markers or I'll forget about them!

Regarding the first part, I don't see any reason not to use singles vice element-based. Whatever floats your boat.

I want to know how the game felt; in my games against another opponent we were always too scared to move and risk losing initiative.

V/R,
Jack

Badgers26 Aug 2014 5:24 a.m. PST

Very nice! More on Crossfire, Chain of Command and Five Men please! What do you use to do the cartoons?

Personal logo optional field Supporting Member of TMP26 Aug 2014 8:21 a.m. PST

Warpanda, your blog is one the best mini blogs and certainly among my favorites. Awesome job (again).

War Panda26 Aug 2014 5:28 p.m. PST

@Badgers Thank you :) I intend on doing some more in the very near future

@optional field Thats very kind of you to say; I'm more used to getting insulted around here ;) Glad you enjoy them


You're lucky you wrote those weren't your hand

I had you in mind when I wrote it too :)

I don't see any reason not to use singles vice element-based.

Well I posted my last game on Crossfire Yahoo Site and a few guys said they'd love to play using individual minis but didn't think it was possible so thought I'd address some of the concerns (I hadn't given it much thought before trying it)

I want to know how the game felt"

Okay Jack…The best Company sized games I've ever tried are IABSM and Fireball Forward. Both very entertaining and involving rules. Crossfire didn't actually feel like I was using any rules. But it felt like I needed to constantly make decisions based upon a grand tactical plan. Defensive plans seem to address realistic requirements. Creating supportive defensive fire lanes targeting the offensive advance positions. Holding back reserves etc…all great stuff.
Movement was effortless. My mind needed the minimum of shifting from the tactical to remembering the movement rates or various terrain modifiers or the recording of actions etc. Simple movement with the strategic plan in mind.

Problems:

Recon By Fire doesn't sit well with me.

"I know the tech term used in the rule book is Recon By Fire but I don't like to imagine my "British Commando" type Platoon rampaging through the Normandy countryside like a bunch of drunken Vikings armed with automatic weapons shooting at every bush, tree and scenic cottage. I prefer to imagine there's a certain amount of stealth and snooping going on. I thought this is where the true art of WW2 warfare might lie…the vets of the war or those trained in recon would have the advantage here over the overweight green citizen solider type just drafted? (You know "Piggy" from Lord of the Flies!) I grew up in the country and before I could walk I was out hunting with my Dad and my two older brothers. Later in life when I brought out hunting my town buddies (despite being all decent athletes) they'd all act like a bunch of blind geriatric gorillas. I'm just assuming that experienced elite type troops conducted themselves with far greater stealth and poise and with a sharper ability to identify enemy positions.

At the moment we have a mechanic that doesn't make much sense to me (as you've described already) the British attacker sits in front of a hedgerow and rows his RBF d6…presumably blasting the hedgerow across from his own position. He rolls a 2. Which means the hidden platoon of Germans behind the bushes ahead continue to lay low because they want a shot at the Brits when they're out of the cover of their own hedgerow, so although the initiative has swung over to the Germans they're disinclined to use it. Back to the Brits…another d6…etc, etc…

I've seen recommended a moving clock mechanism that allows the defender reinforcements after a certain game time has been reached and this seems reasonable. Every time the attacker makes a recon roll the clock moves forward. I like this but only for certain scenarios…I don't want every game to be a clone of itself.

Then there's the idea of a hidden objective. Hidden from the opponent till the game starts. The defender isn't aware that one of the attacker's main objectives is actually not within its own original deployment zone, which means it is required to move and take this "hidden objective".

Again for me this seems like an inadequacy in the system or in this case the RBF rules is imposing a certain type of scenario for it to work and for me its a fairly suspect and slightly implausible scenario (at least if this was a regular scenario requirement.)


Example something like the British para operation Biting at Bruneval would have had excellent recon resources and intelligence available to it compared another Russian suicide wave launched at a possible enemy position?

Would it make sense to you if before the actual Crossfire initiative turn begins it is assumed (in must scenarios) the attacker has already scouted the battle field according to his battle plan and proper to the skill and resources at his disposal i.e. according to the actual scenario. I think this is reasonable when the attacker is Company sized or larger as in the case with Crossfire.

But how could this pre-battle scouting be represented without losing the simplicity and intuitiveness of the Crossfire system?

Lets presume the commander (you) has a plan and determines before hand that this plan requires more force-oriented information to be obtained, about a specified location and the area around it. Ideally, a reconnaissance team, would be used before hand to gain this force-oriented info on the observation area.

So the scenario should determine the strength of the commanders ability to obtain this info. Lets say its a value between 1 and 10. We'll call this Value Recon Value (RV)

Each RV Point available can be spent before the game to scout patrol a certain area of the table. In the diagram below I've set 4 Areas of Operation (AO's).

RV's spent on a particular AO give a positive modifier to the normal RBF d6 roll.
1st RV spent on a single AO gives a +1 modifier. 2nd RV spent gives a +2. But after that each +1 modifier on that particular terrain piece will cost 2 RV's. A "1" rolled on the Recon Dice will always be a failure.

Lets say we have a situation in a Normandy Scenario where locals have helped the US airborne scout a farm complex occupied by an unknown German Force. The local intel as well as the elite status of the airborne gives the US attacker a RV of 7. But due to a combination of prepared positions, the Germans are elite fallschirmjager and are expecting trouble this RV score is reduced to 4.

picture

The US Commander can "spend" 4 RV's on scouting certain terrain pieces that are within the enemy's deployment zone.

In this case he decides not to concentrate too heavily in any one area and gives orders to scout the entire outskirts of the farmhouse with a general recon. In effect he's spilt up each of his RV's to give just a single +1 bonus to his RBF rolls. If the first recon doesn't get a 5 or a 6 then he doesn't get another opportunity…he has to send in a single squad or whatever he decides on.

So he rolls his first dice on the AO 1 and gets a 4.
Rolls his second dice on AO 2 and gets a 6.
Rolls his third and gets a 2
Rolls his last dice and gets another 4.

He now at least knows that the barn to the south of AO 2 is occupied by a MG Team. That is placed on the board and the commander decides to attack that point with 2 Platoons and an MG Team.

Example 2:

picture

The Commander decides to spend his entire 4 points to scout AO 3 thoroughly giving him a 3-6 chance of scouting any enemy. He rolls a 3 and discovers that the enemy has positioned itself in a way that might allow two platoons to slip across the shallow stream and manoeuvre in behind it.

Any thoughts…

War Panda26 Aug 2014 6:13 p.m. PST

I'll forgive you if you don't end up reading this ridiculously sized post ;)

War Panda26 Aug 2014 8:04 p.m. PST

in my games against another opponent we were always too scared to move and risk losing initiative.


@Jack

When I first played crossfire I thought this was a real problem. Most firefights behind decent cover turned into a real stalemate.

But historically is this unreasonable. I don't think so. In fact I get a little frustrated with many games because I feel units are "killed" too easily. I much prefer a gradual deterioration of morale. I also favour a game that simulates a defender thats difficult to remove from a position of hard cover. Crossfire in my opinion handles both aspects really well.

Paradoxically historically accurate as this may be it may not always make for the most dramatic and exciting of games. It can become a war of die throwing attrition.

I propose two changes that may address this.

Suggestion 1

How about pinned rifle squads having a 180 degree firing arc.

In a firefight its inevitable that teams or squads will quickly become pinned. This has little effect in the overall game normally. But with this rule both sides could continue to slog it out while a disengaged friendly active unit could potentially out flank the enemy unit thats engaged in the firefight without receiving reactive fire.

picture

Suggestion 2

From my games years ago this was the most frustrating aspects of the Crossfire firefight:
You'd spend 20 mins firing at an enemy in cover to acquire a decent amount of suppressions so you could at least make an attempt at a successful close assault.
You'd get maybe two …but there was still two more including an MG unit…too risky for a charge across no-mans land. You wait for that illusive 3rd or 4th suppression but in the meantime your opponent wins back the initiative several times and keeps on rallying those suppressed troops…back to square one…

So my second suggestion is that we when in a firefight (just under the conditions of a firefight) when a leader PC or CC attempts to rally a squad and that squad fails to rally then an adjacent friendly squad automatically goes down one morale level.

IE. normal goes Pinned, Pinned to Suppressed.
But if all neighbouring units are suppressed then the nearest unit (squad or leader) is then suppressed. I don't believe any unit should be killed (thats the job of the bayonet)
This should speed up the demolition of morale by firefight and encourage close assaults.

This simulates the destructive effect of the rest of the platoon witnessing your leader unsuccessfully bash his head off a solid brick wall…

Again let me know what you think…

I have these posts on my blog in case its easier to see the images.

christot27 Aug 2014 12:04 p.m. PST

Have tried a few, very few changes to crossfire and almost all of them have ultimately been rejected.
Generally, I have found that (SHOCK), resorting to realistic tactics results in realistic and entertaining games with these rules.
Two Napoleonic firing lines blazing away at each other indeed results in a stalemate, as it should in WWII.
However, a little bit of "bags of smoke, and atack the left flank" usually works.

Flank attacks are normally the way to go, as even with 360 degree firing arcs the one place units cannot fire through are other sections from their own platoon, so it's often possible to suppress a flank unit then roll up a platoon from that flank…..always seems absurbly satisfactory to me.

The big rule changes that I've played generally relate to vehilcles and armour.
Simplifying the to hit rolls:
All at guns hit on a 3
All long barrelled tank guns hit on a 4
All short tank guns hit on a 5
This makes life much simpler and speeds things up no end.
Downgrade vehicle mgs to 3 dice attacks instead of 4- much less lethal.
And instead of AT fire needing to equal or exceed the armour value make it need to exceed the value to penetrate, works much better, trust me.

War Panda27 Aug 2014 3:35 p.m. PST

@Badgers Apologies I forgot to address your question about the cartoons: its called "Comic Life 3" and its very easy to use

@christot Do you know what I don't think I've every really used the smoke in Crossfire which is probably why I've had lots of probs with this in the past. And you're absolutely right: it really is a far more realistic than most WW2 wargames would serve up in the same situation so I don't want to unbalance things.

I hadnt thought of the squad unable to fire though their fellow platoon brothers (won't stop me I guess ;) )but that would make a big difference too.

Thanks for the armour hit rolls…the vehicle rules are another kettle of walruses :)

War Panda27 Aug 2014 8:46 p.m. PST

No please monopolize the topic Tim, monopolize all the way ;)
IMHO there's hardly a better authority to interpret Crossfire than yourself and the larger TMP community is far better served listening to you about Crossfire than me…that's for sure :)

No seriously I really appreciate the analysis. I have a tendency to tinker with rules and in this case I probably don't have nearly enough experience with the system to justify it yet. My slight concern I suppose was that in the past I saw Crossfire been shelved mainly because of others misgivings with issues around the firefight stalemates. To be honest I did get bogged down in them myself.

My immediate reaction was to start looking at the hit dice…and found that interfering with the hit system is a big mistake.

The real irony here is that I think what Crossfire simulates is tremendously accurate. It's a brilliant model for the type of fighting its representing and for me at least no other rules comes close to reflecting it which is always a disappointment to me. Us Irish are never satisfied…we're only happy when we're complaining :)

BTW for the record I'd love to know your opinion on RBF…or perhaps you don't have one…yeah right :D

christot28 Aug 2014 3:20 a.m. PST

Brilliant terrain btw…

Just Jack Supporting Member of TMP29 Aug 2014 1:13 p.m. PST

Great googly-moogly, Panda! You have a real talent for turning 'spot on a 6' into… that conflaguration :)

On a serious note, your RBF-replacement concept is interesting, but much too complex for a simpleton like me. I was thinking more along the lines of: spot on 6, 3 (or 4) to 5 forces an enemy stand within 'x' distance to fire, risking 'no fire.'

On a more general front regarding attacker/defender scenarios, I say give them equal forces: attacker starts with 75% on table, defender 25%, the rest are reserves, with attacker's objective in center of table and (relatively) occupied by defender. I'd flesh it out more but I'm on my phone.

Whaddaya think?

Jack

War Panda30 Aug 2014 5:52 a.m. PST

Thanks christot :)

On a more general front regarding attacker/defender scenarios, I say give them equal forces: attacker starts with 75% on table, defender 25%, the rest are reserves, with attacker's objective in center of table and (relatively) occupied by defender.

Yeah that sounds good. BTW the crossfire yahoo group mentioned that theres RBF group fires available (3 rifle squads and a MG needing a 6 radically reduces those odds…

I do think the scenario and terrain are more vital to a successful game of Crossfire than most rules. Apart from what you mentioned I think a moving clock might help. I also really enjoy an attacker defender game where an overall force morale depreciates as units suffer loses.. BattleGroup does this really well.

I thought of employing a scenario that the defender threshold is less than the attacker. Again I don't want to see every game a clone of the last where the defender is out numbered even if just locally on the battlefield but perhaps his losses "hurt" him more.

I've play tested the firefight rules extensively and I really like them. Granted the rules had provisions for defending units been out flanked…not shooting through friendly teams and only one unit allowed to fire behind…

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.