"Crossfire vs Command Decision ToB" Topic

Hello

To those that have tried both sets of rules, which did you prefer and why?

To me, it seems Crossfire is more abstract in armored warfare? Is this a correct assessment?

I've watched a couple videos on Crossfire and I like what I saw, but I know CD ToB has received a lot of praise.

Thanks for any input

They are very different games. CD:TOB is designed to focus on Battalion level combined arms combat. Crossfire is primarily a game for infantry fights is close terrain. CD tends to be pretty literal in its depiction of Battalion Commander choices and knowledge, whereas Crossfire is somewhat more stylized. They're both well written and deliver excellent games in their areas of specialization.

Crossfire is indeed abstract in armored warfare. The game is really about a company or perhaps battalion CO leading infantry against the enemy, perhaps with armored support. That said, there are Crossfire players who have generated their own armor rules to represent more granularity in fighting vehicles. Don't know CD.

What Rich said.

Just to add, they use very different levels of representation, elements are sections/squads in CF and platoons in CD.

They are also take a different approach to game design, CD is quite mechanistic and scientific, whereas CF is more impressionistic. Opposite ends of the outcome based vs systems based design schools.

So CD has lots and a lots of vehicles/weapons charts, and CF doesn't.

For the group I play with, before Crossfire we did not play WWII. Since Crossfire, we play WWII.
I acknowledge it us not a game for everyone. We have tinkered with the rules, and you need to break the table down into smaller terrain areas, so be careful of scale.
It suited our needs and may not be what you are looking for. It us an abstract game, and offers players choices in their turns.

Thank you all for your comments. For me, this rules out Crossfire.

Trying to figure out what rules will suit me best. It's hard, since I don't have any background in ww2 miniature gaming.

You really shouldn't rule out one or the other. Play both and see what you really think. One piece of advice for crossfire however, make sure you have LOTS of terrain.

I have been wargaming for well over 30 years and Crossfire is one of the best WW2 wargames I have ever played. Don't rule it out until you've tried it!

Agreed!

they have almost nothing in common other than being ww2 games. both are excellent though

Well, it sounds like Crossfire doesn't really cover armored warfare in the detail I prefer. I've read a couple write ups and watched a video of game play.

Seems CD ToB does a little better job at armored rules.

Also, funds are super limited and I'd rather spend money on miniatures/terrain than rule books I may or may not ever use (but this doesn't mean I won't consider Crossfire down the road…or give it a try if someone local wants to teach me)

I think CD is one of the worst set of rules I've ever played. It's the only set of rules I've ever thrown in the bin.

Crossfire's pretty good though.

BattlerBritain….I'll take your criticism to heart since you've played it and I have not.

What would your recommendations be for a set of rules that deal with armored combat in a non-abstract way (company to battalion sized games in mind).

Thanks again for everyone's comments

Battler, I'd put you in the minority. Care to detail what exactly about CD you don't like?

If tanks are your big thing, Crossfire won't be that great. It's really an infantry game at heart.

Put it on the list for down the road.

It was a few years ago so my memory may be sketchy, but it was something about every gun having the same effective and extreme ranges?

It was also a set of rules that seemed to rely on the thickness of the rules rather than the quality. Bear in mind that I'm used to complicated rules (the first rules I ever read were SPI's 'Air War') but these just seemed badly written.

I kept trying to play even a simple infantry battalion engagement and it just didn't work. The infantry combat just seemed poor.

I've played lots of other rules that are far better written and play out with what I think give a more realistic result. I include in that list:
FFOT3, Cold War Commander/Blitzkrieg Commander, Modern Spearhead, Assault, even good old Panzer Blitz, for platoon level games.

For tank combat I think FFOT3 gives the most realistic results and I use the FFOT3 tank combat with other rules, eg in Modern Spearhead instead of the MSH tank rules. FFOT3 also covers WW2.

You could also include Fire+Fury's Battlefront WW2 rules. They're not quite platoon level but give a great WW2 'feel'.

The best 'rules' I like for WW2 feel are actually the original Squad Leader rules. They're also pretty simple, but squad level, and again mainly centred on infantry combat.

I like Crossfire because they've been written by someone who has played lots of WW2 squad level games and knows what the results should roughly be, so has removed all the fluff and just got to it. It seems to work, but like Squad Leader is centred around infantry combat.

Hope this helps, B

I have played both. Both are very different. Both are good at what they portray. That said I have been a CD player virtually exclusively since CD1 came out, and still play CD ToB when I get the chance. CD in all it's versions are my all time favorite rule set for WWI , WWII and Modern.

Battler-

You may be thinking of a different rule set. In every version of CD I can think of, guns definitely have different extreme ranges. As a far as effective ranges are concerned, to hits are fixed per range,because at the level portrayed they effectively have the same to hit because of Terran. Penetrations are very different for each weapon.

I've played and enjoy both at their different levels
both of command and of abstraction.

CD was the first WW2 game I played which gave a good infantry battle with some movement and consideration of relative unit quality.
Crossfire makes a quite different game but is very much an infantry game, tanks are second calss citizens.

Crossfire has quite simple rules for armour, in keeping with its focus on infantry combat.
Command Decision (like FFT) has quite detailed armour rules as its intent is combined armes warfare. It also handles engineering, airpower and amphibious warfare.

My recommendation would be to get both (as you can use the same toys for both). I f cash or learning time is limited pick the aspect you want most and get that set now and the other later.

Cheers
David

Crossfire is an excellent infantry game. HOWEVER it needs a lot of terrain, Dozens of bits, the aim is to have no line of sight across any part of the board. It does try(and succeed)in representing infantry at close quarters. There is no range measurement as it covers everything in rifle range. By definition such ground is hostile to armored vehicles so the armor rules will good game as for as its armor fundamentally not fighting in its optimum terrain. Similarly at such close range artillery would not be present but later versions put it in but it clearly was not credible. Rifle range is at most 300m. you do not really want to be closer to ANYBODIES artillery moving closer than 200m. so the artillery danger zone would be most of the board.

Try using Crossfire for the Western Desert. Then rule it out.

its apples and oranges…they are both excellent games but utterly different in scale, scope and depiction.
Play both.
(and maybe Battlefront WWII if CD doesn't quite cut it)

Played both, I think they are both great games, I prefer Crossfire, as I'm more interested in Infantry games, (although I did once use Crossfire for a Goodwood game!) but, as above, very different beasts.

John

BattlerBritain…. I'll take your criticism to heart since you've played it and I have not.

What would your recommendations be for a set of rules that deal with armored combat in a non-abstract way (company to battalion sized games in mind).

Thanks again for everyone's comments

Captain Cold 69: I hope that you ended up taking the many positive comments about Command Decision much more to heart than one person's (Battler Britain's) negative comments. As a Command Decision player for 28 years, I believe there are few cleaner and more effective rules for a game at this level of representation, in which a stand represents a platoon.

CD will play multiplayer as well as 1-on-1 games. Played in lots of both over the decades.

Crossfire is definitely a 1-on-1 game. We've tried several times multiplayer and it just didn't work.

CD is methodical -- you don't sling your platoons all over the place (unless you want to get fried, or you're Soviets and have lots).

Crossfire is a bit looser because eventually, you have to exit the cover and go into the open if you want to grab the objectives. That said, you don't need a ruler with Crossfire. You're either in or out of terrain.

CD has lots of scenario books. It's a well-supported system. Crossfire has one or two (although maybe more).

Crossfire works best when kept simple and to the designer's intent. This is company level infantry combat in close terrain. If you are looking for rules for large armoured engagements then look elsewhere.

Crossfire creates the chaos and uncertainty of infantry combat very well, while stressing the importance of leadership and platoon level tactics. In this sense it provides a very satisfying game that is not rules heavy but feels right. On the downside, it can be a bit vanilla as national characteristics and doctrine are not particularly well represented and so is a bit generic in that sense.

It has a small, active community but is not supported at all by the designer or publisher. It could do with more published scenarios etc to help new players enter the game. In short Crossfire is best when kept simple, so it's not an expansive rule system to cover the wide range of WWII combat.

Great commentary by all and I was wondering what specifically makes a good armored set of rules at the company battalion level? I've read about and played "tank battles" for over 50 years without finding a set of rules that really reflects the "vision" of tank battles I formed from reading historical accounts. Of course that could mean they were written poorly or that I formed an incorrect impression of real battles. Anyway back to my question … What are the key factors in your opinion(s) that make good tank rules?