"Played a Test Game, Need Help with Crossfire!" Topic

All,

I recently re-painted and re-based some 10mm Pendraken troops, Canadians and German FJ, in order to give Arty Conliffe's "Crossfire" rules a go with my seven year-old son.  My father and I had played quite a few games several years ago, but we couldn't quite get it going for us.  I was screwing around surfing the internet and started to become intrigued, once again, but the rules.  In particular, I spent quite a bit of time on "Steven's Balagan" blog, which has a tremendous amount of Crossfire-related info on it.  This weekend my boy and I got to it.  I set up a table, got some 10mm troops out, then spent about 30 minutes walking him through the rules.  At the conclusion, he and I played a small test game.

So, this isn't a 'proper' battle report, but he and I did play a game and I did snap some photos, so I figured I'd share.  More importantly, I'd absolutely love for some of you Crossfire veterans/gurus out there on the interwebs to have a look and share some of your insights.  The boy grasped the rules fairly quickly, and there was hardly any referencing the rules (just the modifiers for close combat) once we got started.  The game was going pretty well, moving right along, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't come out of it with any reservations.  The boy moved very aggressively, demonstrating a solid understanding of what we're trying to do (with me giving some pointers, as necessary, along the way).  He ended up on my side of the board, flanking me, pretty damn quickly (what I love about the rules), but he lost the initiative and I was able to shore things up, denying my flank, and there we sat, unable to break the deadlock.  Eventually I finally got tired of it and recklessly dashed down from my hilltop position, into close combat, but I was repelled, and the stalemate ensued.  

I'm really hoping that this was a function of me screwing something up, that I did something wrong, that my table was too small, that we didn't have enough troops on the table, that I had too little or too much cover on the table (I know, in Crossfire you can never have too much cover), and it's certainly possible.  I think I had a goodly amount of cover, but we used identical forces (one rifle platoon, an MG, and an on table mortar) that were kind of small, and we played on a 3' x 2' table, and we played with everyone on the table, no hidden forces (but, to be honest, I'm hoping that's not the issue, as I don't want to play hidden forces with my 7-year old).  I'm hoping it's one or more of those factors.

But I sure got a sinking feeling, same old problem I always seemed to have.  Help!!!  I really want this to work.  Don't worry, we're not giving up, we'll be playing more, I just want to see if we can hammer out any problems as quick as possible.

The table, 3' x 2', which I just quickly threw together to try out the rules.  My baseline is at bottom left, with my small force in the center, and the boy has the opposite baseline.

To see the whole thing, please visit the blog at:
link

I was really hoping to play company-sized actions on a 2' x 2' table, but even with just a platoon and support per side it was feeling a bit cramped on a 3' x 2'.  Not literally cramped, but it felt like if we had a company each we'd be able to create a contiguous defensive line across the whole damn board.  So, you guys with experience, what do you think about unit density from the pictures.  Do you think we could do attacker four platoons and support vs defender two platoons and support on this 3' x 2'?  How did my terrain density look?  And what are your thoughts on the stalemate?  Aside from my admitted mistakes, were we doing anything else wrong?

Please, I'm all ears for some feedback, anything and everything, nothing is off limits.  Unless you're just gonna make fun of my carpet hills and fields ;)

V/R,
Jack

Get some tanks on the table, they can be quite vulnerable in crossfire, but fun to run and destroy.
I can't really envision a game with a 7 year old, but make it short, make it fun, and lose- it helps their ego.
Same principles really for adults you want to hook into the hobby.

There are ways to be methodically taken apart in crossfire, better players will usually demoralise you, but that's the way with good rules, experienced players will know what to do.
Then there are nights when the roll of the dice are against you…
You need to watch the range of your Piats.
Try the Stalingrad scenario.
Looks like your table needs more clutter, to break los across the table- imho.

Tanks are a cheap way out – just my opinion.

If he lost the initiative – after positioning himself well – perhaps he made a faulty decision that cost him the momentum? (He is a 7-year-old General, after all.) In my experience with Crossfire, the initiative has been the single most important asset – NOT tanks – and momentary lapses of reason has cost the offensive player dearly. Welcome to war.

It may also be possible that your scenario could be balanced better. If one player has the burden of attack – and you were able (so comparatively easily) to "shore up" the weakness – maybe your opponent should have received 33-50% more forces. My group has found that to be about right.

I will say your terrain – depending on its classification – looks to be about right for Crossfire. KUDOS!!!!

It would appear your 7-year-old general did VERY well until he squandered the initiative, and will surely learn from his mistakes. What a blessing to have such a burgeoning military strategist on hand. Terrific.

I emailed you as well, but I'd be a little bit concerned about the long lines of sight from side the side on the table.
Those can make it very easy to "lock down" the table.

I'd throw in a few wrecked vehicles or some debris to hide behind in the streets.

Hi Jack, as you know I'm no expert here, and as you probably know while my favourite system is Crossfire, I've personally struggled with this precise issue.

First of all, I think introducing armour is a great solution to the problem. From the point of view of removing the problem. Having said that, if a primarily infantry based game relies on the introduction of tanks to work properly then IMO it's a BROKEN system. So for me this isn't a satisfactory solution.

And I don't believe that Crossfire is broken but I do believe the system is more dependent on scenario design (and table design) than most other games. This can be viewed as a shortcoming of the rules but I don't think it has to be viewed like this.

Time constraints or hidden objectives can help with this situation. Both of which are very reasonable elements of real conflict…aren't they? You'd know a helluvalot more about that than me :)

Time constraints could be 'real time' using a chess clock with the attacker needing to take an objective within a certain time. I'd also try undisclosed objectives. Write down a few of the main features of the table: On your table your son's objectives could be the walled pen near the centre of your baseline, another could be the ruins to the left of your baseline, another could be the main crossroad, another the lovely white carpet to your right :)

Throw these papers in a hat (your pirate one would work well for this) and your lad secretly picks out an objective.

Even the defender might be given possible objectives by their unreasonable commanders. Maybe throw in a few "no objectives' for the defender so as to mix things up a bit. Maybe half way through the game there's a chance you've been given another objective if things go well. Anyway it might make things interesting for you both.

For what it's worth I think the table looks about right for Crossfire; probably not enough fields and hills and a little too much carpet :D

There are a lot of long straight lanes but I've had a chat with the Crossfire players recently about this. Possibly a ridge or two on the roads. In reality in my experience in Normandy France (most of Europe) there's no chance of such clear fire lanes. Here in Alberta at the prairies you can see for what seems like a thousand miles in either direction ;)

I recently tried to adapt my open field table to a Crossfire scenario by introducing some ridges:

‌

Great to see you having a blast with the little guy. My problem is my girls want to play with Dad and only want to play Superheroes and Sci-Fi…the boys would play straight away so I just have to be patient I guess

Aanother idea I thought of in the past for faster games was maybe keeping track of the overall amount of "suppressions" a particular unit has received. Your small beads in another unused colour could be used well from this.

The frustrating thing for me with Crossfire sometimes is successfully acquiring a suppression on a unit within a group only to miss the next fire and immediately watch the blasted enemy rally. There's no "wearing down effect". The frustrating rallying feels like a bunch of computers rebooting rather than a shell shocked unit reluctantly been rallied back into action.

I know its more book keeping but I reckon if a unit has accumulated 4 or 5 suppressions in the battle it should leave the battle (reflecting it losing its combat effectiveness due to receiving sustained effective fire.

I've had situations where I've out numbered an enemy 3:1 but due to Crossfire's mech not allowing more than a single fire group to activate in that single initiative I've been stalemated. I eventually added half a die per each group in LoS of the target. The half a die is only added to ONE of the fire actions (usually the attached MG)

So a MG with the support of another platoon firing on an enemy in cover receives 3.5 die

So four dice with the half die (differentiated by colour) needing to hit on 6's (not 5's) Two supporting platoons add a full die meaning the MG receives 4 die etc…

Anyway I enjoy employing that house rule and it's worked well in reducing the amount of stalemates.

I played a couple of games once, with a die-hard lover of the game.

Can't say I really enjoyed it.

Seemed a bit too much luck-driven to me, and when one side gets on a roll there's nothing the opponent can do.

Perhaps, realistic in some ways, but can't say it made for a good game. Then again, I only played two, and the first one was in teaching mode, so probably didn't give it a fair chance.

You've way too many sight lines clear across the table (and your table is very small – 4' square is about the minimum).
You need at least about 10 terrain items per 2' square – so about 40 terrain items for a 4' square table, 60 for 6x4.
I wouldn't use armour. It's not well treated in the rules.
Crossfire is an infantry game, and a game where infantry are fighting in cover.
You need support in the form of HMGs, mortars and off table artillery.
A moving clock can be used to stop people just sitting and shooting. If you can, get hold of 'Hit the Dirt', which is packed full of great scenarios.

Give one side another platoon or so and put the opposing side in a defensive position.

Meeting engagements will tend to falter because the first player to take up central positions will then be able to effectively fight a defensive battle without the attacker having any superiority of numbers.

Some basic ideas for Crossfire:

# break any lines of fire, using obstacles – that roads are a too open, use some debris or barriers, get more cover
# The basic concept is to break the opposition by getting more firepower – use crossfires
# Try to block any opposition to do the same to you.

In a couple of situations, game tends to end in some pointless firefight, don't give up, increase your chances with crossfires, don't leave it to luck.

Pin, Suppress and after go for Close Assault.

In WW2 most company level units will have some sort of support – get a FOO and some Indirect Fire Support (Mortars)

Sillypoint – Thanks man. We'll definitely be getting vehicles onto the table, but in very small amounts (maybe two at most), and just for the attacker (ATGs for the defender), no tank vs tank fights. I'm not worried about hooking the boy, he's hooked, we've played about 30 tabletop fights together. I'll take a look at the terrain; the roads were the only 'firing lanes;' didn't really play into this fight, but definitely can.

JCB – Like I said, we'll add vehicles at some point, but in small numbers, purely infantry support, and they don't seem powerful enough to break the stalemate aspect (assuming the infantry have AT weapons). I agree wholeheartedly, initiative is the key, and I thought the boy made great decision making, just screwed over by dice a couple times (happens to all of us) and me (seizing initiative on a pin, and not allowing Group Moves without the PC).

Scenario work is definitely going to come into play; I kept it too vanilla with identical forces, but I just wanted to work on the concepts with him. Right now he's got Ivan's 5Core etched into his brain, this is the first game we've played (other than some air-to air dogfighting) using different rules!

Ivan – Yeah, we'll get some bends in the road, and I'll check e-mail when I get a chance. And yeah, we'll get to better scenarios, this was just to get the concepts down for both of us. I do have a question regarding attack/defense scenarios: due to the boy being young, I'm trying not to overload him, and so I don't really want to get into hidden troops (yet). So, in the attack/defense scenario, how do you do it? Have the attacker set up, then the defender? I suppose I should always give him the advantage (whether attacker or defender) and set my troops up first.

In any case, my plan it to play attack defense scenarios, with boy sides having organic (battalion) support, i.e, mortars and machine guns, with infantry platoons in the range of 4 v 2, 4 v 3, and 3 v 2, with the attacker maybe having a vehicle or two and the defender having an ATG and suitable Infantry AT.

Panda – Well there you are! I've been waiting for you on my Philippines batreps, but I'll take ya on the Crossfire one ;)

That's a very interesting concept on the attrition, definitely worth looking into. The half dice thing is interesting too, but I'm not sure I'm following: you're saying only one fire group per initiative. Do you mean if you can't get into position for a Crossfire (which is certainly difficult to pull off)?

In real life that's certainly the realm of supporting fires, but I'm sort of ambivalent about that, preferring to keep all the toys on the table. Thanks man!

Mako – In the past I played a couple dozen games, didn't have a great time, but it really seemed like my opponent and I were the problem! ;) The idea of "the initiative," getting inside the opponent's OODA loop, is an incredibly hard thing to model on the tabletop, and I think Crossfire can do it. I want freewheeling, big risk, big reward, so I'm definitely going to give it a fair chance, and my OP here is probably panicking a little too much with too small a sample size.

Dexter – Thanks for taking the time to comment. Regarding terrain, the roads were the only unbroken LOS. Hell, I even had things block LOS that shouldn't: we treated walls and hedges as blocking LOS unless a unit was up against it, then that unit could see over it and be seen (the walls were cover and the hedges weren't). Regarding armor, I've been talking to some experienced guys about some house rules; my goal it to have some on table, but keep the numbers very limited, and we're not playing tank vs tank.

You're probably right about the table size, but I thought I could go smaller since I'm using 10mm. My big concern it that the boy can see and reach everything. Regarding support, we both had a mortar and an MG, and I really want to stay away from off-table supporting fires if I can, just to keep the game cleaner, more simple.

I like the clock idea, and I'll have to look for 'Hit the Dirt.'

Faustnik – Gotcha on the roads, and we didn't have enough troops on the table for crossfires. Hell, we talked about using the PC for fire groups, but didn't even manage that! But we'll get better ;)

"Pin, Suppress and after go for Close Assault."
Absolutely, and the boy did quite well at that.

Regarding supporting fires, if I can, I'd really like to keep everything on the table, which is why I was so lenient with mortar minimum ranges (understanding that if I want all the toys on the table we're going to have to flex a bit). Hell, if the Canadians wanted to call in a fire mission on the hill, in real life they' have had to have backed up so as not to get hit by their own fire!

"In a couple of situations, game tends to end in some pointless firefight, don't give up, increase your chances with crossfires, don't leave it to luck."
It seems the deadlocked firefight happens in one of two situations (and please correct me if that's wrong):

1. The defender has too many troops, and/or LOS on the table is not sufficiently blocked so that the defender can cover the table by fire and there is no room for maneuver for the attacker.

and

2. One side has been pretty beat up and contracts on itself, shortening its lines until it's in a little bubble that is very difficult (without off table supporting fires) to collapse, as happened in this game on the hill.

The first scenario is easy: have numerous and good placement of terrain, and make sure the defender doesn't have enough troops to cover the entire board in a contiguous defensive line.

The second is the one that concerns me, and I've got a question for everyone: does anyone use a 'force morale' type mechanism to force a withdrawal? I mean, on that hilltop there was probably no real way that I could have defeated the boy, held him off indefinitely, without it purely being an issue of luck, rather than skill.

In games we love to throw our guys in and fight to the last breath, but in real life I have to believe my Germans would have fallen back rather than sit there and die on that hill.

So, rather than sit there for another hour and just toss firing dice at each other, waiting for that luck break (one way or the other), why not just have the 'beaten' side withdraw off the map? But that's the rub right? Who decides, and what it the criteria to decide, when someone is beaten and should be forced to fall back.

I think at one point I was down to a rifle squad, MG, and PC on the hill (with the mortar behind them), and the squad and MG were both suppressed. Seems like a suitable time to fall back and live to fight another day. I'd love to hear you guys' thoughts.

Anyway, I want to thank everyone for taking the time to read and post here, I really appreciate it!

V/R,
Jack

Jack, can you explain more about the problem as you see it? Is it that you see the situation as unrealistic, or uninteresting, or what? If there's no local numeric or tactical edge, surely in reality each force would just sit there…?

«1. The defender has too many troops, and/or LOS on the table is not sufficiently blocked so that the defender can cover the table by fire and there is no room for maneuver for the attacker.»

Not a rule of thumb, but generally a 2 to 1 for the attacker seems to work well with Crossfire. Just in case check pp. 31-37 for a points base game.

Terrain is paramount for Crossfire, while AFVs could be used, Crossfire intends to simulate pure infantry actions.

<2. One side has been pretty beat up and contracts on itself, shortening its lines until it's in a little bubble that is very difficult (without off table supporting fires) to collapse, as happened in this game on the hill.>

Problems could be solved, if using objectives, and points for control them, as Crossfire lacks (but don't need it) a force morale rating or check.

Go for the objectives, getting 3 on the table, so draws couldn't happen.

To control an objective, rule that at least you must control it for 2 or 3 your own Initiatives.

Crossfire is pretty flexible, permitting a scenario driven system or a pure random system.

The system could be pretty alien for some players used to fixed turns and controlling the events on their turn.

Crossfire wrecks that, you must always be prepare for everything, as in reality you only control what your opponent let you do – like in reality.

CF, the BEST rules out there of any period. Period! I've been playing them since they came out & still love em. Same for TSATF.
But CF is SO different than your "normal" rules set. That said, I hear there are now more like it.
Whats that about Imitation & Flattery… agreed with!
Peter

I'll add that we played pretty good battles with a 1.5 to 1 ratio. Extremely tense.

Better defenders raise the ratio to 2 to 1.

As far as when to end, we always do it somewhat open-ended.
Usually you get a point, as you suggest, where it's obvious the force is beat. Call the game then :)

My Company Commander rules are based on the mechanics of Crossfire. I use individually based figures though in stands that hold 4 figs. The rules are 1:1 scale. The rules have been around since the late 90's. Crossfire needs to be set up by an experienced player, IMHO. Having open an LOS on several places on the tabletop will stop you cold. That's why in my rules troops can do a Cautious advance. This gives you a cover modifier as you advance. There are undulations in most ground that can provide cover or break LOS and it works well. I also eliminated the advance the whole table in one move. I use bounds for movement. Infantry and vehicles move 1 -4 bounds in a turn. My bound stick for 1/72 scale figs is 12 inches. You can have the bound stick enlarge or reduce in size to accommodate other size figs. If you maintain Initiative you can keep moving.

Defenders need to have defense in depth and attackers need to use scouts to flush out enemy positions. My buddy and I who play tested the rules have each lost a platoon by not scouting. The rules are free on my Company Commander Yahoo group. The group is a little quite now. But it has been around for 16 years now.

Finally, I think Arty created a truly original game system with CF! I was blown away by it when it came out. I just found that the rules do not handle armor that well and I did not like how infantry tended to be somewhat vanilla. I have characteristics and some other fun stuff in CC that can assigned to troops to give more flavor. There are exhaustion levels for Platoons too. Run your platoon and suffer too many suppresions and it will crumble. I also cover Pre-WWII through moderns. I have even used a scif variant for some games. You may find it intereresting.

link

Badgers – My problem is I want a free-wheeling, butt kicking, rolling up the flanks game, I don't like when it degenerates to a stalemate with both sides crouching behind cover, hoping beyond hope for a super lucky roll that see them get 5+ on 2D6. When I read online about Crossfire I read about great games of maneuver, don't hear too much about the stalemates.

I've played about two dozen games of Crossfire, and my opponent and I ran into the dreaded stalemate (dreaded from my point of view, you may like them) pretty much every game. I've always believed it had more to do with my opponent and I, rather than the rules. But now I played a game against a different opponent, but ran into the same old problem.

Having said that, I don't want to sound too desperate: first, we're dealing with a sample size of exactly one. Second and third, we played with identical, equal forces in a silly "kill'em all" scenario. I just wanted to check with some experienced Crossfire players to get their take on the stalemate issue, as well as to eyeball my table for pointers and unit density.

Faustnik – Thanks man, and I like the idea of three objectives, each guy needs to secure two, doesn't know which two the other guy is after.

Ceterman – I love the idea, just need to put it into practice. And we're committed to giving it the old college try.

Ivan – 1.5 to 1 or 2 to 1 sounds great, I've got troops for that.

"Usually you get a point, as you suggest, where it's obvious the force is beat. Call the game then :)"
Yeah, I'm not trying to make this more difficult than it has to be, just looking to see if anyone had given this any thought regarding general guidelines to force withdrawal, i.e., if the ratio reaches 'x' to 1, or all of your line elements are suppressed, or if you've taken 'x' amount of casualties ('x' proportion of your starting force), etc…

John Leahy – Thanks man, and I do believe I've got your Company Commander rules downloaded around here, somewhere on the hard drive. I'm not anymore, but I use to be a member of a lot of Yahoo Groups. I think you and I spoke several times back in 2010 or so (I was 'bigjackmac' back then).

V/R,
Jack

Just a small note – joining the Crossfire Yaho Groups help solving some questions, all XF gurus are there
link

Always thought it was a doughnut of a game having to crowd the table with terrain. Doesn't work too well on the Russian steppe!

Pete,

I dunno man, even the steppe has ridges, rivers, patches of rough ground, depressions, patches of trees.

V/R,
Jack

The Alberta prairies are as barren and flat as I could ever imagine Terra firma to be yet I could find a million places to hide and take cover when I'm there visiting my mother-in-law…hasn't completely worked yet so on second thoughts maybe Pete has a point