20mm Iron Cross Game

[vodkafan]

Interesting article, I bookmarked it to refer to it again

[Wellington Bonaparte]

Great looking  set up with some lovely looking pieces. I've been playing irin cross as my WWII rules of choice (adapted for early war) and agree about the infantry being hard to kill, and the counters are a small issue, but it does give a really good easy to play game. Glad your friend enjoyed it.

[Mako]

Looks great and sounds like fun.

Got these confused with the Cross of Iron rules from Mr. Sparkes, of Gauntlet Publications, which I own.  Made me dig those out.  Never tried them, but may have to give them a go too.

While reading over these, the thought occurred to me that they could also be used for the Korean War, and/or even the Ukrainian Conflict, with a little tweaking, e.g. coming up with RPG rules from Panzerknacker mentioned below, and reactive armor for the tanks - simple dice saving rolls by the defender for that.

Then, that made me look at the old Panzerknacker rules as well, which I find even more interesting.  Need to get some troops painted up to use both of them.  Don't have any large-scale Russian troops yet, e.g. 25mm - 28mm, but do have the tanks. 

These do sound interesting as well.

Is there a review, or more info on the dice mechanics, turn overviews, or battle reports, on how these work?

[hayeswauford]

Thanks everyone!

I'all flesh out an actual AAR to give a better feel for the rules and get it posted. Agreed that the system is adaptable to later periods.

[mellis1644]

I have tried an 'exploding 6's' technique for making the infantry a little more vulnerable/killable.

Basic the house rule being tried out is that if infantry, MG's, guns (with a AT value of <7) and flames throwers firing at short range (12") vs. non vehicles then each of the additional D6 rolled when scoring an additional morale hit counts as a hit and then can be rerolled to potentially do another on the same target number.  For weapons that roll multiple die to do this additional hit but can only score a single one (such as MG's) then only 1 die can 'explode' this way.

This makes infantry combat at short range more deadly - which does sort of fit with my understanding of the period and makes the game run faster. It is a little more fiddly but the different weapons extra dice is already an odd bit which requires a look up now and then.

The idea is that at effective range these weapons start to have more off an effect. It also increase the risk factor when getting shot at at close range.

[hayeswauford]

The turn sequence is basically a an IGOUGO with one major exception- Reacting. As phasing units attempt to activate (1st activation is automatic but costs an activation point, additional attempts become increasing harder by one pip and still requite activation points) the non-phasing player can attempt to React. Basically the reacting units need a 3 or higher, this becomes harder if they have already been activated or accrued morale hits. Their is also a 1/6 chance that the reacting player will "steal" the initiative and become the phasing player. This continues until both side have used all their activation points (these are assigned at 1/unit with some exceptions/modifications for better or worse quality units). You can also activate as a "platoon" to save points but this allows for less flexibility and ability to react.

Note that one unit could potentially attempt to activate 6 times a turn, the first one is automatic, then each attempt after that needs a d6 roll greater than the amount of activation points already used (assuming no morale hits on unit). This means that a commander can really focus his attack or defense and allow for one flank or area to basically hold. I really like this tactical flexibility given to the commander and I could see where this would be really cool in a multiplayer game.

I give the COMMAND AND ACTIVATION RULES AND A+

The firing rules confuse me in what they are attempting to do. Basically if a squad fires at another squad they roll 2 d10 needing 5s or greater with modifiers. They can cause a max of 1 morale hit, even if both rolls are 5+. Then the firer rolls a d6 per hit (meaning this could be 2d6 if both d10 rolls were 5+) and attempts to "convert" these hits into an additional morale hit. Again there is a max of 1 hit caused during conversion. So the way I read it one squad firing at another can cause a max of 2 morale hits per fire phase. It seems like this could have been streamlined into a single roll, rather than two rolls with two dice type. However, I am not a statistician and I am sure there was much thought put into this.
Different weapon types, MGs etc. can potentially cause more hits than just two per fire phase.

To be continued...

[hayeswauford]

I have tried an 'exploding 6's' technique for making the infantry a little more vulnerable/killable.

Basic the house rule being tried out is that if infantry, MG's, guns (with a AT value of <7) and flames throwers firing at short range (12") vs. non vehicles then each of the additional D6 rolled when scoring an additional morale hit counts as a hit and then can be rerolled to potentially do another on the same target number.  For weapons that roll multiple die to do this additional hit but can only score a single one (such as MG's) then only 1 die can 'explode' this way.

This makes infantry combat at short range more deadly - which does sort of fit with my understanding of the period and makes the game run faster. It is a little more fiddly but the different weapons extra dice is already an odd bit which requires a look up now and then.

The idea is that at effective range these weapons start to have more off an effect. It also increase the risk factor when getting shot at at close range.

Mellis could you help me by specifing how many hits might be inflicted in a typical squad vs. squad shot then? The way I read the rules now is that a max 2 HITS can be caused by each fire action.

Thank you!

[Captain Blood]

There's a useful handy fan generated QRS for all the casualty permutations depending on firer type / target type and short range or not. I'll see if I can find the link again. There are some instances where three hits are possible. MG teams on infantry I think. The firing effect rules are unnecessarily complicated in an otherwise beautifully simple and enjoyable set of rules. Ive played them three times now, and I still haven't got my head around all the permutations.

There is also a lack of clarity in the action / reaction sequence for me, which I've still to have explained properly. It's to do with what happens when one side successfully rolls to react and interrupt, but the side with the initiative then fails their own activation, so the reacting side is then effectively reacting against a nonexistent move. It's a bit muddy and open to interpretation in the rules, and I've looked at all the Q&As on the (sadly dormant) Iron Cross forum at GEG, and still haven't found a definitive answer.

Apart from that, I like them.

[hayeswauford]

http://tinyhordes.com/iron-cross-rules-review/

A nice review here

[mellis1644]

Mellis could you help me by specifing how many hits might be inflicted in a typical squad vs. squad shot then? The way I read the rules now is that a max 2 HITS can be caused by each fire action.

Thank you!

You are right that the max morale hits often are 2 or 3 from enemy fire. I find it odd that one squad can't kill another without extra activations. We have had games where rival squads are toe to toe - near touching and spent multiple actions to kill each other and rarely managed it...When you factor in reaction rally's and fallbacks as well it can take a long time to do this and just does not 'feel right'. Vehicles die pretty quick in the rules but infantry combats can last all game...

So thats why I tried the variation - an idea taken from some set somewhere along the line. 

The rules are just the same till at short range after rolling the extra D6 roll(s) to hit. Thats for the second hit on infantry/gun units. If that succeeds with a 6 score then we roll that again for another hit. If the second roll succeeds then it scores another hit. The 6 allows you to continue to rack up hits and roll it again etc.

So in theory there is no max number of hits 1 squad could inflict on another (but there is no point above their kill level).

So as an example lets take German squad firing on a British one at short range in the open. The Germans roll 2D10 and get the scores 7 and 9 - both hits, so the British take one morale hit. As both D10's hit the Germans now roll 2D6 wanting 4+ on at least one for a second hit. You roll a 4 and 6. That provides a second hit. In the normal game that's it - the max they can do.

What we do is then allow that 6 to be rerolled for another hit possibility - again aiming for a 4+ target. If it succeeds then the British will take a 3rd hit.  So in our example if the German player rolled a 5 on this 3rd D6 roll then the British unit would end up with 3 hits. That then ends it for the German shooting.

However, lets say the German D6 dice roll both came up as 6's. As per the normal rules that would just count as a single hit.  This then allows the Germans to roll both again. Each of those would be again looking for a 4+ and count as a hit if they succeed. Say on the second roll the German rolled a 5 and a 6. This would be 2 more hits - so a total of 4 hits on the British so far. The German player would get to roll another D6 at 4+ for the 6 rolled. Lets say his luck runs out at this point and he rolls a 3 for that. So in this case the British took 4 hits.

It's not a big change but at least allows a little more variation in the combat. The odds are you still do 1 or 2 hits but occasionally you'll do 3 or more on a unit.

I tried it a couple of times and it was ok but maybe was not enough of a fix. In the end although I like the simplicity of these rules as well as the reaction system but we have moved on.

We are now using battlegroup for WW2 games. They are a little more complex but seem to have a better Infantry handling (and clearer and more tactical reaction rules) than Iron Cross.

[hayeswauford]

 Thank you so much for that very clear write up!

Funny I've got Battlegroup on the nightstand now. Thanks again!

[sundayhero]

One major diference is that Iron Cross contains all you need to play western, eastern and africa war theatres : for battlegroup, you need to buy the rules, and a special book for each war situation, like Kursk, very late war eastern front, early afrika, normandy, etc...

That's something you have to keep in mind, even if every BG book is made of great quality content.

[hayeswauford]

One major diference is that Iron Cross contains all you need to play western, eastern and africa war theatres : for battlegroup, you need to buy the rules, and a special book for each war situation, like Kursk, very late war eastern front, early afrika, normandy, etc...

That's something you have to keep in mind, even if every BG book is made of great quality content.

So many rules, so many similar names! I am wanting to start using https://www.caliverbooks.com/Partizan%20Press/partizan_BPzG.shtml, which I though was Battlegroup but apparently goes more typically by Panzergrenadier?