Crossfire Wargame Rules Review

[Leftblank]

Crossfire WW2 Wargame Rules: Mixed Feelings, Again
Last weekend I retried the Crossfire WW2 skirmish game. I liked it better than the first time, but my experience is mixed. Crossfire is easy, like real firefights. But also difficult, like real firefights. Maybe that’s the reason it’s so bloody difficult.

Many traditional skirmish wargames have a IGOUGO system or a card activation system. The simple 1hr wargames (excellent fastplay newbie system btw) is IGOUGO. IABSM is card activation. Bolt Action is inbetween, grab a dice and decide which unit you want to activate.

Crossfire is different. It’s a turnstealing game. And although the game is twentyfour years old, the mechanisms are still innovative.

Game Concepts
(read more via link https://amsterdamwar.game.blog/2020/08/25/crossfire-ww2-wargame-rules-mixed-feelings-again/ )

[vodkafan]

Hadn't read those particular reviews before. I must have a go at Crossfire sometime!

[BeneathALeadMountain]

Interesting Leftblank thanks for posting. I’ve read about it before but never played it or watched it played. It sounds a lot like Bloodbowl (and the reason it’s my favourite game) in terms of trying to maintain momentum until you ultimately fail and the opponent takes a turn. In theory it sounds fun but also seems you’d definitely need good, diverse (dare I say realistic) scenery to play well (I’d imagine desert games would be hard without proper wadis, dips and small cover.

If you haven’t tried it I’d recommend the Battlegroup rules system by Warwick Kinrade and Piers Brand. It works in different game sizes from squad to platoon and upwards and is a very simple, elegant yet enjoyable and engrossing game. I’ve introduced a number of non-historical gamers to it at my club and they’ve all really enjoyed it, picked it up quickly and asked (sometimes demanded) to play it again. I also play BA and CoC and Battlegroup is the perfect partner to them to make an entertaining triptych of WW2 goodness.

Stay safe and well,
BALM

[TacticalPainter]

Crossfire were the rules that brought me back to gaming with miniatures. A few innovative mechanics and a game that keeps both players engaged and on their toes. That said, it feels a bit under developed. It’s a beta version with some great ideas that need further work and play testing. At heart an infantry game, the use of armour starts to strain the system. Much to like though, it’s just lacked support and further development.

[Aerendar Valandil]

I was Leftblanks victim during these two games. I am not a WWII gamer and I didn't know the rules, which didn't help of course. However, the scenario we played and the forced setup method made it during both games very difficult to get anywhere without being shot to pieces. Perhaps we should look at the terrain/setup rules and take a bit more time to devise the scenario and the forces.

Yes, I was slightly frustrated, but I found the mechanic interesting. Perhaps the geme needs a bit more development though, as said here. 

[Plynkes]

I tried it out years ago in its early days. I was willing to give it a chance, even though it was so very different from what I was used to.

Only played two games, though. I was still reserving judgement until I had played it more, but my two gaming buddies absolutely hated it and weren't keen to give it any more of their time. So Crossfire died for me that day. My nephew is an avid gamer these days though, and he is bursting with enthusiasm for the system. So maybe I'll get to have another try with him one day, once things get a bit nearer normal again.

[robh]

......That said, it feels a bit under developed. It’s a beta version with some great ideas that need further work and play testing.........

This is a criticism often cast against Crossfire, however when looked at in detail it isn't the rules that are the issue it is the way the players approach them. You cannot "game" with Crossfire it was designed specifically to force players to understand and apply small unit military tactics to the tabletop situation.
"Can't advance"  OK, have you pinned the enemy to your front? have you deployed smoke? have you flanked their position? have you undertaken any interdiction against their supporting units. In Crossfire if your troops break cover in the face of active enemy troops they will die because that is what would happen to them in reality.

You have to stop thinking like a gamer and start thinking like a soldier.  After learning how to play Crossfire you will find most other WW2 game rules actually penalise (some laughably so) a true tactical approach to the situation because they are designed as toy soldier games not tactical simulations.

It is a fantastic set of rules and succeeds perfectly in what it was designed to do.  There is a very good discussion group on iO (used to be the old Yahoo Group) supporting the game.

[crafty]

I love Crossfire and I've made it my mission to try to improve the way I play.

It's a great infantry game but we do also add vehicles in our games.

People have said it doesn't do armour or heavier weapons that well, but there are various house rules that get around it. While it isn't a massed armour game, adding a small compliment of one or two vehicles has made our games really enjoyable. There are a lot of CF house rules, you can mix & match if you scratch around on the web.

My main issue with CF, is that there hasn't really been, to my mind, a satisfactory multiplayer fix.

We play CF every couple of weeks or so, and yes, it is easy to learn and very, very difficult to master, and I feel I haven't mastered it yet by any stretch. It can be very frustrating...playing as the attacker can be especially difficult if you are trying to cross fire lanes or open ground to assault an entrenched enemy. Another frustrating aspect can be trying to motivate pinned/suppressed green troops such as Russians en mass. Your plans for quick sweeping movements across the tabletop can quickly turn to disaster if units are suppressed and won't rally.

Alternatively, your opponent's weak flank can very quickly crumble into disaster if exploited ruthlessly.

From my time playing it, I reckon you need to use Spotters to aid your assaulting troops with Fire Missions ( three are rules for pre-plotted barrages) and smoke where possible to conceal movement. Fire groups/crossfire & HMGs are helpful to suppress (pining won't suffice most times) positions before assaulting those positions with superior troops ratios (at *least* 3 to 1) in close assaults. SMG units are also helpful in close assaults because those units they are trained for that kind of work, and you will get an advantage.

A good player will not leave a team weapon, such as a HMG without a supporting unit ( they are at a disadvantage in close assaults)...but weak areas should be exploited with superior numbers.

Another criticism - which i have seen in my own games - is that opposing side can simply blast away at each from behind cover in an attempt to break. I'm not sure if this is 'un-gamey' so to speak, or simply a kind of realistic deadlock that would occur. You have to work around it tactically when it does happen.

Alternatively, if you can group move units and 'overwhelm' positions, causing 'no fire' on reactive fire on certain positions, you can occasionally close assault them and take down pits etc. If your opposition has defensive depth, with multiple interlocking fire lanes or kill zones it will still be difficult. A 'No Fire' result can at least enable some forward momentum from capable units.

Maintaining initiative is crucial in CF.

I love CF because it is by far the most challenging tactical war-game I have played. To play it well you have to think more realistically about tactics than the *game* mechanisms, or rolling for stuff like rule bound assets etc. Having better toys, knowing the codex, or power-gaming a great list, metagaming the turn-sequence, or being super knowledgeable about the intricacies of the rulebook/scenario won't help you if your weak flank collapses and your headquarter is overrun etc etc.

Anyway, sorry about the long post, I just love CF and would love to hear other thoughts on tactics in the game.

[has.been]

A club I used to be in modified CF to be used in 20mm for Russian Revolution.
My memories are hazy, but we did have fun with them. I got blattered in just
about every game, so it wasn't that I won (far from it)

[S_P]

I'm a big fan of the rules- justy managed to get Hit the Dirt to give me some inspiration for some games.

[TacticalPainter]

This is a criticism often cast against Crossfire, however when looked at in detail it isn't the rules that are the issue it is the way the players approach them. You cannot "game" with Crossfire it was designed specifically to force players to understand and apply small unit military tactics to the tabletop situation.

I get that, which is why the rules appealed to me, but they are not perfect. For example it’s possible for assault engineers to rampage through a multi location building and take out a lot of enemy units and at the end of the phase still be operating at 100% strength and efficiency. Maintaining initiative is one thing, but engaging in multiple successive close combats and firefights without ever tiring or becoming degraded is another thing altogether. These are the sorts of tweaks that I’m referring to when I say the rules seem under-developed. The fact that most of the experienced players have house rules is evidence that even the true believers feel the need to ‘develop’ the rules further.

[crafty]

For example it’s possible for assault engineers to rampage through a multi location building and take out a lot of enemy units and at the end of the phase still be operating at 100% strength and efficiency. Maintaining initiative is one thing, but engaging in multiple successive close combats and firefights without ever tiring or becoming degraded is another thing altogether.

Without going down the 'is it realistic?' rabbit hole, similar situations have happened in our games...

This will happen and can happen if units haven't covered their approached or aren't facing in a way that can cover these approaches with reactive fire. When it happens it is brutal & quick. Of course, it depends on how a player perceives it...but to me this seems plausible given the design approach. CF is meant to be played hard and fast. As you will be aware, without measuring for movement or weapon ranges. If a flank collapses on the table things can go pear shaped very quickly, and given the *time* & *scale* of CF it does seem to model the kind of confusion & chaos that would transpire in such a setting.

Maybe that doesn't seem fair in a game-play sense, but as another poster pointed out CF is more of a tactical simulation than a weapons simulation...it doesn't sell itself as a granular weapons-system style of game like ASL or something like that.

As for home brew rules & tinkering, to me CF is like the punk rock version of a tabletop war-game...the raw rudiments of guitar, bass & drums are in the mix, but you can add or mix elements to suit your interests, and that's why I find so enjoyable.

Horse for courses at the end of the day...

Edit: I will add that the situation that you describe could be at a stretch representing the fight-through phase of an assault, and that if a player doesn't push through to the limit of exploitation then that there would equally unrealistic and kind of broken  ....at section/platoon/company level troops are trained in this......my understanding of CF is that a suppressed unit represents a degradation of combat efficiency...of course there will be casualties/damage but it is abstracted to a degree in the game....so, to me, the situation doesn't seem unrealistic or broken.

[Paratrooper 42]

I've played Cross Fire a number of times and it's definitely a rule set that needs to be approached with a different mindset, as has been said, it's more of a simulation than a game.  I tend to find those people who use 'charge to the front' tactics as there go to behaviour tend not to like it, but those who prefer a tactical challenge enjoy them.

[SteveBurt]

It's a very good set for infantry combat. We used to play it a lot; the scenarios in Hit the Dirt are very good. It doesn't work well for multi player, the vehicle rules are crude, and the No Fire mechanic can be problematic (for instance when crossing streams and hedges). But still a fun set

[monk2002uk]

Love Crossfire. We use it for WW1 games, even for the earliest weeks of the Great War. Steven's Balagan website has a shed-load of content relating to Crossfire, including mechanics for multiplayer games:

https://balagan.info/wargaming/crossfire

Robert