Crossfire...Movement & Initative?

[grubman]

I keep reading how Crossfire has this unique movement and turn (initiative) system, but, it’s like everyone wants to be all elusive about it.  I’ll be honest, I’m not paying $20USD for a 44 page book unless I can find out a little bit more information on how this wonderful movement and turn system works.  Can anyone give it to me in a nutshell…or even better, with a few specifics so I can really understand it?

[odd duck]

Have'nt played it for a while but basically when a player has the initiative he can move and shoot as many elements as he wants until he loses the initiative.You lose initiative as a result of enemy fire,ie an element being pinned  or destroyed your opponent then has the initiative and can move his elements until you pin/supress or destroy one of his elements ,the player without initiative gets to fire at elements as they move into his line of sight (only unpinned elements),everything is in range if you can see it you can shoot it so everybody moves from one piece of cover to another.i think it's a good system hope this helps

[matakishi]

In crossfire the player with the initiative continues to move/shoot/whatever until he fails to accomplish a desired action when the initiative then shifts to the other player.

Moving is broken down into segments, a unit ends it's move when it enters a terrain piece. These 'moves' can be strung together so the same unit can keep moving but each 'move' is subject to reactionary fire from enemy units that can see the moving unit. Should the reactionary fire cause a result (suppress or kill) the phasing player's go ends and the initiative switches to the opponent who begins his/her series of manoeuvers etc.

Shooting follows the same formula, if you shoot in your go and cause damage you keep the initiative and can keep shooting and moving, fail to damage the target and lose the initiative.

There's a little more to it but that's the basics. The game revolves around decision making, what to try next and what needs to be done. Moving stuff around in the rear, out of sight of the enemy, is risk free but everything that involves interacting directly with your opponent may, at any time, lose you the initiative and spark off a massive counter attack.

Sweeping flanking moves are a real and regular occurrence, in Crossfire you can't tell where a unit may move to, leave your flanks unprotected and suffer.

Crossfire makes you think more like an infantry commander and less like a gamer, if you lose badly it's generally your fault and you better lean from it if you want to win next time Real tactics work and need to be employed in the game, fire and maneouver, pin and flank, position your commander so he can be a factor, remember to keep an all round defence and hold something in reserve to counter an unexpected move. Don't move around in the open and don't bunch up.

Although it's designed for WWII the system is so flexible that I use it for many different settings.
Crossfire is very simple to explain and I use it to run participation games at shows and to introduce new people to the concept of wargaming. there is no looking up on charts during a game and everyone has grasped the basics well before the end of their first turn.

When I first came across Crossfire I was amazed at how the simple premise worked so well. 'I want to move these troops over there' you think and off you go and do it. The only thing that will stop you getting where you want to be is the enemy, just like on a real battlefield.

The lack of foreknowledge about where your opponent's troops can move to upsets some people, if it's going to upset you then find another rule set. Crossfire doesn't work well for multi player games either and requires a lot of fiddling to get something that works so if you want to play multi player, play something else.

If, on the other hand, you want a rules set that allows you to play a game concentrating on objectives and ways to achieve them that doesn't involve remembering 40,000 special rules that contradict the main rules and that only requires around 30 figures a side maybe Crossfire is for you.

My site is full of Crossfire stuff maybe you'll see something you like.

WWII:
http://www.matakishi.com/wwii19391945.htm



Weird WWII:
http://www.matakishi.com/weirdwar21939.htm



Modern:
http://www.matakishi.com/modernconflicts1950.htm



Sci Fi:
http://www.matakishi.com/futurewar2009onwards.htm



Currently working on Police drama too:

[Arlequín]

I'll echo Matakishi's comments, a simple ruleset with (to me at least) a grasp of what infantry combat is all about. It can cause some upset (tears even) until the players get a grasp of the system. You'll also get very skillful at determining in which order your units will move so as to not risk having units stuck in place because you lost initiative with one of the first units you moved - in other words your 'attack' can easily get bogged down if you come under enemy fire too early in the move. An often frustrating but fun set of rules.

My only criticism is that it uses multi-basing of figures and a 'troop scale' (3 figures to a squad or something??), but these can be got around without altering the game too much.

You'll love it or hate it. 

[Plynkes]

My gang instantly hated it. Only got to play it twice. Shame, really. I thought it had great potential (though maybe not the infinite "game for all seasons" potential Matakishi has bestowed on it ).

It's not for everyone.

[matakishi]

My gang instantly hated it. Only got to play it twice. Shame, really. I thought it had great potential (though maybe not the infinite "game for all seasons" potential Matakishi has bestowed on it ).

It's not for everyone.

I wouldn't recommend it for anything involving formed troops, it only works for modern squad/fireteam based combat and only for small scale encounters.

It isn't for everyone

[grubman]

I wouldn't recommend it for anything involving formed troops, it only works for modern squad/fireteam based combat and only for small scale encounters.

Has anyone used the same ideas in a totally different game?  Not a variation, but a new game that uses some of the same concepts?

I hear vehicles don't work well in the game, why is that?

[matakishi]

I hear vehicles don't work well in the game, why is that?

Vehicles as written are unwieldy and sit at odds with the principles of the game system. However, if you give vehicles the same freedoms as infantry everything works fine. This should have been done from the beginning but probably would have annoyed the rivet counters.

[midismirnoff]

I'll add my 2 cents after Matakishi-san.
Many say you need a lot of scenics to play a CF decent game. I'll tell you I just put the same amount of scenics as in any other game; the battlefield has to be prepared with a grain of salt, but that's it.

[leadfool]

Crossfire is a great set of rules for the period, and  I have used it for Vietnam with considerable success.  I think it would work with other periods that involve fire and movement. 
When you are setting up a game you need alot of terrain.  Use every piece you have and borrow some more and then you will find that is not enough.  Make sure there are no lines of sight that are very long, as all shooting is line of sight. One game we played on a really big table resulted in a 14 foot (say 3 1/2 meters) shot because I had set up the terrain with one long line and sure enough one unit was there when another moved through it. 
It can work with multiplayer games, but really get to know the basics first.
Good luck and let us know if you give it a try.