By the time you read this Arty Conliffe's new set of world war two rules, CrossFire, should be on the market, and you will have probably seen advertising for it. At the time I'm writing this. I Just saw the rules played for the first time a couple of weeks ago at the ENFILADE convention near Seattle, and they are intriguing, to say the least. First, the basics. These rules are set at the scale of one unit or stand = one squad of infantry, platoon leader, company or battalion commander, or section of heavy weapons (mortars, mounted machineguns, etc.). A single model represents one vehicle or gun (with one glaring exception: see below). There is no specific ground scale, no time scale, and only a suggested figure-basing. Very astutely, these rules are written for any scale of figures mounted pretty much any way you please as long as they can be identified by squad, section, or as a commander. There are no set turns or real sequence of play, no movement distances, no firing ranges no rulers or tape measures at all, Just dice, terrain, and figures. Right now, you're probably wondering what's left after all that stuff is removed from a set of rules In place of a specific turn and sequence. avowed actions switch from player to player according to INITIATIVE. In other words, as long as your actions, including moving, firing, and close combat (hand-to-hand) are successful, you keep right on doing them. As soon as you fail to succeed (movement stopped by enemy fire, for instance, or firing that does no serious hurt to the enemy), the Initiative switches to your opponent. This has a result similar to that in Bob Jones PICOUET rules, which also have no set turn or sequence: you cannot predict exactly what will happen next, and the Sweat Level rises dramatically with every action by either side. The reasoning behind the lack of ranges or movement distances is simple: in modern combat, at close range all weapons are lethal. On a modem battlefield full of lethal weapons, movement is strictly from cover to cover, because any stopping outside of cover is fatal. Therefore, all movement in CrossFire is strictly from terrain feature to terrain feature. unless stopped by enemy fire. You can shoot at anything you can see, and the only differences are inherent in the weapons: machine guns fire more often (more dice) than rifles, and submachine guns are most lethal when they are spraying bullets at hand-to-hand range. All of which serves to focus the game on its primary purpose: infantry combat at the lowest command level. This is a game at the "Sharp End. of the battlefield: "down and dirty" with a vengeance. CrossFire, therefore, works best for battles where infantry dominate:
City or town fighting The best things I found about CrossFire, after watching several different games at the convention and playing with a preliminary copy of the rules over the past weeks, are: 1. It is FAST. In one example at ENFILADE, German and Soviet companies fought over a 3 x 4 foot section of Stalingrad with several players on a side, most of whom had never seen the rules before. The game was played to a conclusion in a bit over two hours, with heavy fighting from start to finish. 2. It is unpredictable. Because of the in determinant turns and fast passing of Initiative, battles go back and forth very quickly. In the Stalingrad example, one player was ready to make a desperation suicide charge across an open street, having concluded that nothing else was possible. Dissuaded by onlookers, a few minutes later an enemy machinegun was suppressed and he carried the enemy position! There is literally, no telling exactly what will happen next: the stark confusion of modem low level combat is very well represented here. 3. It is cheap. That is, you can get into CrossFire from a standing start without a great outlay of money. A basic company of Infantry (German, US, Soviet, or Japanese) is about 25 - 35 figures, depending on how many you want to put on your squad stands. In 15 - 20mm, that company could be had for $20 - $40 plus painting time. That's every low entry threshold If you've always thought about trying world war two but don't want to blow wads of cash on tanks... Finally, under Good Things, there are already folks working on scenario books for world war two actions. and a World War One variant. The game is a natural for close combat in trench and bunker complexes, so I would not be surprised to see a Korean War version or even a Vietnam variant show up soon. There are some things about CrossFlre you should be wary of. Not that they make for a bad set of rules, but they stretch the primary focus of the rules, and don't work as well with them 1. CrossFire is really designed for two players. Because of the way Initiative passes back and forth, multi-player games require special rules to provide all the players with a chance to move and shoot. At the convention I saw games played with three and even four players on a side, but they were stretching the game: two or three at most on a side, and the best and fastest games go with two players battling it out head-to-head. The other side of this coin is that CrossFire has the potential, with its 1:1 orientation of players and fast playing time, to be a great game for tournaments. There is a point system and semi-random "scenario generator" included in the rules which make setting up rounds of tournament play even easier. Those of you who are tired of going mono a mono with pikes and pilae in DBA or DAM might want to look into this for (as Monty Python would say) "something completely different"... 2. CrossFire includes data and rules for antitank guns, artillery, tanks, and armored carriers, built is really not intended as an armor game. Frankly, any amount of artillery will absolutely overwhelm the infantry (as it does with animated 1700mm figures), and tanks in the close terrain where CrossFire scenarios work best are little more than mobile machineguns and heavy support weapons. If you like tank fleets. stick to larger scale rules: this is a foot fight. 3. Because movement is all cover to cover, CrossFire wouldn't work in open terrain. This is not a western desert game, unless you can find a part of the desert with lots of holes, gullies, rocks, and other things to hide behind. The open step is a nightmare for Infantry under fire, and a CrossFire game there would be equally nightmarish. This game requires a cluttered battlefield, which still gives wide scope: bocage, woods, villages, fields of crops, etc. as well as the obvious city or jungle fighting. Finally, Just from my exposure to the rules, there are a few comments and suggestions I have. There were so many different things going on in world war two that any set of rules has room for fiddling, and I am a licensed, Grade-A-stamped-on-the-forehead fiddler: here goes: 1. There are special provisions in the rules for engineers removing obstacles like mines and barbed wire, and engineers being a little more effective charging home with (presumably) satchel explosive charges, but there are no weapons factors for flamethrowers. For the edification of the arsonically inclined, here are some suggested flamethrower rules: A flamethrower equipped engineer stand has a +3 Close Combat factor against vehicles or bunkers, a +2 factor against other targets. A flamethrower stand suffers one worse effect from all fire: Pinned becomes Suppressed, Suppressed becomes a Kill (ever seen what happens when a bullet hits a back tank full of Jellied gasoline?). 2. All armies made provision for "tank hunter" teams among the infantry, with or without the regular infantry antitank weapons like bazookas, antitank rifles, or Panzerfausts. This amounts to a "scenario special rule": for situations where the infantry has prepared to light tanks (German infantry on the eastern front from late 1941 on, Soviet infantry at Kursk In 1943, etc). In such cases, the player can designate certain squads/stands as "Tank Hunters". They keep the regular fire factors for that unit type, but in addition have a +2 close combat factor against armored vehicles. In most cases, you won't have more than one such stand per company but at Kursk, for instance, the Soviets had special teams consisting (in CrossFire terms) of a squad of engineers and 1 - 2 squads of tank hunting infantry working as a platoon under a platoon leader to close combat enemy armor 3. CrossFire makes the platoon leader a non-combat element. That is, platoon leaders cannot fire and if contacted in close combat without a friendly squad with them are eliminated automatically. This simplifies things a bit. since many platoon commands included more men and weapons than just the lieutenant's pistol. In German, Russian, and US platoons the leader was accompanied by at least his senior sergeant and a couple of runners or a radio team armed with carbines or rifles. To reflect this, allow the Platoon Leader to fire with half the dice the squads in his platoon have (SMG armed would have 1 die with 2 In close com- bat range, rifle armed would have 1 die, etc), and to engage in Close Combat with a -1 modifier. Of course, any platoon leader who was firing or fighting could not rally or otherwise affect any of the other units in his platoon. 4. CrossFire says that ..."-a single vehicle...represents 1 actual weapon.". But in the company organizations it allows an entire platoon (3 squads plus platoon leader) to stuff themselves into one half-track or APC model. Now, this saves you money in buying APC models, but it grossly underplays the effect of the armored carriers, which German panzer leaders after the war said were one of their greatest advantages over the Soviet armored units, The only change in rules needed to realistically use a 1:1 ratio of models to APCs is to reduce the dice per APC-mounted machinegun to 2, since the normal 4 dice is for a section of 2 -3 machineguns and most APCs mounted only one. By changing to a 1:1 APC ratio, the US Armored Infantry and German Panzer Grenadier companies would get a serious boost in strength, which was historically true as long as they could bring that armored firepower to bear. Here are the modified company organizations for the German and US units that had APCs assigned regularly:
German:Armored Infantry Battalion (1943):
* The 1st Platoon contains a +2 PC; the other 2 Platoons contain +1 PCs NOTES: When using the APCs with this organization count each APC as costing 2 points, not 8. This will keep the total points cost similar to the original rules. Morale: Regulars
Panzergrenadier Battalion Headquarters:
3 - Panzergrenadier Companies: each with:
* The 1st Platoon contains a +2 PC; the other 2 Platoons contain +1 PCs Notes: When using the APCS with this organization count each APC as costing 2 points, not 8. This will keep the total points cost similar to the original rules. The PC of the Heavy Weapons Company is also armed with, and could be replaced by, a stand with Panzerschreck antitank rockets. The Bn Heavy Weapons Company also included a platoon of 6 20mm FLAK on unarmored halftracks but it was usually detached or missing. Morale: Regulars
United States:Armored Infantry Battalion (1942):
Battalion Headquarters:
1 - CC (+0)** in M3 halftrack 1 - 37mm ATG towed by any halftracks** 1 - M6 37mm SP ATG
NOTES:
When using the APCs with this organization count each
APC as costing 2 points, not 8. This will keep the total
points cost similar to the original rules.
Battalion Headquarters:
3 - Armored Infantry Companies; each with:
NOTES:
When using the APCs with this organization count each
APC as costing 2 points, not 8. This will keep the total
points cost similar to the original nobles Back to MWAN #89 Table of Contents Back to MWAN List of Issues Back to MagWeb Magazine List © Copyright 1997 Hal Thinglum This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web. Other military history articles and gaming articles are available at http://www.magweb.com |