CROSS FIRE (CF) appeared some years ago, and I thought that this was one of the most innovative sequences ever crafted for a wargame. CF is an initiative game, in which one side, call it Side A, moves its units until the opposition, Side B, calls out “I can see you!”, and attempts to take a pot shot at Side A’s moving unit.
If Side B is not successful, Side A continues to move. If Side B is successful, then he begins moving his own units until Side A is able to call out “I can see you!” and fires.
There are no defined movement distances… a side can continue to move a unit indefinitely until the loss of initiative occurs. Firing ranges are also unrestricited. At some point during Side A’s initiative, instead of moving, he can attempt to fire at one of Side B’s units. If he’s successful, he keeps the initiative, but if he fails, the initiative passes to Side B.
The CF sequence works great for one-on-one games, but it becomes awkward to implement for multi-player games. For example, if there are three players on Side A, and they have the initiative, and each moves a unit, and one of the units gets hit, do all three players lose initiative simultaneously, so that it passes to the opposition? Or does only one of the three lose initiative? I’ve tried it both ways… and been unhappy with both results.
CF is a skirmish game, and I’ve also tried to upgrade it to a large unit game, with no success. One of the key parameters in the success of the CF skirmish system is the fact that movement distances are unlimited. But with larger scale games, say, with battalions, it makes no sense to permit a battalion or a brigade to continue to dash all over the field until its side loses the initiative.
Sturm
One of my friends developed a WW2 game he calls STURM, a “reaction” game. Basically, the STURM sequence allows the active side, Side A, to move and fire all of his units, after which, Side B moves and fires all of his units. But it’s far from a “gotcha!” game.
STURM uses a “reaction deck”, one of whose cards are drawn whenever one side does something to “stimulate” or provoke the enemy. Four specific instances are listed:
- Side A close assaults Side B
Side A fires on Side B
One of Side A’s units moves within 15 inches of one of Side B’s units
One of Side B’s units, within 10 inches of one of Side A’s units, retreats
In each of the above cases, Side B is the “stimulated” side, and the card that is drawn lists several responses for the affected unit. It may fire, it may hold, it may advance, it may fall back. STURM grades units into “crack”, “regular” and “green”… and the card listings reflect the appropriate response of each of the grades… a crack unit will, most of the time, fire, and rarely fall back, while a green unit will not want to trade fire with the enemy.
What makes STURM shine is that the reaction sequence doesn’t end there, with the draw of a single card. It continues until one of the units breaks off the encounter. What develops is a series of fire fights as the active side moves and fires. For example, if Side A is the active side, moving and firing his units, consider an infantry unit of Side A’s, that fires on one of Side B’s infantry units:
- a A’s infantry starts the sequence out by firing.
b Having been fired upon, B’s infantry draws a card to determine its reaction. Assume it returns fire.
c But now, A’s infantry, having been fired on, draws its own card. Assume the card mandates that it fires back.
d Back to B’s infantry, which, having been fired on for a second time, draws a card. Assume the card states that B’s unit will again return fire.
e Once again, A’s unit, having been fired on, draws a card. Assume the card says that A’s unit will hold.
f The fire fight is over, and Side A continues to move or fire the remainder of his units. Each move or fire may trigger even more responses from Side B
During these exchanges, each unit takes casualties, evidenced by placing casualty figures beside them, or plopping those wonderful casualty caps (yuch!) on them, or simply recording losses on the unit data sheets.
The reaction sequence is not endless. STURM permits a unit to respond or return fire three times during one exchange of fire, i.e., draw a card a maximum of three times… if there’s a fourth impact, the unit must withdraw.
Note that the STURM action-reaction sequence produces all sorts of interaction between the units on the field. Not a “gotcha!” to be seen!
During Side’s A’s active phase, his actions can produce all sorts of responses from Side B. And thereby, unfortunately, lies the weakness of the STURM sequence. Simply put, there’s too much going on on the field.
For a one-on-one game, STURM is excellent. It falls apart for a multi-player game… there are too many unit-on-unit responses across the battlefield… it’s hard to track them all.
Piquet
Another out-of-the-ordinary sequence involves PIQUET (PQ), which uses a card-governed system.
To me, as it is played, PQ is equivalent to one of the waiting-waiting-waiting games I mentioned in the discussion on card sequences. In short, as played, it’s not one of my favorite games. But, in the same light, the potential for the PQ system as derived is unbounded.
PQ gives each side an “action” deck of some 30 cards. There may be three “infantry move” cards, an “artillery reload” card, several “cavalry move” cards, a “resolve melee” card, and a lot of “straighten your lines” cards, and a buncha others.
Each side tosses a 20-sided die. If Side A’s die is a 16, while B’s die is a 7, then Side A gets the difference in points and gets to draw 16-7, or 9 of its cards. Side A turns up his first card… if it’s “infantry move”, he can designate a unit and move it, but this costs him an additional point. Each infantry unit he moves under the auspices of the card costs him a point. Which means that he can’t really enjoy all of his 9 original points.
When Side A is finished, the 20-sided dice are tossed again, and the high toss receives the difference in points and can start drawing cards. But note the weakness of the PQ system:
- a One side, via a series of lucky tosses, can continually win the initiative and keep on drawing cards. His opponent can do nothing… he can be “gotchad!’ to death.
b I term the “action” deck an “inert action” deck because of the distribution of the cards. There are, it seems to me, too many non-action, comparitively useless, cards… “straighten your lines”, “deploy”, and so on, and too few actual move cards.
The combination of (a) and (b) above go against my primary goal of keeping the players busy and their units moving.
I’ve thought that if PQ simply switched initiative each turn, it would make for a “better” game. Thus, have Side A toss a die for his initiative points, and then have Side B toss for his. That way, a side would be ensured of getting to move some troops each half turn. And note that I placed the word “better” in quotes. My “better” is not the PQ advocate’s “better”.
PQ supporters say that their sequence reproduces a true “fog of war”. Neither side knows who is to move, or who will win the initiative, or how many troops will move. I can’t argue the “fogginess” aspect, but having sat in on, and witnessed, around a dozen PQ games, I’ve seen too many gamers sitting idly at table-side, waiting to move troops… all the while, of course, thoroughly enjoying the “fog of war” aspect immensely. To my mind, as played, PQ’s waiting-waiting-waiting sequence is not an enjoyable one.
I’ve always thought that card-driven sequences provided excellent vehicles for orienting a scenario or a set of rules to specific goals. Cards can be inserted in the decks for a variety of circumstances… a given card can state that a unit may move an additional 5 inches, or fire twice, or that a player can point to an enemy unit and have it undergo a morale test.
Draw and Move
Another type of out-of-the-ordinary sequence is to intersperse card draws with formal movement. For example, within the turn, after the active side, Side A, moves, then draw a card for some sort of special action or function. The card can apply to Side A only, or to Side B, or to both of the sides. It can provide for additional movement, for supplies being brought up, for an artillery barrage, for reserves to appear, and so on.
Once the function listed on the special card is completed, it’s now Side B’s turn to move in the formal sequence, and after he’s finished, another special action card is drawn.
More Thoughts on the Generation of Wargame Rules
Back to PW Review January 2002 Table of Contents
Back to PW Review List of Issues
Back to MagWeb Master Magazine List
© Copyright 2002 Wally Simon
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