Out of all the wargames. This one seems like the only truly unique one that does away with a lot of hassle that comes with typical wargaming rulesets and it surprises me that ever since this came out, nobody ever tried to copy it or be inspired by it. How does it sit in comparison with the rest of the historical wargames out there? Its pros, its cons?Even expanding out beyond historical wargames and looking at anything tabletop. Nobody else seems to have similar rules to this.
>>97986640A lot of times good stuff can just not see the light it deserves due to being drowned out by more popular things. Crossfire may be an example of that.Can you sell me on Crossfire? What it gets right, and wrong?
>>97986665>movement is done entirely by terrain to terrain. There is no measuring tape required at all and any sort of measuring is done via being within a base distance which makes it easy>One player has initiative so one player is moving and making decisions until they lose initiative, then the other player begins moving their bases and starts doing actions until they lose initiative, etc, so essentially very fast gameplay>Players seem to be able to mainly focus on thinking tactically rather than on the rules or looking at spreadsheets for 80% of the time, like how a chess player focuses on making moves rather than focusing on how the pieces are allowed to move>Combat follows simple rules that makes it quick while still being able to set up big brain movesThe only real two downsides are: you need terrain pieces, a lot of terrain pieces. And the vehicle combat kinda sucks but people often modify it with house rules to make it a lot better.
I think the Japanese aren't properly modelled but there is enough fan-material to fix tha.germans just getting anoth to represent MGs at the squad level is overcomplicated when they could just say roll 1 more dice per squad.
>>97986640I know at the very least Rogue Planet has similar non-measuring movement rules.
It's just surprising, especially with its turn base that is unlike most wargames. One player essentially just keeps moving and shooting until the other player gets a good reactive fire or the initiative player just fucks up. There is no order to the turn. If you want to rally a unit first, you can do that. If you want to shoot at an enemy first, you can do that. If you want to move a unit first, you can do that. It's something that I feel like holds back a lot of wargames and offers a very unique way of doing it differently. That said I don't have much experience. So compared to things like FoW/Team Yankee, Battlegroup, Chain of Command, etc - I don't know how it ranks.
>>97986640Hey, I remember Crossfire. I had a mate raving about it and I gave it a go, because apparently it was innovative and fun to play. We started a quick match (British versus Germans in North Africa) and set up the terrain.Then in the first turn I started an infantry charge on the right flank, kept rolling well (dumb luck) and kept massacring in hand to hand combat one unit of Germans after the other, until he was completely crippled and the game was over after roughly 20 minutes with him doing essentially nothing bar dying.To this day I wonder if we played everything wrong or the guy writing the game wanted a Medieval cavalry simulator and not a WW2 wargame.
>>97986700Thanks!I didn't see any mention of templates so I think it will be alright.
>>97986640The Doomed does a similar movement thing. I don't like it, seems like a functional enough idea with a close group of friends but even then having to negotiate every movement every time anything comes up instead of just using a fucking measuring tape seems obnoxious. Of Armies and Hordes uses area movement, its interesting, a bit of a hassle to set up initially though.
>>97988416Dice rolls can always turn what should be a "fair fight" into a slaughter with any game, with crossfire you have to definitely position your guys in good positions to get protective cover effects. I would also ask, did he even attempt a reactive fire once? The non-initiative player, as long as he has LOS to your units when you make a move can initiate reactive fire to shift initiative. That's what makes it very unlikely for one player to just steamroll the other player in one turn unless you get insanely lucky with dice rolls.
>>97990270Unless the other player has LOS and it's a straight path from A to B, you just move the unit where you want to go. And if you want to cross danger areas, using smoke, artillery, and pinning/suppressing the other players units before you move yours is the way to go just like in irl combat. You also have the ability to form group fires/crossfire with leader units if you set the other units up right that greatly increases the chances of suppressing/killing enemy units. And the combat is just dice rolls with limited terrain effects, so it's not like you have to flip through multiple pages to figure out what statistical data you have to use.
>>97990299Not what I was talking about but that's okay. How do you lose initiative and prevent >>97988416like circumstances?
>>97990329Other player can take initiative if he gets a suppression or kill via reactive fires. Losing initiative happens when you fail a roll. Rallying, only getting pin's on the enemy but no suppressions or kills. Failing to detect an enemy via recon by fire, losing close combat, getting caught in barbed wire or suppressed from mines or just giving up initiative voluntarily.
>>97991391That makes more sense, thanks for clarifying.
