Wally
Simon takes a look at CROSSFIRE
A
squad-level WWII game by Arty Conliffe
Originally published in Wargames
Illustrated no.123 - December 1997
I first saw Crossfire
(CF) at the July, 1997, HISTORICON convention in Lancaster,
Pennsylvania. CF's 44-page booklet states that the game is "designed
for two opposing players." The demonstration game used 20mm figures,
had some three players per side, and under the tutelage of the gaming
host, ran quite smoothly.
Conliffe’s previous
publications, Tactica and Armati, both focused on the ancients era,
and both contained some very clever, unique, gaming ploys and
procedures to replicate the goings-on of the ancients battlefield. CF
carries on with Conliffe’s novel and playable approach to wargaming.
The CF rules booklet
carefully avoids all mention of scale... whether of time or distance.
A squad, it says, is represented by a base of about 1-inch by 1-inch.
That’s as close to a distance analysis as you’ll see. All weapons can
fire line-of-sight (LOS) across the entire gaming table, and if my
squad can "see" your squad way across the table, you’re fair game.
There are no fixed bounds as
such. The scope of the bounds change as the initiative shifts from one
side to the other. In effect, Conliffe has successfully combined two
system concepts which fell by the wayside years and years ago:
a. The Jack Scruby Liberal
Move. In the sixties, Jack Scruby came up with the idea that, once or
twice a game, each side could pick up a unit and march it across the
field as far as desired. You’d move the unit, say, 12 inches, and if
it passed through an opposing unit’s zone of fire, infantry or
artillery, your opponent would fire at your unit, it would take
casualties, and move on. Another 12 inches, more opposing fire, more
casualties, and the unit would move on again. In this manner, you
could march your unit from one end of the field to the other and it
would arrive somewhat the worse for wear, but it would arrive.
b. In the early eighties,
George Jeffrey arrived on the scene with his "variable bound"
mechanisms. Units would advance, change formation, change face,
retreat, etc., until a "change of situation" occurred. Jeffrey’s "change of situation" was defined as an event which might cause a
commander to reassess the situation before him and, perhaps, to issue
new orders to take into account new developments. At this point, all
units on the field would freeze, casualties be updated, morale tests
made, ammunition supply assessed, units be redirected by a change of
orders, and so on.
Conliffe has very neatly
amalgamated the above two gaming procedures to produce his own
"endless bound" game of small unit action in WW II.
Before writing this article,
I played over a dozen CF games, and after each one, I asked those
present how much "battlefield time" they thought had elapsed during
the action. All the games were at the same level, essentially
company-versus-company, yet the answers ranged from Five minutes to
five hours.
When your side has the
initiative, you may select a stand (squad) and move it until the
opponent reacts by announcing that one, or more, of his own units can
see yours, and is firing on it.
The results of his fire will
be either to miss, to pin your unit, to suppress it, or to kill it.
There are no specific casualties to be noted on the squad-token, i.e.
no casualty caps, no ‘V-rings'... the squad reacts as a single
entity... it’s either functioning or non-functioning. In my own
20mm games, I use 1-inch by 1-inch stands, each holding a 20mm
casualty figure, placed beside a stand to indicate its status...
one marker for pinned, two for suppressed.
I also use a 3-foot long,
1/4 inch dowel for a LOS stick. CF is a game wherein both sides
constantly cry out "I can see you" and BANG!, blast away. We’ve tried
"eyeballing" along a given LOS... it’s no use, the only true way to
avoid argument is to actually lay down the LOS stick and determine if
a straight, uninterrupted line exists between firer and target.
CF uses 6-sided dice. When
firing at a target in the open, a rifle squad tosses 3 dice, a HMG
squad tosses 4 dice. Hits are always inflicted on tosses of "5" or
"6". Modifiers are not applied to the required die roll numbers, i.e.
the "5’s" and "6’s" never change. Instead, modifiers are applied in
terms of whole dice.
For example, when firing at
a unit in cover, a rifle squad receives 2 firing dice instead of 3,
and the HMG receives 3 instead of 4. Nothing could be simpler, nothing
more rapid. Note that about 80 percent of the tokens on the field will
be rifle squads, and this method of assessing hits is mandatory to
keep the game flowing.
One hit on the target, i.e.
either a "5" or "6", is defined as a pin... the target can no longer
move, but can fire. Two hits, and the target is suppressed... it
can neither move nor fire. A total of 3 hits is required for a kill.
Pinned and suppressed stands must be rallied before they can fully
function again. Most of the time, targets will be in cover, and a
single rifle squad’s 2 fire dice are highly unlikely to produce more
than a pin. The tactic, therefore, is to coordinate the fire of
several squads, and, perhaps, an HMG or two, and accumulate a handful
of dice to produce a definitive ‘blast’. Coordination is effected in
one of two ways:
First, one firing squad can
be designated as a fire-group-leader (FGL). Other stands within one
stand width of the FGL may add their dice to the volley. Note that
here, no specific distance from the FGL is given. Instead, the
distance is specified in terms of "one stand width"... hence the use
of stand sizes other than the recommended 1-inch by 1 inch may be
used. In my games, my squad stands measure 2-inches by 2-inches.
Second, coordinative fire is
produced by use of the platoon commander (PC). The PC is mounted on
his own stand... he doesn’t fire, but his presence helps in rallying
pinned and suppressed units, and in the case at interest, on
concentrating fire on a single target. The PC’s requirement is
twofold: (a) the PC, and the squads in his platoon, must all have a
direct LOS to the target, and (b) the PC must have a LOS to each of
his squads. If this occurs, the squads within the platoon may then
issue cross fire on the target (hence the name of the rules). Note
that the PC may coordinate fire from the squads in his platoon even
though they may be quite far apart. If he can see ’em, he can
coordinate ’em. The CF booklet recommends that, when setting up a
scenario, at least one-third of the gaming area should be covered by
terrain features,.. woods, hills, buildings, etc. A terrain feature
blocks LOS, and enough of these must be present to permit a modicum of
troop movement without the enemy continually blasting away. An
interesting note in the book states that players "...must be
careful when setting up terrain not to allow a clear fire lane from
edge to edge across the table... check before play begins, and if
necessary, shift terrain slightly to block LOS..."
In the first games I set up,
I ignored the above warning, and discovered that the author meant what
he said . . . I had way too many clear fire lanes, and squads (if
you’ll pardon my use of a metaphor) were dropping like flies. Too many
casualties, too soon, produced a non-game. In effect, we really
weren’t playing CF properly and had no one but ourselves to blame.
Experimenting with the
proper amount of terrain took a game or two... we discovered that the
author’s recommendation, using one-third of the gaming area as terrain
features, could be increased to almost one-half. Terrain-blocking
features are as necessary a part of CF as the infantry stands
themselves.
In many rules sets, when
entering a wood within sight of the enemy, the moving player’s unit is
protected in one of two ways: first, his unit may be out of the
enemy’s weapon range. Second, he may declare whether or not his unit
is on the edge of the woods, and thus may fire, and be fired at. If
he’s "deep in the woods", he’s not an eligible target. Not so with CF.
Since all weapons fire along the complete LOS, you’re never out of
enemy range. Secondly, the "deep in the woods" theory is not
applicable.
If my squad is in woods #1,
and your unit is in woods #3, and in between woods #1 and woods #3 is
woods #2, then neither of us can see the other... woods #2 blocks our
LOS. But as soon as either of us exits our woods, and enters woods #2,
we are fair game as a target. Units in CF can "see" into adjacent
terrain features. And this includes both woods and houses. Bear in
mind that in CF, due to the scale, or lack of it, a "house" is a "house", and not a village... entering a house from a point
opposite to that on which an enemy squad is located makes the moving
squad immediately subject to being fired upon.
Terrain features are also
important when the sides move. The active player (the side with
initiative) designates the path along which his squad will move.
Anywhere along this path, the non-active player can shout "I can see
you!" and claim what is termed reactive fire. In the fire phase that
follows, if the non-active player scores only a pin on the target, the
moving side continues to hold the initiative, and continues to move.
If, however, the reacting player scores a suppression or a kill, he
wins the initiative, and can commence to move his own troops.
The active side can also
fire... if, however, he fails to score a suppression or kill, he
will lose the initiative. This firing procedure, and its emphasis on
suppressions and kills, is what makes the coordinative firing efforts,
as previously described, so important. The objective is to amass a
quantity of firing dice and blast away.
When the active player
moves, then, just as in the firing procedures, there is a provision
for coordinating multi-unit (multi-stand) movement. This mechanism
closely parallels that used in the firing system. One squad, or,
perhaps, the PC, can be designated as the moving group leader (GL).
All stands within one stand width of the GL may also move. As each
stand is moved, it is subject to enemy fire, and may be appropriately
pinned, suppressed, or killed.
But here, although one or
two stands may be hit and halted, the remaining stands in the group
move up. This provides the moving side the opportunity to move an
entire platoon, instead of simply declaring movement on an individual
stand-by-stand basis.
CF has 9 pages devoted to
orders of battle for the Axis and Allied units of WW II. Most of the
OOB's define a company as containing 3 rifle platoons, and each
platoon as containing 3 rifle squads. There are exceptions: the
Russian infantry set-up indicates 4 rifle squads per platoon. Belgian
platoons also have 4 rifle squads in them. The US Ranger company is
composed of 2 platoons, each of 2 rifle squads.
What all the above produces
is a challenging game. The majority of the encounters I set up were
company-versus-company affairs. With 3 rifle squads per platoon, 3
platoons per company . . . this produces a total of 9 stands (9
tokens) for the player to move. Our largest game pitted two Russian
companies against two German companies. Even adding in the platoon
commander stands, the company commander stands, and a tank or two,
this was still a low-level game.
In this game, on a 5-foot by
5 foot table, we placed a house midfield... i.e. the "objective"... and the victory conditions stated that a side would win
if either (a) it held the objective for 5 consecutive friendly
initiatives, or (b) it destroyed about half of the opponent’s squads.
The Germans finally emerged victorious by eliminating the requisite
number of Russian stands. Occupying and holding the objective was too
costly a procedure... anyone in the house immediately drew fire.
Note that CF doesn’t contain
a provision for a unit morale-test. When a squad in the house was
fired upon, it was up to the player to decide whether or not to keep
the squad there... most rules would have had the squad take a morale
test and have the squad itself decide to either stay or bolt. Indeed,
CF takes the opposite tack... if a squad is hit, it’s either pinned
or suppressed, and in either case, it can’t move at all.
There are provisions in CF
for armored vehicles, but they look like they were grafted on the
basic outline to keep the historically-minded gamer happy ("How can
you play a WW II skirmish action without both infantry AND tanks?").
For example, if a tank
moves, or if it fires, it may not move or fire again during that
initiative... despite the fact that accompanying infantry may be
repeatedly dashing all over the place, and firing, during that
initiative. Hence tank usage is rather restricted... one move, or
one fire. The one exception to this occurs if the tank is armed ONLY
with a MG. then it may fire more than once, since, in effect, it’s
merely acting as a machine-gun platform.
Out of curiosity, I tried to
compare the offensive and defensive firing capabilities of a German
Pzkpfw IVG and a Russian T-34/85 in CF as contrasted with the
capabilities of the same tanks as given in Conliffe’s WW II division
level game, Spearhead (SH).
In CF, a tank model
represents a single tank, in SH it represents a platoon of 5 vehicles.
CF requires two dice tosses... the first to determine if the target
is hit, the second to determine if the target is destroyed.
There’s no middle ground in
CF; targeted armored vehicles are neither pinned nor suppressed,
either the target is fine or it’s destroyed. Taking into account the
required totals for both dice tosses, i.e. first you hit it, then you
blow it up, the chance of the IVG destroying the T-34/85 is 33
percent. The chance of the T-34/85 destroying the IVG is 44 percent.
SH requires only one 6 sided die toss . . . but here, the target can
be either suppressed or destroyed. Looking at the percentages, the
chance of the IVG hitting the T-34/85 is 50 percent (33 percent chance
of suppressing it, 16 percent chance of killing it). In SH, when the T-34/ 85
fires at the IVG, the chance of hitting it is 66 percent (33 percent
chance to suppress, 33 percent to kill).
Perhaps a better
understanding of the CF system can be obtained by looking at the
procedures involved in a very simple, short battle, This battle
description was originally published in the PW Review (Potomac
Wargamer's Review). This battle was
a re-creation in 15mm of the famous 999th Marine Battalion’s landing,
in July 1944, on the Japanese-held island of Wallio, in the South
Pacific. For our purposes, Wallio Island was laid out on an
east-to-west axis, about 3-feet long, and 4.5-feet wide, and was
located on the gaming table of Dave Waxtel’s basement.
Dave Waxtel is the publisher
of CF, and, to my surprise, announced that he had never played the
rules before publication . . . this would be a first for him.
To recap: CF is a
squad-level game of WW II, wherein one token represents a squad, and
the status of the squad is categorized in one of four states: good,
pinned, suppressed, or destroyed. Individual casualties are not
tracked, and the squad reacts in battle as a single entity.
I was the defending Japanese
commander, and under me, to defend all of Wallio Island, I had one
company, 3 platoons, of Highly Imperial Japanese Marines, cream of the
Emperor’s crop. Each platoon consisted of 3 squads, and each squad was
a stand measuring about 1 inch by 1-inch. Thus my basic company-size
force was composed of 9 stands, 9 tokens.
Facing me were 3 Marine
company commanders, each with a force equal in size to my own. Captain
Andy Waxtel, lean and mean, landed his men on the east of the island,
Captain Dave Waxtel, rough and tough, landed his men on the north
shore, and Captain Fred Haub, big and brawny, set out his men on the
western part of the island. The southern shore was free of the
invaders.
Cap’n Dave’s men landed
first. A landing craft was placed on North Beach, and the men of
Platoon A jumped out and ran up the sands. As soon as they did so, I
yelled: "I can see you" and the men in my Highly Imperial Kawasaki
Platoon commenced firing.
Under CF, the side having
the initiative, i.e. the active side, moves his forces until the men
of his non-active opponent "sees" them. At this point, the non-active
side gets reactive fire. Kawasaki Platoon’s 3 squads had been placed
in 2 small houses on North Beach, and they could easily see the
oncoming Marines. By having the platoon commander coordinate fire,
they were able to amass a quantity of 6 sided firing dice.
Each rifle squad, firing at
the Marines in the open, received 3 dice, thus giving me 9 dice1.
Looking for "5's" and "6’s", I got only one hit on the target,
pinning one Marine squad. Remember that:
1 hit ... squad is pinned, can fire, but cannot move until rallied
2 hits ... squad is suppressed, can neither fire nor move until
rallied
3 hits ... squad is destroyed
Cap’n Dave’s men having
completed their initial action, we moved to East Beach, where Cap’n
Andy’s men landed. As soon as his men disembarked from the landing
craft, I shouted: "I can see you..." for I had placed my second, Mitsubishi, Platoon at that location. Again I tossed 9 dice1
and this time achieved 2 hits, suppressing one squad.
This proved fortunate for
me, for if the reacting, non-moving side, can score a suppression or a
kill, he wins the initiative, and can commence firing and moving his
own men. In this case, however, instead of the initiative instantly
reverting to me, I waited a moment for Cap’n Fred, landing his men on
West Beach, to complete his action.2
The sequence ensures,
therefore, that even though I had won the initiative, all the players
on a side receive at least one action before the initiative is
transferred.
When Cap’n Fred’s men
landed, I did not shout: "I can see you", for the simple reason that
my remaining men, those of Yokohama Platoon, didn’t have a clear view
of West Beach. I had held them inland as a reserve. Thus Fred’s
platoon got a "freebee", unopposed landing.
Now that all three of the
invading players had received their action, the initiative finally
reverted to my side.
On North Beach, Kawasaki
Platoon fired... 9 dice for "targets in the open". Of the 9 dice1, 2
were hits, suppressing one squad, and so I retained the initiative.
My second action was to have
Mitsubishi Platoon fire again on East Beach at Cap’n Andy’s men...
again 9 dice1, again 2 hits, and I moved on.
This time my reserve,
Yokohama Platoon, moved forward, advancing to West Beach where Cap’n
Fred’s men had landed. As the Highly Imperial Marines of Yokohama
Platoon moved forward through the rough, Fred shouted: "I can see
you"... and BANG! . . . he scored 2 hits on my men, suppressing one
stand. Since my men were in cover, each of Cap’n Fred’s 3 squads
received only 2 dice, giving him 6 in all for his 3-squad platoon. But
he had won back the initiative for the Marines.
And so it went. In time,
other Marine platoons of 3-squads-each landed (the Marines had a total
of 9 platoons), and with each wave, the attacking firepower increased
in intensity.
One of the key landings was
made by Cap’n Andy at South Beach, thereby completing the encirclement
of my defending troops. The Highly Imperial Marines fought on,
however, in accordance with their Highly Imperial Military Code...
to the last man.
More and more of my stands
were being suppressed (2 hits) and on occasion, when my rally attempts
on these suppressed squads failed, I would lose the initiative, and
the invading Marines would pour it on.
I should note that the two
key ways to have the initiative transfer from one side to the other
were (a) to attempt to rally a pinned or suppressed squad and fail, or
(b) to have the opponent’s fire either suppress or kill one of your
squads. Note that in (a), it might be said that you "lost" the
initiative, in contrast to (b), wherein your opponent "earned" it.
If a target is already
pinned - via a previous hit - another single hit on the target does
not add to the existing hit to suppress it... the target remains
pinned. Similarly, one hit on an already suppressed target does not
add to the previous 2 hits to kill it... it simply remains
suppressed. What this means is that a side’s hits on the target during
a given volley must exceed the number of hits previously received by
the target to have any additional impact on it. But I should mention
the one exception to this... two consecutive suppressions will
destroy a squad.
Back to the battle.
Eventually, my Highly Imperial Japanese Marines were no more; and
Wallio Island had fallen. I had lost a full company (9 stands), and
the American Marine losses were slightly larger. After the battle, I
asked the participants how much battle-time they thought had passed in
capturing the island. The answers ranged from 3 to 4 hours to a full
day of battle.
I should note that, on the
beaches, I had initially placed a series of machine-gun bunkers, which
were targeted by the Marine invaders’ pre-landing off-shore artillery.
We gave the Marines a total
of 12 artillery barrages, each barrage consisting of 4 dice. For each
barrage, the procedure was the following... first, a roll of a "1"
or "2" on a single die indicated that that particular barrage never
came in. If, however, the barrage was successfully called in, 4 dice
were tossed after the artillery commander designated a particular
target (token).
Most of the machine-gun
emplacements were knocked out prior to the battle. The firing
commander, for each barrage, has the choice of high explosive or of
laying down a smoke screen to permit his men to move without the
opposition shouting: "I can see you". I also had one tank armed
with a machine gun, whose 4 dice proved totally ineffective.
I’ve
played about a dozen games of CF, and I find it fascinating. The
procedure of having one side react to the opponent’s movement reminds
me, in part, of a system we toyed with years ago. Side A would point
to an enemy unit and state: "my unit will fire on yours." or "My
cavalry unit will charge your infantry." or the like.
Then the opponent, Side B,
got a chance to react by stating "if your unit will fire at mine, my
unit will run for the nearest cover." Side A then tossed percentage
dice... he had 70 percent chance of targeting Side B’s unit before
it moved. If, however, Side A was unsuccessful, Side B’s unit ran to
cover, and received A’s volley protected by a cover modifier.
Similarly, if Side A’s
cavalry were to charge, Side B could state: "My infantry will form
square and fire." Again, Side A tossed percentage dice, looking for
his basic 70 percent chance of success. If successful, his cavalry had
caught Side B’s infantry still in line; if unsuccessful, Side A’s
cavalry were fired upon, and he found his horsemen attempting to
impact upon a square.
Conliffe has, in very clever
fashion, simplified this procedure... there’s no percentage dice throw
required to react, and units of the non-active side react quite
logically according to the dictates of the situation.
I’m curious to see if the
procedures employed in CF will be accepted by the WW II gamer, so
different are they from the standard fare being fed the wargaming
public.
The text itself is well
written and easily understood... unlike several current rules sets,
which often require a transatlantic telephone call to the author:
"What did you mean by that?’ I’ve noted that all of Conliffe’s
published rules books are quite well written. Evidently, as the result
of a long play-testing period and an attention to the problems that
arise during the play-testing games, his rules books are extremely
thorough and cover just about every situation you can encounter.
At least it was so during my CF battles.
Editor's Notes:
1. Note that although 9 Dice were thrown, they were thrown in 3
groups of 3 Dice, 1 group for each firing Squad, not as one big group
of 9.
2. This was a local 'house-rule' used by Wally to facilitate a
multi-player game.
You may also find other
similar articles on this site of interest, such as
Crossfire: A
Review by David Sullivan, and
Crossfire
Tactical Advice by Rob Wolsky.
Obituary: Wally
Simon passed away in May 2005, may he rest in peace. Wally was a famous, veteran personality
in the United States and
well known for his dislike of most "high profile" game designers and their products.
He lampooned many in his 'Potomac Wargamer's Review', but Crossfire was one of the few spared his
wrath. Wally is one of those personalities who will always be missed.
Read More
>>
Right: Wally
Simon pictured at the 2003 Historicon convention.