Profile
Rob Wolsky created the scenario generator in Crossfire, and was
its most influential play tester. Rob is an experienced play tester
and game developer whose credits include AH's Squad Leader. His views
on Crossfire are presented below.
Introduction
Crossfire is a very different wargame, by design. The lack of
rulers, ranges, and artificially established turn durations creates a
fluid battlefield without artificial restraint. Much as in life,
troops can go where they please and do as they wish, until the enemy
starts firing at them! The use of real-world tactics will produce
winning results in this game as in no other, for the following
reasons...
Most games at the small-unit level drown themselves in empirical data.
Every troop, vehicle, and weapon type is quantified by an assortment
of factors, all painstakingly researched to be as "realistic" as
possible. Each turn is represented as being a number of seconds or
minutes, and ground scales are given as number yards to the inch. This
mass of data is then collated to give us the archetypical move
distances, range bands, rates of fire, and so on. Unfortunately, what
we as gamers often find is that this results in a well researched, and
sometimes fun-to-play, game that bears no resemblance at all to the
actions we read about or the tactical manuals we have available for
study.
The underlying problem, of course, is the empirical, deterministic
model that has been the norm. We know the capabilities and
performances of the troops represented in the game as rated against
this model (move distance, range band, rate of fire, etc.). We can
therefore easily predict not only what our own troops are capable of,
but those of our opponent. The result is well known in the hobby as
the "thousand foot general", the existence of which renders many
historical concerns - and associated tactics - useless. Who, for
example, would weaken his available forces to provide security to the
flanks of his main attack ? Why bother ? In a typical wargame, your
troops can react to any attempt by your opponent to take advantage of
your weakness at the same speed the attempt is made. In other words,
the deterministic nature of the model gives the player a knowledge of
the enemy's capabilities, and a time to react that no battlefield
commander was ever afforded. In Crossfire, these luxuries must
be earned-tactically.
General
Tactical Principles
Tactics in Crossfire model very closely the tactics of WWII. A
player who pays attention to the basic tactical fundamentals of this
period will be a formidable opponent.
One over-riding feature of small unit tactics throughout the WWII
period is infiltration. The attacker would attempt to achieve, and the
defender prevent, a general penetration of the "front", in order to
outflank and "crossfire" the defender's strong points. In other games,
this attempt to find and exploit the "holes" in a position is
compromised by a model that allows the player the time to react to
attacks as they unfold. In Crossfire, any void left in a
position will probably make itself known by the appearance of the
enemy forces in it! Troops not interdicted by friendly fire have a
mobility in this game that makes fast infiltration tactics possible on
the tabletop. Players must pay attention to their flanks and rear if
they don't want enemy moving to, and shooting at them, from those
superior positions. This leads, quite naturally, into the genuine need
for a reserve to react to unexpected enemy moves, fill gaps in the
position, and exploit holes in the enemy's position. If this is
starting to sound like a WWII small-unit tactics primer, then you are
catching on, and quickly .
Key Points:
Interdiction by Fire
Flank Security
Reserves
The use of terrain in Crossfire can not be underrated. Terrain
not only provides protection from incoming fire, which might seem the
primary benefit to be gained, it provides mobility. This is a
fundamental truth in small unit tactics. When setting up, attacking,
or defending, you should use fire to interdict the enemy's movement,
or fix him in place, while maximizing your own defensive use of the
terrain to provide covered routes of manoeuvre. The use of smoke as
"temporary" interdicting terrain is also crucial in achieving
comparatively safe manoeuvre.
Key Points:
Isolation of Objective
Dead Zones
Another often overlooked aspect of small unit tactics is the need for
unit integrity. While this modelled in many other games, (board games
and miniatures), it is emphasized in Crossfire due to the - you
guessed it - Fire Group and Crossfire rules. This is a major
design feature that cannot be over-emphasized. The proper use of unit
integrity will provide a "combat multiplier", while also having real
benefits in Economy of Force. By using platoons as units, instead of
moving squads around randomly, you will maximize your effective
firepower with the fewest possible units, thereby freeing up squads
for the other, crucial, duties.
Key Points:
Unit Integrity
Economy of Force
Many sources confirm the belief that most of the damage done on WWII
battlefields was done by the support weapons, and not by the riflemen.
Crossfire reflects this belief in two ways - one for HMG
sections, and another for "indirect" fire weapons (the mortars and
artillery). Properly utilizing these assets is a necessary skill on
the Crossfire table, as it was for our real-life counterparts.
HMGs should always be firing, and the use of any and all other assets
to get them in firing position is key to victory. A well deployed
platoon with HMG and off-board support will eventually blow away any
number of ill-coordinated enemy squads, as well they should.
Key Points:
Support Weapons
As an extreme example, lets consider a 1941 scenario, Russian defender
who is not tactically proficient, German attacker who always obeys the
"book".
We find our erstwhile defender of the mother land strung out in a
long, thin line. His heavy weapons are concentrated in a rather
dangerous looking machine-gun nest, but with no consideration to
covering avenues of approach, or building crossfires. His infantry is
not set up in depth, is not in supporting groups by platoon, and does
not have a reserve - all his killing potential is up front. While his
flanks are seemingly secure (no less so than any other point on his
line), they are not defended in any particular fashion, either. His
platoon leaders are assigned randomly, and generally centralized, with
the heavy weapons - likewise his forward observer.
Our German player, meanwhile, has set up his attacking forces in a
typical, unglamorous, three platoon wedge. His two forward platoons
each have an attached HMG, his forward observer accompanies the
platoon he has designated for the attack. He has been careful to
ensure that his PCs are placed where they can see all of their
assigned squads and support weapons, and he has placed his third
platoon in reserve, covering the flanks of his advance.
As the two forces come together - more than likely at a place the
German player chooses - the superior organization and tactics of the
Germans will become immediately apparent. It will be relatively easy
for the German player to be concentrating maximum firepower each
initiative, while the Russian will have an increasingly difficult time
manoeuvring as the concentrated German firepower comes to bear. This
will have the compound effect of both not allowing the Russian to
retreat or rally his outnumbered units, and not allowing him to
reinforce with fresh units. Because of the lack of depth in the
Russian position, and the lack of a reserve, the German player will be
able to quickly infiltrate into the rear of his opponent, further
hastening the eventual piecemeal destruction of the Russians. What
about that fearsome strongpoint in the middle ? The German will of
course outflank, smoke, and close assault it into oblivion. While this
example may be simplistic, it illustrates just how bad it can be if
all the rules are broken at once!! Bear in mind, that while the
Russian Command control system is less flexible than the German, the
German player can also fall victim to the above scenario if he ignores
the key principles of combat.
Key Points
- Attacking:
Concentration of Force
Isolation of Objective
Fire and Movement
Key Points
- Defending:
Defence in Depth
Interlocking Fields of Fire
Use of Fortifications
Conclusion
Crossfire is one of the few games I have had the opportunity to
play that makes the knowledge and understanding of "real world"
tactics more useful than memorizing esoteric rules, factors and
ranges. While it has its own mechanics, as does any game, they are of
minimal concern to the tabletop general. The emphasis is always on the
inter-relationship of Fire, Movement and Terrain.
Rob Wolsky
