Finally back to the Company-level megatest, this time focussing on WW2 rules. First up, Arty Conliffe's "no ruler, no fixed turns" Crossfire rules.
Presentation
44 page black and white ruleset, lots of diagrams no pictures, glossy paper, very similar to his Shako rules. Reasonable layout although section numbering and styles could be clearer. 4pp QRS.
Set-Up
I bought the Crossfire scenario book, Hit the Dirt, at the same time so as to give me some scenarios to use for these tests. This first one was a modified version of Roadblock on Highway 120, with Brits standing in for Americans and Germans standing in for Italians. The Germans start on the top half of the table protecting the bridge and the Brits advance N from the S table edge (closest to camera).
How It Played
The Brits moved rapidly to the wood edge on the left and were then dissuaded from advancing by a Tiger. The Tiger took out the first Cromwell and then got into a slanging match with the second. On the right flank the Brits lost a section as they reached the edge of the field. The rest of the Platoon went right flanking and got into a slanging match with the German MG and Gruppen. 3" mortars put down a salvo but that didn't change things so I forced an assault which ended up with a win for each side. In the centre smoke was put down to mask the advance against the next field. The Brits leapt over the hedge as the smoke cleared and suffered suppression, survived a second round, got the initiative, rallied, fired back and got into another slanging match. Gave up at that point I'm afraid to say.
Rules Impression
I really wanted to like these rules as they are quite innovative and I think if I played them some more and in a different style I might like them more, but not at the moment. As the description above suggests I found they just kept dissolving into a slanging match. Side A would move, side B would get opportunity fire. They usually get a Suppression, so get the initiative, fire again, not get a suppression but something like a pin, fire again, miss, lose the initiative, then B would rally (or not) then would fire, again might get a suppression, then lose it before the kill, the B rallies etc etc. Whilst there is other stuff you can move in between the fact that safe moves can be as far as you like mean they're all done quite quickly and you're just down to the one or two contact points, and its simplest to just slog one out as you don't want to run the risk of missing your once chance to best the other side before they do it to you.
Conclusion
As I say I think if I approached them with less of a "let's try and break it" attitude they might be OK, or perhaps house-rule it to avoid these boring tit-for-tats (which I've seen in other games) then things might be better. There is also the issue that as ANYTHING can move/act at any time you do have that empty paper/too many options issues, which might in some ways be realistic, but in reality you've issued your orders at the start and now every unit should be making an equal effort to implement them. So I think it has to be 6/10 for now, but a better player might be able to get it up to 8/10.
I really like CF, dare I say it, probably the most realistic tactical Wargame I've ever played, and extremely unforgiving of deployment errors. Might be worth revisiting? Trying to kill stuff in firefights is a waste of time, suppress, then assault and kill. My regular group hated it though, as it required too much continuous concentration by both sides. It is also a bit clunky for multi player.
ReplyDeleteYes, think you're right that I ought to give it another go - it's such a different mindset. Alternatively use its principles but with a set of combat rules I can relate to better.
ReplyDelete