How to play Multi-player Crossfire Games

Multi-player games have a number of advantages over 1-on-1 games: They’re big and allow lots of toys on the table; they can more accurately simulate a command hierarchy; they can be more sociable. Crossfire is, however, really designed as a 1-on-1 game. This page lists several suggestions for how to turn Crossfire into a multi-player game. Generally I assume that each player has at least a company of infantry.

You notice from reading the descriptions below that I’m looking for an approach that achieves the fast and furious action of a 1-on-1 game, which basically means letting players to take actions concurrently. Most suggestions don’t allow this.

I start with a discussion of (or default rules if you will):

Then I go on to describe the various methods that allow concurrent Player actions (my preference):

Next comes methods that rely on sequential Player actions:

Finally I outline some Potential Problems that are common to several of these multi-Player approaches:

Tim Marshall also has his multi-player ideas written up on his site.

Default Multi-player rules

A particular approach to Multi-player Crossfire must address several aspects of Crossfire and scenario design; these are listed in the following table. Not all suggestions for multi-Player approaches mention all of these aspects, so if a particular method doesn’t mention one then assume the default rule given in the table applies.

Aspect Rule
Force composition (CF2.0) In all the methods discussed here, all on-table stands must be assigned to one of the players at all times. The players attach these assets to platoons and companies as per the standard rules
Player’s Operational Zone By default the stands of a player may operate anywhere on-table.
Reinforcements Defined by specific scenario but by default assume that any particular unit of reinforcements can be assigned to any player when it comes on-table. Reinforcements likely to arrive on a die roll (e.g. 5+ on 1d6 at the start of any friendly initiative) possibly after a certain amount of game time (e.g. using Moving Clock of Hit the Dirt).
Transferring on-table troops between players  Defined by specific scenario but not allowed by default.
Player sequence No common rule – this is the place where all the methods tend to differ.
Phasing fire (CF6.0, CF7.0) As per standard rules.
Reactive fire (CF6.2.1) As per standard rules.
NO FIRE (CF6.2.1) NO FIRE markers are removed when initiative shifts.
Number of players The Committee approach is the only one that adequately copes with an odd number of players, so you’ll need to use the Committee approach to balance up the teams if you do have an odd number of players.

Sub-tables / Split Table

A simple approach is to run the game with sub-tables. These could be zones of control on one big table or in fact with entirely separate tables. Each sub-table is fought as a separate game. If troops move between sub-tables then they change owners, i.e. the friendly player in the new sub-table takes over their control. .

To work well this needs a bit of preparation. There needs to be some interaction between sub-tables or the players won’t have a sense of fighting one big battle. Scenario designers should consider all of these Interactions when using sub-tables:

  • Allocation and calling of reinforcements
  • Locations (tall hills, towers, etc) on one sub-table that can see and fire onto another sub-table
  • How troops can transfer between sub-tables.
  • How the gain/loss of objectives on one sub-table affects other sub-tables. For example,
    • One sub-table might have a unit (HQ or artillery fire base) that affects the troops on other sub-tables, hence is a key objective for the enemy.
    • An objective might be a terrain feature (e.g. bridge) that allows access to another sub-table, or gives visibility of other sub-tables, or is where reinforcements arrive.

Example Scenarios using Sub-tables: Krasny Bor, Pocket.

Aspect Rule
Player’s Operational Zone Player’s control all friendly stands on their own sub-table. If stands move to another sub-table the stands are taken over by the friendly player controlling that table.
Transferring on-table troops between players  The way stands move between sub-tables is scenario specific but is likely to be a variation on one of these:

  • Move off the base edge of the origin sub-table and come on to the destination sub-table like a reinforcement (e.g. 5+ on 1d6 at the start of any friendly initiative). The original and destination sub-tables do not have to be adjacent.
  • Throw 5+ on 1d6 to move directly from sub-table to sub-table (they must be adjacent), possibly using a specific terrain feature (e.g. bridge or forest path). Failure may or may not lose initiative for the player.
Player sequence Each sub-table is played exactly like a 1-on-1 Crossfire game, so initiative works as in the standard rules. This means that players go at it hammer and tongs in parallel.
Phasing fire (CF6.0, CF7.0) Only enemy stands on the same sub-table can be targeted, unless scenario specific rules give limited visibility into other sub-tables.
Reactive fire (CF6.2.1) Any eligible stand may reactive fire against any moving enemy stand on the same sub-table, unless scenario specific rules give limited visibility into other sub-tables. .
NO FIRE (CF6.2.1) NO FIRE markers are removed when initiative shifts to the other player

Note: Tim Marshall calls this the “Split Table” approach.

Pros/Cons

A bit artificial, but workable. The big advantage is that these games are fast – as fast as 1-on-1 games.

As mentioned above, poor scenario design can lead to the sense of playing several small independent games, rather than being part of a team in an larger action.

This separation is highlighted by the often artificial boundaries between sub-tables. The Shed, for example, used one big table (14′ x 6.6′) and divided it into three sub-tables (4.5′ ish x 6.6′) with white cords. Some players found it irksome that they couldn’t shoot and/or move across these white lines.

Because the games go on in parallel, it is impossible to track the overall passage of time using a method like the Moving Clock of Hit the Dirt. This makes it difficult to schedule time based reinforcements.

Anarchic Multi-player

Anarchic Multi-player spontaneously evolved at the Shed. Basically it is standard Crossfire with the players going for it concurrently.

Aspect Rule
Player sequence When a team gets the initiative, all phasing players take actions simultaneously. Players lose the initiative in the normal way. The initiative shifts to the other team when all players have lost initiative or passed;

Pros/Cons

Anarchic multi-player was my favourite multi-player approach – the simultaneous moves made it initially very exciting, almost like 1-on-1 Crossfire.

Anarchic multi-player can be very fast, almost as fast as 1-on-1, but unfortunately it is prone to the Initiative Blitz which is both unrealistic and slow. It can work if your players agree not to use the Initiative Blitz, but you’ll probably have to find a work around for this (see Operational Zones).

Operational Zones

A couple of my suggestion. Not play tested as yet.

The speed of play in the the Anarchic approach appealed as it is fast and furious and on one big table. The limited zones of operation imposed by the Sub-tables approach also appealed, as this imposes some aspects of real life command and control – “Joe you take the left wing and hold it!”. I wondered if I could combine the two approaches somehow, but avoiding the pitfalls of both. The idea of an Operational Zone is to limit where players can move but still use one big table.

I’ve thought of two possible ways to do this:

Note: In the sub-table approach the large table is divided into a number of sub-tables. Each sub-table is fought as a 1-on-1 game. In that context the Operational Zone of a player is the sub-table they are fighting on.

Planned Operational Zones

In attack “the company commander supports attacks by the neighboring company with fire; however, in doing so he must always keep in mind that the best support for his neighbors is his own determined advance.” (Sharp, 1998, p. 66).

The Planned Operational Zones approach means the team decides were the Operational Zones of each player begin and end – they are not restricted to arbitrary boundaries between sub-tables.. There is one Operational Zone per player, and these cannot overlap. All points on the table must be within one of the player’s Operational Zones.

The example I use is from when I ran my Ponyri Scenario for eight players on a 15′ x 5′ table. Before the game started the Russian (Red) team plotted four Operational Zones, one for each of their players. The Red lines on the map below indicate the boundaries between the Red Operational Zones. Notice that between them the four Red Operational Zones cover the entire table, however, they are unequal in size. The Red team decided to hold the west lightly with only one company (R1). Their main force of two companies (R2 and R3) were concentrated in the centre, with a moderate sized holding force on the eastern flank (R4). Where possible the team used natural features (railway line, roads, or hill contours) as boundaries between operational zones.

Red Operations Zones

Similarly the German (Blue) team mapped out their four operational Zones before the game started, and these also covered the entire table. Blue, however, decided to spread their companies fairly evenly. The Blue lines indicate the boundaries between the Blue Operational Zones. The only unusual feature of their plan was that B2 was to attack the western part of the village frontally, giving B1 an opportunity to cut around behind the flank to attack the south-west portion of the village – their Operational Zones reflect this.

Blue Operational Zones

The key point to note is that the Operational Zones of the two teams did not match up exactly – some boundaries were exactly the same but others differed. Operational Zones B4 and R4 were identical. Player B3, however, found himself facing two Red players (R2 and R3), and players B1 and B2 combined to attack the isolated R1. Ironically, in this game, R1 successfully fought off B1 and B2, and B3 successfully attacked into the positions of R2 and R3. The evenly matched B4 and R4 had a stalemate.

Overlapping Operational Zones

Specific rules are:

Aspect Rule
Force composition (CF2.0) All on-table stands must be assigned to one of the players at all times. The players attach these assets to platoons and companies as per the standard rules
Player’s Operational Zone Each team plans their Operational Zones before the game. There is one Operational Zone per player, and these cannot overlap. All points on the table must be within one of the player’s Operational Zones. Stands pay attention to the Operational Zones of their own team, never those of the enemy. Operational Zones can be either declared or secret: Declaring Operational Zones to the enemy is artificial, but simple, and may be appropriate for casual games. If declared the boundaries between Operational Zones can be drawn on a map or marked on table using flags or some such; if they follow linear features (roads, rivers, hedges, or contour lines) then a map and/or markings may not be necessary. Keeping the Operational Zones secret is more realistic, but a map is mandatory and you need a referee to enforce the Operational Zones during the game. If no referee is available but you still want to keep the Operational Zones secret, then map them out and at the end of the game show your map to the opposing team to verify that you followed the plan.
In general stands must be within their player’s Operational Zone. Any boundary between Operational Zones is considered to be in both, i.e. a stand can safely overlap the boundary.
Stand outside its operational zone must be activated before they can take an action. The player must roll a 3+ on 1d6 for any action involving stands outside their operational zone; success means the action can occur, failure loses the initiative. This activation roll is necessary for all actions including moving, group move, direct fire, reactive fire, group fire, rallying, etc. For example, a Red stand belonging to player R2 can freely act within Operational Zone R2. If Player R2 moves the stand into Operational Zone R3 then for subsequent actions they must roll 3+ before they can take the action, and risk losing the initiative if they fail this roll.
Operational Zones may be redefined during the course of the game using the following process:

  1. When a team has initiative they may declare an order change to the enemy team.
  2. The phasing team redraws their map showing the Operational Zones. Note: some players may change their Operational Zones and others may keep their existing ones.
  3. Following this the team may attempt a Shift Boundaries action. Each player whose boundaries will change must be involved, i.e. be a phasing player and have not failed their initiative. In the Shift Boundaries action each player must roll 4+ to succeed; all players must succeed for the action to succeed, If any fail the roll then all participating players pass the initiative. They can try again when they recapture the initiative.
  4. When the new Operational Zones come into effect, any stands that find themselves completely outside their player’s new Operational Zone suffer the normal penalty.
Reinforcements Defined by specific scenario but by default assume that any particular unit of reinforcements can be assigned to any player when it comes on-table. Reinforcements likely to arrive on a die roll (e.g. 5+ on 1d6 at the start of any friendly initiative) possibly after a certain amount of game time (e.g. using Moving Clock of Hit the Dirt).
Transferring on-table troops between players  Company and lower level assets can not be transferred to another player, however, battalion (and higher) assets may be transferred to a different player during the course of play. Battalion assets include the BC himself, any bodyguard element (typically a SMG squad), stands from the heavy weapons company (typically FO and/or HMG), attached tanks, etc. If a Battalion level asset is grouped under a PC then the whole unit transfers when the commander is transferred (you don’t have to transfer each stand separately).
A Transfer Assets action can happen at any time, and the stand in question can be anywhere on table. The transfer requires a separate roll (4+) to succeed, and failure causes loss of initiative to the transferring player but not the receiving player. A successful Transfer Assets action means the stands are now attached to the receiving player, and hence are restricted to that players Operational Zone as above. The location of the stand will affect whether they need to make an activation roll to perform subsequent actions (see above). A Transfer Assets action is not a move action, so is not subject to reactive fire.
Player sequence When a team gets the initiative, all phasing players take actions simultaneously. Players lose the initiative in the normal way. The initiative shifts to the other team when all players have lost initiative or passed;
Ideally all players on a team go for it simultaneously. If, however, a non-phasing player is “facing” more than one phasing enemy player, and the non-phasing player wishes, the phasing players facing him must take their actions one at a time. This is a courtesy and not intended to be realistic. “Facing” means the stands of the enemy player are:

  • Attacking a stand of a non-phasing player (direct fire, indirect fire, close assault).
  • Moving within line of sight of any of the non-phasing player’s stands even of non-phasing stands that are currently No Fire, Pinned, or Suppressed.
Phasing fire (CF6.0, CF7.0) Phasing fire is allowed against stands in any Operational Zone.
Reactive fire (CF6.2.1) Reactive fire is allowed against stands in any Operational Zone.
NO FIRE (CF6.2.1) NO FIRE markers are removed when team initiative shifts.
Number of players There must be equal number of players on each team. You’ll need to use the Committee approach to balance up the teams if you do have an odd number of players.

Pros/Cons

Needs play testing to fully explore.

This seems to be the method that players naturally apply, until they start trying to exploit the rules.

Expect it to be fast as players can take action in parallel.

Unfortunately is probably best with a map for each team and a referee. In the absence of a ref you can declare the Operational Zones.

Dynamic Operational Zones

This approach tries to achieve the benefits of the Planned Operational Zones, but without having to draw a map and remember where the boundaries are. Effectively the boundaries of the Operational Zones are defined by where the players place their stands and who they attack.

Aspect Rule
Player’s Operational Zone Player’s can move their stands anywhere on the table, but there are restrictions about where a player can attack at any particular moment. Effectively that means each player has a Operational Zone which changes during the game.
Transferring on-table troops between players  Battalion (and higher) assets may be transferred to a different player during the course of play. Battalion assets include the BC himself, any bodyguard element (typically a SMG squad), stands from the heavy weapons company (typically FO and/or HMG), attached tanks, etc.
Only one transfer is allowed for each Player in each initiative, however, this transfer can included any number of eligible stands. The transfer is an action, requires a 4+ to succeed, and failure causes a loss of initiative. This is not a move action, so the stands don’t move and the action is not subject to reactive fire.
The BC may only help rally stands belonging to the player the BC is currently assigned to.
Player sequence Ideally all players on a team go for it simultaneously. If, however, a non-phasing player is “facing” more than one phasing enemy player, and the non-phasing player wishes, the phasing players facing him must take their actions one at a time.
“Facing” means the stands of the enemy Player are:

  • Attacking a stand of a non-phasing player (direct fire, indirect fire, close assault).
  • Moving within line of sight of any of the non-phasing player’s stands even of non-phasing stands that are currently No Fire, Pinned, or Suppressed.
Phasing fire (CF6.0, CF7.0) Stands of only one phasing player may attack a particular non-phasing stand during a single team initiative. Once a phasing player has attacked a stand other phasing players must wait for a subsequent team initiative before putting in their attack. Example: A rifle squad of Player R1 direct fires at a HMG of Player B1 and suppresses it. Player R2 – a team mate of X – can not take advantage of this and close assault the HMG, as that stand is in the Operational Zone of Player R1 for the entire Team Initiative. Player R2 could, however, move in front of the suppressed HMG safely.
Reactive fire (CF6.2.1) A non-phasing stand can Reactive Fire against moving stands of any phasing player. If fact, non-phasing stands can sometimes Reactive Fire even if already NO FIRE.
NO FIRE (CF6.2.1) NO FIRE status is specific to an enemy player (called the “Target” player for simplicity). A NO FIRE stand can only have one Target Player at a time. This means that stand can not Reactive Fire against any moving stands of that specific enemy player. If, however, stands of a different enemy player move in the Line of Fire of the NO FIRE stand, and the NO FIRE stand elects to Reactive Fire, then the NO FIRE status is immediately removed and the Reactive Fire attack is resolved normally. Of course, this might result in the shooting stand going NO FIRE again, but now it would be NO FIRE to the stands of the second phasing player, not the original one.
(This rule is trying to achieve the same effect as saying “remove all NO FIRE markers when a phasing player loses the initiative” but restricting this to a particular phasing player’s operational zone.)

Example of Reactive Fire and No Fire:

A rifle squad of Player B1 reactive fires against a moving HMG of Player R1. The rifle squad misses and goes NO FIRE. Player R1 can now freely move stands across the line of fire of Player B1’s rifle squad without suffering reactive fire. If, however, Player R2 moves any stands into the line of fire of that rifle squad, then Player B1 has a choice:

  1. Leave the NO FIRE marker, don’t reactive fire, and stay NO FIRE to Player R1.
  2. Remove the NO FIRE marker, reactive fire against Player R2’s stand(s), and take his chances on become NO FIRE to Player R2.

Pros/Cons

Needs play testing to fully explore.

Expect it to be fast as players can take action in parallel. But player might lose track of which standards are legitimate targets.

Committee

The simplest multi-player option is to have each team working as a committee. Simple, but a bit artificial. This option is useful if you have an unequal number of players on each side.

Aspect Rule
Player sequence Committee decides which action to take next.

Pros/Cons

The players are involved pretty much all the time, but this is by definition Rule by Committee which is slow and is a higher level of cooperation than real commanders had..

This is, however, the only approach that can cope with an odd number of players, so is really your only choice for a 2-on-1 game.

Advanced Rules from Crossfire

AR1 Multi-player Games (p. 44)

The optional advanced rules of Crossfire offers two alternative strategies for multi-player games:

Alternative 1

Aspect Rule
Player sequence
  • Player actions are taken sequentially.
  • The overall commander of a team determines the sequence in which players take actions.
  • Initiative shifts when any player Fails an action.
    • A Successful action or a Pass means the team retains initiative.
    • A Failed action means the team loses initiative.
  • If the team loses initiative before all players have had at least one action, then those players who’ve yet to act get one bonus action before the initiative shifts to the other team.

Alternative 2

As Alternative 1 except: initiative shifts when all players Fail an action or Pass.

Pros/Cons

Potential problems include Micro-management, as the overall commander controls who does what and when, Excessive Caution, and Waiting around.

Criss-Cross multi-player

One of Tim Marshall’s suggestions.

Aspect Rule
Player sequence Given two teams, A and B, the sequence of events is:

A1 has initiative
B1 has initiative
A2 has initiative
B2 has initiative.
etc

Reactive fire (CF6.2.1) Anyone one, player 1 or 2 on the opposite side may reactive fire.
NO FIRE (CF6.2.1) NO FIREs from reactive fire for a player’s forces are removed when that player gets initiative again.

Pros/Cons

Potential problems of Waiting around.

Multiple Turnover Method

One of Tim Marshall’s suggestions.

Aspect Rule
Player sequence The side with the initiative proceeds, with player one performing one or as many actions as he wishes. An overall commander or, in our case, a consensus between commanders on a side, decides when the current player stops his actions for the next player to proceed. When a player fails an action (e.g. suppressed by reactive fire or fails to rally), the side makes a decision:

  • Pass the initiative immediately or
  • Let the remaining player(s) continue with their own actions until they are stopped.
NO FIRE (CF6.2.1) If a team decides to continue their initiative after a failed action, remove all NO FIRE markers on the non-phasing side.

Pros/Cons

Potential problems of Waiting around and Rule by Committee.

Hot Spots

Idea from Ian Hayward. Yet to be play tested.

This is basically vanilla Crossfire with a constraint on who is making the actions on a given side. All players on a team take a single action in sequence until a hot spot appears, when the relevant player takes the lime light and does all the actions. Once the hot spot disappears, all players share in the action again. This sort of has the effect of evening out movement away from the hot-spots, so that troops move at comparable speeds across the table if they are not under fire. And combat occurs in a rapid blur of activity at the hot-spot.

Aspect Rule
Player sequence The players on a side retain the initiative until any one of them loses the initiative.
The players on a side each take single actions in turn until a possibility of losing the initiative occurs (a risky action – reactive fire, rallying, crossing wire, etc.). A player can “pass the action” and not take his action. Passing an action does not lose initiative for his side unless all players on a side are pass, if which case initiative shifts to the other team.
Initiative also shifts to the other team if the risky action is a failure. If the risky action is a success, that player keeps taking actions (and he CANNOT pass the action to a player on his side, only pass-the-initiative to the opposing side). He continues making consecutive actions until he makes one that involves no risk of losing the initiative. Then the players on that side switch back to taking single actions in turn.

Pros/Cons

All of the players are kept busy until things hot up somewhere. Then that bit of frantic action is resolved (with the non-involved players hopefully watching with interest).

Potential problem of Excessive Caution, Waiting around, and Ganging Up. .

Deck of Cards

An idea adapted from Bruce McFarlane (with a tweak from Steve Burt).

This approach uses a Deck of Cards to determine which player takes the initiative next.

Aspect Rule
Player sequence Initiative is determined using a a deck of cards. There is one card per player, with the players’ name printed on them it. When the phasing player loses initiative draw a new card from the deck and that player gains initiative. When all the cards have been drawn roll to see if the clock moved (ala Hit the Dirt), reshuffle the deck and continue.
NO FIRE (CF6.2.1) NO FIRE markers are removed at the start of the player’s next initiative.

Pros/Cons

Potential problem of Ganging Up, although this relies on luck of the draw, and Waiting around. .

Potential Problems

I’ve described some of the more common problems with the various multi-player approaches in one place to save space. The potential problems include:

Waiting around

When players on the same team take their actions or initiatives in turn, then they are forced to wait around for their go. Bad enough with two players a side, with three players per team this can mean a lot of time waiting around. People standing around watching sequential turns can easily lead to Rule by Committee or Micro-management.

Excessive Caution

Some multi-Player approaches allow players on a team to take only a single action each in turn. Aside from the fact this leaves players Waiting Around, this can also cause player to get very nervous when deciding to make a risky action as this not only affects themselves but may leave their teammates caught in the open or in a bad position when the initiative switches. The result was a much more cautious approach and even slower game.

Rule by Committee

By “Rule by Committee” I mean a team of players deciding the detailed moves/actions of each Player as a group. There are two problems with this:

  • It reflects a level of cooperation that real officers lacked.
  • It slows the game because of the required discussion and necessity to take all Player actions sequentially.

Micro-management

Micro-management on the gaming table is where the overall commander, or just a dominant personality, decides the detailed moves/actions of each of his subordinate players.

In contrast a real overall commander would set out the over plan, but then would be forced to let his sub-ordinates go for it on their own. The overall commander’s only real input during a battle was to implore his sub-ordinates to stick to the plan.

There are several problems with micro-management on the table:

  • It reflects a level of control that real commanders lacked.
  • It denies the subordinates the autonomy of their real counter-parts
  • It slows the game because it forces sequential actions, even if the particular multi-Player approach doesn’t dictate it. This has players Waiting Around.
  • It can deny the subordinates an effective part in the game.

Initiative Blitz

I used to call the Initiative Blitz the Ganging Up Technique, but this seemed to confuse people. I’ve no problem with ganging up, i.e. players fighting 2-on-1 or 3-on-1, and what I mean by the Initiative Blitz technique has nothing to do with how many players or stands are facing how many other players or stands in a sector of the table. Whether it is two or three or four players doing it, the Initiative Blitz is the practice of using one player’s initiative to draw No Fires, or to Suppress, and a subsequent player’s initiative to close combat the chaps who went No Fire or were Suppressed.

For example, consider three companies (Green, Blue, Red) each with three platoons (1, 2, 3). A typical historical formation would be the companies in line, with the platoons in a broad wedge (two up and one back). In this set up each company naturally has an operational zone.

Example Historical Deployment of three companies

In contrast a team using the Initiative Blitz will intersperse platoons from the different companies. The companies have overlapping operational zones, and all companies operate across the entire table. For example, all the 1st platoons might be together, all the 2nd platoons together, and all the 3rd platoons together. When they get the initiative a team deployed like this will choose to attack in one of their groups – either where the 1st platoons are, the 2nd or the 3rd. The team then uses the initiative from a lead platoon (say from the green company) for direct fire to suppress any targets in sight. The next step is to use the next player’s (red) initiative/platoon to advance aggressively on any surviving enemy and hence draw no fires. The last player’s initiative/platoon (blue) is then used to close assault the remaining enemy in sight. There are, of course, variations on a theme.

Example Deployment for Three Companies using Initiative Blitz

I’ve a number of reasons for not liking the Initiative Blitz:

  • Unhistorical deployment: An Initiative Blitz demands that companies have overlapping operational zones. Except by accident this didn’t happen in real battles. Simplifying it considerably, real companies advanced side by side, and some were held in reserve. When a lead company was worn down by combat, a reserve was used to leap frog the worn guys who then stopped advancing. This is not what the Initiative Blitz is about. The Initiative Blitz demands that companies intermingle as they attack, and that this is deliberate policy of the players.
  • Game Balance: The Initiative Blitz technique unbalances the game. In 1-on-1 Crossfire there is a very fine balance between the risk of moving (hence drawing reactive fire) and the risk of trying reactive fire (hence going NO FIRE). The Initiative Blitz puts this fine balance out of kilter such that the risk of drawing fire is much less than the risk of trying reactive fire; essentially if you reactive fire, you become visible, and you’ll be dead by the end of the initiative. The Initiative Blitz means three attacking platoons can pretty much kill an defending stand as soon as it appears in front of them; my experience is that a defending platoon will be destroyed within the very next enemy initiative after being revealed.
  • Rule by Committee and/or Micro-management: Because the Initiative Blitz demands close cooperation between players and players taking Sequential Actions it naturally leads to either Rule by Committee or Micro-management. Although these might be sensible gaming tactics they have their own problems.

References

Sharp, C. S. (1998). Soviet Infantry Tactics in WWII: Red Army Infantry Tactics from Squad to Rifle Company from the Combat Regulations. George Nafziger.

Leave a Reply