It has been a couple of years and I thought I’d do an update to Crossfire Armour – Balagan House Rules (2nd Edition). This brings it to version Beta 0.3. The big change is in firepower but there are some other changes as well.
Anti-infantry (AI) replaces Anti-personnel (AP)
This was a suggestion from Dylan who said “you make a clarification that AP stands for Anti Personnel rather than Armour Piercing, perhaps the better solution is to match Arty Conliffe’s previous work on Spearhead and use AI for Anti-Infantry?” That dodges the problem nicely. Now adopted.
Less Firepower
The big change is that I have reduced the firepower of vehicles. All play testers, myself included, found the new firepower ratings made vehicles too powerful.
rok100 said …
Main downside from Game 1 was that a tank in position was able to pour fire into a platoon in cover, virtually wiping them out in a single initiative through repeated fire. This was its first time firing and my opponent (controlling the Panzer IV) also found it too much.
Post-game, I checked the probabilities and actually he had been really lucky. Rolling 4d6 (due to cover) gives about 40% chance of suppression or better, which I think is okay (provided I’m right that tanks can’t join fire groups, even with other tanks). However, I see some tanks have up to 7d6 A/I, which I feel is really too much when they can fire repeatedly.
I found the same thing. A well positioned vehicle was devastating. And given their armour rating, it is easy for a vehicle to move to a good position.
So Pelle asked the logical question, “how much more powerful are these tanks compared to the normal rules? Is it like twice, or more like four times”.
My reply at the time was:
Armour in standard crossfire is really underpowered. Expensive and underpowered. So, depending on victory conditions, clever players held their tanks in reserve and never risked them. At all. Not even once. Because a HMG is more powerful than a tank in standard crossfire.
My revision makes tanks more powerful that HMGs. Probably twice as powerful. That might make them 3 or 4 times more powerful than the impotent things they replaced. (Just my take, opinions vary.)
Now, after a couple of years and a fair bit of play testing, I think that twice as powerful as an HMG is too powerful for game balance. Previously players avoiding bringing their tanks into play. Now players attack with the tanks confident of a terminator style victory. The balance has swung too far in favour of armour.
So I have removed 1d6 from each calibre band for both AT and AI ratings. But I have given a vehicle with a main gun and machine guns a minimum of 4d6 anti-infantry fire to make them match an HMG stand. So most tanks will be as good as an HMG stand when firing at infantry, but a command can still call in the big guns to drive infantry out of buildings etc.
Infantry Anti-tank (IAT) Weapons
The reduction in firepower means infantry anti-tank weapons go to from “6d6/2d6” to “5d6/2d6”. I have left anti-tank rifles at a flat 3d6, reflecting that although inferior to the more modern panzerfausts, bazookas and piats, they did remain in use throughout the war by the Soviets and Japanese.
Bogging Attack
To quote rok100, “1/3 chance of bogging down on open ground was too much. 1/6 would have been more acceptable.” So I reduced bogging from bog on a 5+ to bogging on 6. That halves the chance of bogging across the board, so it is much less of a threat and usually bogging will only resolve in a PIN with no change of initiative and will be resolved by the relatively easy rally from PIN.
I have also made it explicit that roads are “easy terrain” so there is no chance of bogging. This was always the case, I just didn’t say it. Open terrain is still moderate, so a pivot in the open still exposes a vehicle to bogging risk.
Road Movement
As a nod to rok100 and Dylan Hughes, I now allow a scenario to specify the **Road Movement** optional rule is in play. A vehicle following a road counts as a straight move and does not require pivots on corners.
Roads were already exempt from bogging, so this optional rule only changes how far the vehicle can move in one move action hence how often it is subject to reactive attacks.
Personally, even with that constraint, I think this is a powerful rule. Tanks should feel vulnerable with enemy infantry around. So I advise you to use it carefully and only if the scenario permits. I would not use it, for example, use road movement in a scenario inside a built up area, e.g. SU-152s Up Close and Personal – A Crossfire Scenario in Tarnopol.
Change Focus
Standard Crossfire gave us turret rotation as part of a vehicle move. I’ve tweaked this to rename it “Vehicle focus”. Turreted vehicles and turretless vehicles with a main gun will see no game effect. But vehicles with no turret and no main gun can now choose which direction to focus. I confess this was because I’m working Wombat Gun for the Vietnam War and I wanted a rule that worked better for the M113 variants, but I think WW2 half-tracks with all around machine guns could benefit from this flexibility as well. These vehicles can choose a direction to focus that is not the direction of the vehicle.
More vehicle examples
Peter Godden asked for “Japanese armour and Stuarts and Grants”. Happy to oblige.
Download
You can Download the Balagan House Rules for Crossfire Armour here.