Standard Crossfire doesn’t restrict the stands on the side initiating the close combat. So more than one platoon can be involved. Somehow this always upsets me. I squirm every time new players ask “can I add in stands from other platoons to this close combat?”
I’ve got two problems with the rules as they are:
- Coordination
- Mobs
In the example I’m going to use three Soviet platoons surround a German occupied house.
Coordination
The way I look at it, if only a platoon can coordinate fire in Crossfire (e.g. a “crossfire” or “fire group”) then only a platoon should have sufficient ability to coordinate a close assault.
In the example, only one of the Soviet platoons can shoot at the German stand. The 1st Platoon is the best choice as it has two stands within line of sight and capable of doing a group fire. 2nd and 3rd Platoons can only bring one squad to bear so would be less potent in shooting.
Mobs
It doesn’t happen often but you do occasionally see a couple of platoons clustered around a building, conducting a close assault. Definitely a winning tactic, but I’m always suspicious of “winning tactics” as they aren’t necessarily historical.
In the example, all three Soviet platoons can contribute squads. Only one commander counts but all of the squads can go in. In the photo only four squads have reached the walls of the building but geometry suggests you could get up to 12 squads on the walls.
Potential House Rule
If I went for a house rule then I’d restrict close combat to phasing squads of the same platoon plus a commander who is in line of command for the platoon.
In the example, only one of the three platoons would be allowed to close combat the German squad in the building. Once again 1st Platoon is the logical candidate as it has more squads.
I always played it that only one platoon could close combat a unit. I never caught on to the rules allowing more than that! I don’t now if I am stupid or enlightened.
Definitely enlightened. 🙂
I also have never been comfortable with how CrossFire allows the piling up of a platoon or more of men into a close combat with 1 enemy squad. From my reading of memoirs, most assaults into close combat appear to have involved only a subset of men from the platoon with the other providing fire support. Thus I agree that it is probably not historically accurate for multiple reasons. (Yes I know human wave assaults occurred in WW2, but that was across a front against a platoon or more, not to surround a single isolated squad.)
We have got around this with a house rule that states the resolution of a close combat occurs immediately after the move into contact. In other words the move and combat are one CrossFire order. This means that the only means to attack with multiple squads is a group move, which limits the move to one platoon I think. This raises the possibility of reactive fire causing a suppress on some of the moving squads. We play that as long as at least one assaulting squad gets into contact, the combat is resolved, and the result of the combat determines who has the subsequent initiative. We have found that this house rule makes close combat simpler and also avoids the illogical rule of stands in contact having to fall back from unresolved combats.
Lovely looking table and models by the way!