I got into a discussion with George Breese on Crossfire maps on the Crossfire WII forum. We were talking about the attributes of a good table. George uses a guideline that “tables should be 1/3 to 1/2 terrain”. This echoes a guideline from the Crossfire rule book the table should have at least 1/3 coverage. And that got me wondering whether my maps obey a 1/3 to 1/2 terrain coverage guideline? The answer is no, but I’m not sure it is a problem.
Existing advice on terrain
I’ve got quite a lot of material on Crossfire Terrain. The key guidelines can be found in a relatively few spots:
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) for Crossfire, specifically:
- How much terrain will I need?
- Are real terrain features represented 1:1 on the table?
- Why is so much terrain needed?
- Crossfire is unsuitable for flat terrain, right?
- What scenario to use for my first game?
Musing on Terrain Density in Crossfire
How big are Crossfire Terrain features
Types of Terrain Features in Crossfire
But my most comprehensive advice was in my 2006 post on Guidelines for Creating Crossfire Scenarios, specifically the Guidelines on Map/Terrain. I’ve repeated it here:
Firstly, how big should your table be. The pattern seems to be 4′ width (not necessarily length) when the defender is 1 company or less, regardless of size of the attacker (could be up to a battalion). 6′ width is reserved for when the smaller/defending side has at least 2 companies.
For a fun game you’ll have to provide the attacker with covered lines of approach – at least on the base line. If not, it will be a quick and bloody slaughter. The defender should also have covered routes on their base edge to facilitate redeployment – otherwise they’ll get ground to a pulp with little chance of reply.
You’ll need a lot of terrain. Crossfire suggests you aim to have 1/3 of the table being covered by features. The minimum size of a terrain feature in Crossfire is roughly 4″ x 4″, however, you can have up to 8″ x 8″ for a single feature. Structures are a bit different because each section should be the same size (4″x4″ or 3″x3″), so bigger structures actually have several sections. You’ll have about 50 terrain features on a 4′ x 4′ table, and 75 on a 6′ x 4′ table.
For example, a suggested 4′ x 4′ table for a novice scenario looks like this: There are about 50 features, and they range from being 3″ x 3″ building sectors through roughly 4″ diameter features to a large wood which is about 8″ across.
You might also want to see the full list of terrain features possible.
For a pick up game I tend to throw the terrain on the table then adjust for aesthetic reasons. This involves moving features around to improve the “look”, but also adding props to the features themselves, e.g. trees, brushes, rocks, boulders.
Finally, check that there are no stupid lines of sight (LOS) – check from all angles. Nikolas Lloyd suggests about six “layers” of terrain across the table in all directions.
George’s guidance
George Breese shared some maps on the Crossfire WII forum with these additional notes:
- Tables should be 1/3 to 1/2 terrain
- Several small pieces of terrain is better than one large piece of terrain.
- At no point should you be able to see from one side of the table to the other.
- Tables do not need to be exactly as the map but should follow the general pattern.
- Do leave “killing zones” (gaps between terrain) – the size of these does not need to be huge
These are sensible guidelines with considerable pedigree.
The bit about small pieces of terrain relates to both coverage and density. Small features lowers coverage and offers possibility of dense patches of terrain. The Crossfire book covers this.
Limited line of sight is also from the Crossfire book.
I’ve talked previously on the Pros and Cons of using Maps for Crossfire Scenarios. I have four reasons for drawing maps for my scenarios: (1) Map design is integral to Scenario Design; maps provide a lot of flavour; (2) Having tried lots of plotting hidden deployment mechanisms the easiest is plotting on a map; (3) It increases consistency between re-plays of that scenario; (4) I like drawing maps. Maps also enable consistency between successive games of the same scenario and they also are a way to ensure the scenario adheres to the terrain guidelines. But maps are not meant to be dogma and the table can and often will vary. Once the game has started the on-table terrain rules. I think I’ll borrow George’s guideline to add to my list.
There have to be lines of fire, “killing zones”, otherwise a defender will struggle to defend, and an outnumbered defender will get flanked an annihilated. So good advice from George. But, in Crossfire, killing zones are not just the gaps between terrain. Gaps do give long fields of fire, but so does open terrain, with big terrain features even if the gaps are small. It is the long fields of fire that is important. I think I’ll add something on this.
The first guideline, “Tables should be 1/3 to 1/2 terrain”, got me thinking about terrain coverage and prompted me to write this post. The 1/3 minimum coverage came from the Crossfire book. The 1/2 is from George and I’m less sure about that. In the next section of this post I explore what 1/3 to 1/2 coverage means for me.
Experimenting with the map for the Novice scenario
I wondered whether my maps have 1/3 to 1/2 of the board covered by terrain. Rather than look at all of the maps, I only looked at the one from Crossfire For Novices – A Scenario to Introduce Newbies.
Here is the published map again. If I squeeze all the terrain together into check the coverage, I think it is about 62% – you can see my justification for the coverage percentages below.
Next I did version of the map with 1/2 (50%) coverage. This isn’t such a big difference from the published version.
Finally I did a version with 1/3 (33%) coverage. The terrain is very thin and relies heavily on my smallest terrain features (4″ across)
Here are the three maps side by side with proof that the terrain only takes up 62%, 50% and 33%.
To my eye at least 1/3 is sparse, probably too sparse with a risk of breaking other guidelines. 1/2 is visually okay and I think I could game happily on that table. But clearly I stack up the terrain even further as my published map is 62%.
62% terrain coverage breaks George’s guidelines of “1/3 to 1/2 terrain”, but is that a problem? Crossfire doesn’t think so.
Official Crossfire terrain guideline
Crossfire doesn’t provide many guidelines on terrain. Those guidelines that exist are in the Scenario Generator by Rob Wolsky and here they are (CF, p. 31):
Basic Terrain
At least one third (1/3) of the gaming area should be covered by Terrain Features. A Terrain Feature is defined as an area of terrain (woods, hill, building between 4″x4″ and 8″x8″. As an example, an area of the table 2’x2′ would have approximately 12-pieces of terrain; see diagram. Any combination of differently shaped and sized terrain pieces may be used, as long as the general guidelines are met. Terrain Features are then placed by the players as per the specific scenario requirements.Terrain Breakdown
If the total number of terrain Features/pieces is about 50 (a 4’x4′ table), a good breakdown of terrain types for the “countryside” would be: 20 Woods; 9 Hills; 9 Fields; 5 Depressions; 2 Rough Ground; 5 Buildings.
- Players must be careful when setting up terrain not to allow a clear fire lane from edge to edge across the table. Double check before play begins, and, if necessary, shift terrain slightly to block LOS from North to South and East to West across the tabletop.
Just above that text on p. 31, “Terrain Density Arrangement” shows how terrain can be close together (dense) or spread out (sparse). I elaborated on terrain density in Musing on Terrain Density in Crossfire, explaining the different between open, moderate, dense and mixed densities based on the size of features.
I want to focus on the bit in Rob Wolsky’s advice related to 2’x2′ sections of table and feature sizes (4″x4″ to 8″x8″). These guidelines invite some questions requiring some maths to answer. I’ll do the maths, you focus on the answers.
If there are 12 pieces of terrain in a 2’x2′ section of the table, and they cover 1/3 (33%) of the area, how big are those features? 2’x2′ is 576 inches square. 1/3 of that is 196 inches square. If there are 12 features then, on average, each feature will be 16 inches square, which is 4″ x 4″ assuming square features. In other words, the guidelines for a 2’x2′ section of table is 12 features of at least 4″x4″ square.
If our 2’x2′ section had 12 of my 3″x3″ building sectors, the coverage would be only 19%. 6″ squares would be 75% and there isn’t enough space to fit 12 8″ squares in a 2’x2′ section of table.
But circles/ovals are at least as common as squares/rectangles. A 2’x2′ section of table with circular terrain 4″ across would be only 27% coverage. 6″ circles would be 58% coverage. And jumping to 8″ circles, again we would run out of space.
The table below has a lot more combinations.
Length (Inches) | Width (Inches) | Square/Rectangle | Circle/Oval | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Area (Inches squared) | Area of 12 (Inches squared) | Coverage | Area(Inches squared) | Area of 12(Inches squared) | Coverage | ||
3 | 3 | 9 | 108 | 19% | 7 | 84 | 15% |
4 | 4 | 16 | 192 | 33% | 13 | 156 | 27% |
4 | 6 | 24 | 288 | 50% | 19 | 228 | 40% |
4 | 8 | 32 | 384 | 67% | 25 | 300 | 52% |
6 | 6 | 36 | 432 | 75% | 28 | 336 | 58% |
6 | 8 | 48 | 576 | 100% | 38 | 456 | 79% |
8 | 8 | 64 | 768 | 133% | 50 | 600 | 104% |
In summary: 12 features that are 4″x4″ square is the minimum coverage. More 4″ features will lead to a coverage closer to 1/3 and more 6″ features will lead to a coverage a bit over 1/2. There isn’t space for 12 features of 8″ across whether square or circular.
Note: To those metric readers amongst you, please forgive me. All of this section is in imperial measurements (inches). I’ve done this because Crossfire is imperial. Personally I think in metrics, but sticking with inches meant I didn’t have to convert twice.
Observations and conclusions
I like Rob Wolsky’s guidance on terrain. It has done me good service for over twenty years of Crossfire play. Having said that, I prefer 50 terrain features for 4’x4′ table and 75 for a 6’x4′ table over the guidance of 12 per 2’x2′ sector. It is the same but the guidelines for table size mean I don’t have to think and less thinking is better for me when designing scenarios and maps. Less thinking means I just plonk terrain on a map until I get to about 50 / 75. Then I tweak, for example playing about with density.
I view Rob Wolsky’s guidance on a minimum of 1/3 coverage as an abstract warning. It is basically saying, don’t let the terrain get too thin, a sentiment I endorse. Rob Wolky calls this out further with “Players must be careful when setting up terrain not to allow a clear fire lane from edge to edge across the table. Double check before play begins, and, if necessary, shift terrain slightly to block LOS from North to South and East to West across the tabletop” (p. 31). I find that guidance much clearer but it is surprising how many Crossfire players forget it.
George Breese’s has nicely shorten Rob Wolsky’s guidelines into a few short bullet points. But he has also managed to add two things that I think are important. He also highlights that the defender needs killing zones even if the lines of sight cannot extend edge to edge. I also like George Breese’s bit about maps versus tables.
Personally I don’t like the bit about “Tables should be 1/3 to 1/2 terrain”. I think 1/3 coverage is too thin and risks open lanes of fire from edge to edge and similar line of fire problems. 1/2 coverage would give a good game but I think it is too low as a limitation. I prefer “About 50 terrain pieces on a 4’x4’ table and about 75 on a 6’x4’ table”. Again this is not religion. One of my maps, I forget which, has only 30 terrain features on a 4’x4′ table, but it still provides a good game [I’d have to find it again to check the coverage].
After all of that, here are my revised guidelines for making maps/tables for Crossfire:
- Building sectors are approximately 3″ square (or bigger if you want) (Steven)
- Other area terrain features are either a circle/oval or square/rectangle but have both a length and width from 4″ to 8″ (Rob Wolsky)
- Walls, hedges and bocage come in 4″ sections (Steven)
- Have about 50 terrain pieces on a 4’x4’ table and about 75 on a 6’x4’ table (Rob Wolsky)
- Use terrain density to add interest: dense terrain has small features close together; sparse terrain has bigger features and/or smaller features that are spread out (based on Rob Wolsky)
- Have about six “layers” of terrain across the table in all directions (Nikolas Lloyd)
- At no point should you be able to see from one side of the table to the other (Rob Wolsky)
- Attackers must have covered lines of approach – at least initially (Steven)
- Attackers should have covered rear areas so they can change their angle of attack mid-game (Steven)
- Give numerically weak defenders longer fields of fire (based on George Breese)
- Tables do not need to be exactly as the map but should follow the general pattern (George Breese)
And about my map for Crossfire For Novices – A Scenario to Introduce Newbies … I won’t be changing it. 62% coverage is fine.
Myself and a mate discussed this post with regard to our own 6mm CWC games and took it to heart in our latest game where we tried to cut off the long lines of sight and increase the overall clutter and it worked, a better game was had. Thanks.
Glad it helped.
Steve I wish that I had seen your map with all the terrain pushed to the side when I was still playing CF exclusively. Reversing that process is an excellent way to START out on a CF Map. Take a random selection of terrain that you want in your game and pile it up to one side in a random manner. Stop when you reach 60% +/- coverage. Now spread it out to represent the map you want and adjust for firing and sight lanes, etc. You are sure that you have the correct amount of scenery. I reall mean this and am not joking or making a sarcastic remark as it might seem.
Dick Bryant