I’ve been thinking about player balance in Mac’s Crossfire Missions. If the two players are mis-matched in terms of experience or ability you might find the stronger player consistently wins every game. This is probably not very much fun for either player. I think a handicap system gives a way to cope with these situations. Handicapping gives the weaker player an advantage, to make it possible for them to win whilst maintaining fairness. This is Crossfire, of course.
I’ve been reading about Soviet cavalry operations on the Eastern Front. And that, of course, has got me interested in expanding my Soviet cavalry collection. But before I invest further, I want to be really, really sure my cavalry basing is correct. The cavalry figures I already have are based on 30x30mm squares, like my infantry. But that is cramped. What to do?
One of the things I would like to do in Crossfire is entrench my men in a wood and get some game benefit. In the standard rules being in a wood, being entrenched, and ground hugging all provide the same level of cover. Usually that is fine, but I’m looking at doing Burma and I expect the associated jungle fighting will require more nuance. So I’ve been musing on how to simulate combinations of cover, entrenchments and ground hugging. I think Lloydian Aspects: Crossfire Probabilities offers a way to distinguish ground hugging from other types of cover, and allows entrenching in the open to be different to entrenching in cover, all without a lot of faff.
Crossfire is not a board game. But it could be. This is a bit of a thought experiment on what Crossfire might look like as a board game. It all came about one Saturday morning when I was having a WhatsApp conversation with my wargaming crew on “Crossfire as a board game”. I got all keen and made some counters. So here is how I see it …
I recently blogged about Assaulting Bunkers in Crossfire – Possible House Rules. But I don’t think I was sufficiently clear on my final recommendation. So I’m having another go at explaining it. Short story is I want to make bunkers (and hard points) much tougher to assault. I’m intending to add this to my Balagan House Rules for Crossfire.
I’m not happy with bunkers in Crossfire. In normal Crossfire you just have to wait for the garrison to No Fire and then close assault. I think they should be harder to assault. Historically flame throwers, demolition charges and big guns were used to deal with bunkers. I’m inclined to introduce house rules to encourage this. So here is a possibility for bunker busting.
My recent interest in Solo Crossfire got me thinking about the probabilities inherent in the Crossfire rules mechanisms. That means infantry direct fire / barrage / minefields, anti-tank direct fire, smoke, close combat, and rallying. Only read this post if you care about statistics of gaming mechanisms.
I wrote this about five years ago because a couple of my projects, i.e. Albuera in the Peninsular and Sipe Sipe in South America, had stalled because I didn’t like any of the available horse and musket rules. Inspired by Roland’s WW1 experiment I wondered if I could make a horse and musket variant for Crossfire. These rules have now remained raw and unplayed for some time. I stopped work on them because I decided I had bent the rules so far that it is no longer Crossfire. But rather than having it lurk on my hard drive any longer, and because Jamie asked about it, I thought I’d share. What do you think?
I’m lucky to have some regular opponents (Chris, Jamie, Adam) but some folk are not so privileged. Inspired by a conversation with Brett Simpson I thought I’d write some rules for playing solo Crossfire. I want a game, played solo, that feels a bit like Mac’s Crossfire Missions. As it happens Nikolas Lloyd already has a Scenario for Solo Play and there is tons of good stuff in there. Lloyd wrote a specific scenario but my goal is slightly different, wider. That means I can’t use Lloyd’s scenario directly but I can pull out some lessons from his offering.
Tim swears and says “Where is my PC?” He had just tried to do a crossfire at an enemy stand and needed the PC to have line of sight of both the squads in the platoon and the target. His opponent had pointed out that the piece Tim thought was a PC was actually an FO. Tim had got the playing pieces confused. In fact, he’d probably done that about 20 minutes earlier, as his PC was back where the platoon had been at that point. An easy mistake to make as both a PC and an FO is a single figure on a stand that is 16mm x 32mm (5/8″ x 1 1/4″).