Played a Test Game, Need Help with Crossfire!

[bigjackmac]

All,

I recently re-painted and re-based some 10mm Pendraken troops, Canadians and German FJ, in order to give Arty Conliffe's "Crossfire" rules a go with my seven year-old son.  My father and I had played quite a few games several years ago, but we couldn't quite get it going for us.  I was screwing around surfing the internet and started to become intrigued, once again, but the rules.  In particular, I spent quite a bit of time on "Steven's Balagan" blog, which has a tremendous amount of Crossfire-related info on it.  This weekend my boy and I got to it.  I set up a table, got some 10mm troops out, then spent about 30 minutes walking him through the rules.  At the conclusion, he and I played a small test game.

So, this isn't a 'proper' battle report, but he and I did play a game and I did snap some photos, so I figured I'd share.  More importantly, I'd absolutely love for some of you Crossfire veterans/gurus out there on the interwebs to have a look and share some of your insights.  The boy grasped the rules fairly quickly, and there was hardly any referencing the rules (just the modifiers for close combat) once we got started.  The game was going pretty well, moving right along, but I'd be lying if I said I didn't come out of it with any reservations.  The boy moved very aggressively, demonstrating a solid understanding of what we're trying to do (with me giving some pointers, as necessary, along the way).  He ended up on my side of the board, flanking me, pretty damn quickly (what I love about the rules), but he lost the initiative and I was able to shore things up, denying my flank, and there we sat, unable to break the deadlock.  Eventually I finally got tired of it and recklessly dashed down from my hilltop position, into close combat, but I was repelled, and the stalemate ensued. 

I'm really hoping that this was a function of me screwing something up, that I did something wrong, that my table was too small, that we didn't have enough troops on the table, that I had too little or too much cover on the table (I know, in Crossfire you can never have too much cover), and it's certainly possible.  I think I had a goodly amount of cover, but we used identical forces (one rifle platoon, an MG, and an on table mortar) that were kind of small, and we played on a 3' x 2' table, and we played with everyone on the table, no hidden forces (but, to be honest, I'm hoping that's not the issue, as I don't want to play hidden forces with my 7-year old).  I'm hoping it's one or more of those factors.

But I sure got a sinking feeling, same old problem I always seemed to have.  Help!!!  I really want this to work.  Don't worry, we're not giving up, we'll be playing more, I just want to see if we can hammer out any problems as quick as possible.


The table, 3' x 2', which I just quickly threw together to try out the rules.  My baseline is at bottom left, with my small force in the center, and the boy has the opposite baseline.

To see the whole thing, please visit the blog at:
http://blackhawkhet.blogspot.com/2017/01/crossfire.html

I was really hoping to play company-sized actions on a 2' x 2' table, but even with just a platoon and support per side it was feeling a bit cramped on a 3' x 2'.  Not literally cramped, but it felt like if we had a company each we'd be able to create a contiguous defensive line across the whole damn board.  So, you guys with experience, what do you think about unit density from the pictures.  Do you think we could do attacker four platoons and support vs defender two platoons and support on this 3' x 2'?  How did my terrain density look?  And what are your thoughts on the stalemate?  Aside from my admitted mistakes, were we doing anything else wrong?

Please, I'm all ears for some feedback, anything and everything, nothing is off limits.  Unless you're just gonna make fun of my carpet hills and fields

V/R,
Jack

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

Love those rules.
The main issue with the rules is exactly the point you found, the fear of your opponent shouting 'BANG!' And then seizing the initiative.
I used to play a huge amount of crossfire, but it did inevitably end up with a stalemate as one player bottled it.
Smoke is your friend, use it carefully.
Plus you need to advance using every scrap of cover possible. One well sited hmg can really ruin your day!
You will find the action becomes almost cinematic as you concentrate on one part of the action, almost until you forget about the rest of the forces, then someone will see a flank and risk it, swinging the game.

The one counter to this is to think how many infantry actions would have bogged down as the PBI didn't want to stick their necks out!!!
British get stuck, THEN call in the heavy artillery!

[bigjackmac]

Lemmey,

Thanks man, I appreciate the advice.  Smoke, I can't believe I forgot about smoke, that was the big reason for having the mortar support! 

Regarding the stalemate, do you think it's pretty universal that it occurs near the end, where one side is beaten up and contracted into a solid defensive position, and the attacker just can't seem to crack the nut?  I suppose it could also happen if the defender has too many troops, or LOS isn't sufficiently blocked, so that the defender can cover the whole board by fire.

But if the stalemate pretty consistently happens near the end, maybe a 'force morale'-type mechanism is needed, where the defender is forced to withdraw?

V/R,
Jack

[Luddite]

I find having an objective that isn't "destroy the enemy" really helps to break the stalemate.  Make the objectives hidden from the other player (simple generic objectives on random cards) and it gets really tense.

As for Crossfire bogging down?  Its the closest i think a set of wargame rules have come to replicating the reality of WWII combat - i.e. the infantry advances as far as it can, and then calls in fire support (or armour) to break the deadlock.  I've played many games where both sides are repeatedly losing initiative very quickly as the battle focusses on a key "point of decision". 

However, I think the best "deadlock breaker" is having victory dependant on an objective or two.  That way, if one side "retreats to an unbreakable strongpoint" - that's find but they'll probably lose as the other side captures the crossroads/bridge/wine cellar, etc...

Might I also suggest that CF needs a bit of room to maneuver.  If possible, try expanding your playing area slightly?

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

If you pick up the supplement, it has rules for against the clock play too...
I agree Nosher, stand up fights are a pain, if you do the three objective trick (+20, +10, + 0) then can that be fun, even more fun if they are put down blind!

[bigjackmac]

Luddite - Thanks, I appreciate it.  We're going to go bigger next time, both in terms of table size and force size.  I like the objectives idea, each unknown to the other, maybe three on the table, each side tasked with two?  Regarding bogging down, I really just want these to move fast, with constant action.  I've got plenty of rules for bogging down!   And I think we'll play that a side unable to satisfy its objectives will withdraw from the table, not be allowed to fight to the death to take an objective, or fall back onto an objective in the face of overwhelming opposition (every once in awhile that's cool, but not every game, and that's not what troops do in real life).

Lemmey - When you say supplement, are you talking about "Hit the Dirt"?  I think I need to look for that.

V/R,
Jack

[Duke Speedy of Leighton]

That's the badger!