Whenever I introduce someone to the world of war gaming, I show them Crossfire. It's so easy to learn and play while still giving a new player a rewarding and surprisingly immersive experience--the perfect gateway war game. You technically don't even need minis if you use cardboard stands with all the info written on them. And I think the lack of historical flavor is a strength because it allows a group to use the rules with any setting, historical or otherwise. My group played a whole campaign set in the Star Wars universe with these rules (with a bit of tweaking), and had a blast.

I just discovered this channel, you lot have made me fall in love with classic wargaming despite being 17 years old, awesome stuff as always

@LittleWarsTV

Жыл бұрын

Many of us started plying historical Wargames in our teens! Welcome to the hobby!

@NeedGamesNow

Жыл бұрын

I wish I could go back in time and tell my teen self to focus on historials rather than fantasy and sci-fi...

@sirrathersplendid4825

Жыл бұрын

@@LittleWarsTV - Exactly. I would say the majority of today’s historical gamers started in their teens or even earlier. I was lining up my little plastic figures by age 9, and trying to use proper rules by age 13, on the carpet in the spare room (when grandma wasn’t doing the ironing).

@constantinekorkousky3363

Жыл бұрын

Me too, problem is I can’t find anybody my age to play with

Concerning the terrain issue - someone can simply use felt/cloth to represent forest and fields and rough areas

Initiative is the core element of actual military combat. It gives a very ‘real’ reflection of field combat. A truly great insight and wonderful concept and different from anything out there. Big fan of Crossfire. Concur w/ vehicles & close combat use house rules or your option. Big thanks on review.

@GreenBlueWalkthrough

Жыл бұрын

To the point on one side waiting patiently for their turn to be it? Like in real military enjoyments both sides move at once not wait to see each other. Which simultaneous games and turn oddly show better.

I played Crossfire years ago. I always thought it would make a good WW1 ruleset. I also liked Greg's assault modification.

@OwenBudd1

4 ай бұрын

Funnily enough, in 1917 the Australians released a Fire and Movement manual for taking German bunkers. It is essentially standard WW2 tactics moving with MG support, I totally agree that this ruleset would work for WW1.

Re: Close Combat. In the rules as written you get +1 for EACH ADDITIONAL SQUAD, not +1 for having more squads. So if your opponent has 1 squad and you have 3 squads, then you have 2 additional squads so you would get +2 to your dice roll. The fact that you only roll 1 dice in close combat, means that randomness is minimized. You stack your chances of success with modifiers.

@captainnolan5062

Жыл бұрын

This is correct. See Rule 8.3 Close Combat Modifiers on page 15: "Each Squad Larger: +1 for each additional Squad (PCs/FOs do not count)."

@griffinkees9772

Жыл бұрын

Correct, this is how the rules are written. Some people like to play it that way, others like to home brew their own rules. Whatever you and your opponent will have the most fun with! Respectfully though, rolling only one die each does not minimize randomness. Even with modifiers and all, rolling one die each and comparing results is *almost* the most random way you could do this in a D6 based game (short of rolling one single die and saying 4+ you win, 3 and below I win). Respectfully, rolling more dice will get you closer to an average result which is strictly less random. Same logic behind “best 2 out of 3”, or comparing the results of 5 coin flips versus 1,000 coin flips etc. That’s stats for ya!

Good review chaps. Crossfire is a classic, although I've only ever played my friend's moderns version of it, I really like the ideas behind it with retaining initiative and no measuring. Cracking stuff.

Played this classic many a time using 20mm 1/72 kits and plastic airfix miniatures. Great game and think it would play excellently in 10mm, found the rule presentation OK for me.

@samb2052

Жыл бұрын

I started out playing it with 10/12mm figures. A great game, whether it’s 6, 10, 15 or 20mm. I’ve even seen it played in 28mm and 1/35 using Tamiya figures.

My favourite WW2 game at this level, as it always challenges decision making and makes for tense, yet fun gaming. Thank you for this excellent review!

Another set of rules that I just got and will be trying out

An excellent balanced review. I've been playing Crossfire since 1998 and I use the rules for WWII, modern and even sci-fi (with minor modifications for each period) What Crossfire does well, initiative, fire and movement and the players' decision-making is still to be bettered. Armour and close combat were house-ruled long ago on my table.

Great review. One point I’d add to the mechanics section: the LOS rules in Crossfire are some of the best anywhere. Really functional, take all the measuring and potential for arguments out of the process. I think you’ve got the Close Combat rules slightly wrong. You get a plus per squad larger, so mass does work. But it’s more important to use suppression and leadership.

Always liked them as you say... its a game that focuses on making tactical decisions rather than gaming the rules

An excellent point of reference for anyone interested in Crossfire are the superb videos made by Lindybeige on the game. They give an engaging and easy to follow rundown of all of the game's core rules, so much so that back in high school I was able to play a pretty sound version of the game using just his videos as a reference.

Excellent episode. Looks like a great set of rules. The .pdf version of the rules and scenarios are both available on the website you mentioned. I just ordered the .pdf version of the rules. Thanks guys.

Thanks guys, great review. I used to play crossfire in the early 2000s with 28mm and 54mm as the game lends itself to small built up area games really nicely. I love the idea of lots of terrain and that is what I like with a tabletop Wargame. I moved away from platoon level and switched to battalion level rules and 20mm in 2004. I would love a proper reprint and full republish of the rules! Like the idea of the D6 per platoon for assaults, and yes to fix the vehicle rules!

So when can we expect the Fireball Forward review? Really looking forward to the comparison.

very nice

I love that ruleset! I played this game several times over the years, first playing it back in 1998 over in the UK. A unique system that flows and plays really well......

Much appreciated! Been waiting on this since the Foy wargame (which was brilliant by the way).

That you guys are good friends who enjoy a great pasttime is awesome enough. That you make regular videos is much appreciated. But I just realize after a year of watching you guys that you are all well spoken and have great presentation. - Very minimal articulated pauses such as "ah" and "uhm". - Great pacing. No dead air or wasted tangents. - Nice approachable personalities and great chemistry. Even in non-scripted videos such as this one. Its as if you are seasoned actors playing average Joes. Are you guys getting professional screen directing?

@tonymarano913

Жыл бұрын

Thank you but truth be told we're just average Joes but we've been doing this schtick for a while now so it feels kind of natural

@LittleWarsTV

Жыл бұрын

“Professional screen directing…” hahaha that’s a good one!

One final comment and I'll stop spamming (you can tell I love this game): both Crossfire and Hit the Dirt are currently back in print, but more importantly, Arty finally caved in and allowed the PDF versions of both books to be sold. So this game will never be out of print now ;)

@LittleWarsTV

Жыл бұрын

Oh this is excellent news! Didn’t know the rules were available in PDF yet!

@dickturpin1964

Жыл бұрын

@@LittleWarsTV I bought the PDFs on the US page (I live in the UK - we met at Joy of Six). Cheaper and I can put them in a lay flat ring binder, like some people like 😆

Nice review. You have convinced me these rules are not for me, despite being positive about them. Proof that you're doing informative and useful work.

I live in The Netherlands and look outside, hey man there's a lot of terrain here, it's all over the place 🙂

@steveholmes11

Жыл бұрын

no place like it when you want to "Bring up the PIAT" or "Take a bridge: Both ends at once".

initiative doesn't pass when the opposing side fires and gets a Pinned result. Only when they score a Suppression or better

Good video. That snowy table looks brilliant.

I have Crossfire (love it) and actually just ordered Fireball Forward after your new Foy battle.

@kurtbowker6853

Жыл бұрын

I have been thinking of picking up the 'Fireball Forward' Rules as well after watching the Foy battle video.

Weird to me that having more terrain rather than less would somehow be a negative, especially with a rule set that lets you play on such a small table. I've played far too many lousy rule sets where you not only aren't encouraged to do a dense table layout, you're almost unable to do so because their game mechanics can't handle it. Battles fought on golf courses and parade fields are not only boring, they're ugly as hell. Having a game that actively pushes you into putting more terrain out is nothing but a plus to me. There are a few other rule sets that follow a similar "one player goes till something stops them" mechanic, some of them quite popular. Off the top of my head, there's Osprey's Rogue Stars and the Lion/Dragon Rampant family of games, and basically everything Ganesha Games makes in their big range of "Song" rule sets. Probably forgetting others. Crossfire's player community support is phenomenal. Only game I can think of that has become more of a fan-driven thing over the years is Ground Zero Games' Full Thrust rules set, where Jon Tuffley has pretty much entirely turned over development and support to the player base while he concentrates on casting minis. Hard to be a one-man business with his kind of minis catalog and develop rule sets.

@ItsDrMcQuack

Жыл бұрын

Terrain takes time to make, money to buy, and space to store. So in that regard I think it's a fair criticism. Fortunately, all three issues can be greatly mitigated by playing at smaller scales! In my opinion, crossfire plays very well at 6mm, and you could probably go even lower, although you'd have to find a solution to turret facing on tanks. But in terms of looks and immersion, more terrain is always better, I agree.

@LittleWarsTV

Жыл бұрын

Requiring more terrain is only a “negative” in terms of what a new player would need to get started. But in terms of mechanics or historical flavor, it’s obviously a plus for realism and tactical decision making.

@ItsDrMcQuack

Жыл бұрын

@@LittleWarsTV totally agree! I feel like it's a very legitimate critique. On the plus side, newer players might want to start out with small games to dip their toes in, which lowers the requirement for terrain. Alternativevly, Crossfire plays beautifully with colored pieces of paper for terrain. In some respects, like Line of Sight, it actually works better that way. So there are definitely options for players who don't have quite enought terrain.

@richmcgee434

Жыл бұрын

@@LittleWarsTV Fair enough - but miniatures wargaming is rarely something someone just starts up on in isolation, and every veteran player I've ever known has been happy to help cover a table with their terrain collection if it gets new blood into their pet game or period. Terrain is wonderful because it's so broadly applicable across rules sets, time periods and even genres. I used to work for a guy who cast a range on Stalingrad ruins, but the bulk of our sales were to Warhammer 40K fans. As long as you can store it between games, I'd contend that no piece of scenery is truly a bad thing to create and own.

Thank you Gents, a great review and debate regarding these classic rules👍

I have only recently found this channel but have fallen in love with it. Very interesting and relaxing to watch. I was wondering if ya'll know of similar systems that have the 'initiative' mechanic, because I really like the sound of that but I also particularly enjoy vehicle combat.

Really pleased to see this excellent ruleset getting a review. I loved your back and forth review style. Your conclusions tallied very much with my own: Some massive plusses, and rather more minuses, which still don't spoil the cake. The massive plus is that Crossfire is the only WW2 ruleset I've encountered that really models the empty battlefield of WW2. All the others use mechanisms that could apply to the battle of Megiddo onward. The grumbles generally relate to insufficient detail for the rivet counters. But take the point of view of a soldier, or junior commander. A tank is a particular type of threat because it resists bullets and has big guns, a Tiger is a bit more scary than a Pz III, but both will kill you and require similar countermeasures. A machinegun is another type of threat, some fire quicker than others, but and MG stand represents more than one gun, and all MGs pose a similar threat to your men. There's also one of my favourite lines of argument when comparing firepower of US, British and German squads. Germans: Deadly MG and rather inferior rifles. British: OK MG and pretty good bolt-action rifle. USA: The BAR struggles against modern MGs, but the M1 Grand is the best rifle. I argue that the added angles and opportunities presented by those better rifles go a long way to balance the rates of fire of the squad automatic. The scenario book "Hit the Dirt" was interesting, but I found the scenarios immense in scope, and not practical for play. One has 50 different forest elements on the table. I don't think it has been re-published. Instead I recommend doing an internet search for fan produced scenarios. Sorry guys, lengthy comment. I'll close by saying "Buy Crossfire" you won't regret it.

@theandf

Жыл бұрын

Good comment! Your assessment of firepower is insightful. Note both Crossfire and Hit the Dirt are available in both hard copy AND PDF (!!!) in On Military Matters. There's no excuse not to get both books now ;)

@matthiuskoenig3378

Жыл бұрын

Except the firepower of squads not only varied between nations but within a nation. Some German squads had 2 mg34/42, some had access to semi-autos in varying numbers, you have different numbers of smgs, and that's before we look at stg44 and fg42. For the yanks not all squads had the garand, especially in Italy many had to amke do with the Springfield. And not all squads had the same number of BAR. You also have things like rifle grenadiers. In early German org each squad has a rifle grenadier, in later org they removed them and placed them in separate squads to centralise the grenadier firepower, as an example. You also have how the division of firepower affects how the squad operates.

@theandf

Жыл бұрын

@@matthiuskoenig3378 none of that matters very much at the scale Crossfire plays. Try the ruleset and you'll see why. I think rivet counting is a red herring, as in, it doesn't result in a good game.

@steveholmes11

Жыл бұрын

@@matthiuskoenig3378 They're all good points that are largely glossed over in Crossfire's abstraction. Some will insist on greater detail (even making hits with 6.5mm bullets less deadly), others consider it "good enough for the game". I always attempt to buy into the designer's viewpoint (so in this case accept the abstractions), and then make a dispassionate judgement on whether the game is good. I'll repeat that Crossfire is good when used as designed (reinforced infantry companies fighting over close terrain). Away form its habitat (e.g. tank fights in the desert), it's like a fish out of water.

Played Crossfire back in the day, we used it for the Great War and then some WW2. But after playing some Rapid Fire games we never went back to it and we played Rapid Fire for years after. Though have not played Rapid Fire for a while now I see there is a new version out.

I do wish someone would go though and redo the layout and presentation. With a couple fixes for tanks. I like the CC fix idea. Steve’s Balagan site has some thoughts on vehicle changes.

Great video! Awesome that one of my favorite sets of rules is being reviewed by you guys! The scenario book for Crossfire is "Hit the Dirt".

Thank you for covering this fantastic game! I think you both were very fair and on point about the ruleset, both up- and downsides. Like both of you point out, the beauty of this game is how it succeeds in simulating a commander's decisions and dilemmas during combat. Quite regularly the rules fade away completely, and the players get sucked into the purely tactical considerations. Then the game REALLY shines. But, it is unfortunately a wonderful game hampered by poor writing and terrible presentation. At least the community surrounding it is absolutely fantastic.

Man they really changed up the ruleset to this game. I remeber crossfire having 2 red guns that fired steel marbles at little whirlygigs.

The ONLY miniatures game I am still willing to play. I have been testing Steve Balagan's armour rules and quite like them. With a little work Crossfire could be adapted to any age of warfare that included aimed fire.

As I posted on the Foy video, we played Crossfire in the past. You guys covered the issues that I remember - vehicles and needing a lot of terrain. I didn't recall the close combat mechanic, which is odd given it does sound quite extreme. I also don't recall anything about artillery, and don't think you guys mentioned it. I seem to remember something about Arty designing it on a bet - could he design a game that didn't have turns and/or require a tape measure/ruler. That might have been in the designer's notes, or maybe somewhere else, like TMP. Also, IMO, Arty never seemed to put much effort in supporting his games once he wrote them. Armati was certainly another example. I never played Tactica, but I think he thought of it as his "masterpiece" and payed a little more attention to it - for a little while... Crossfire gave a good game, but its idiosyncrasies didn't seem to be everyone's cup of tea. That statement includes both the rules and the terrain ramifications. If you really want to play North Africa or sweeping tank games on the Russian steppes, you might be better served using something else, but, for example, it was great for Normandy hedgerow games!

@samb2052

Жыл бұрын

That’s all fair. Crossfire is certainly not suited to large AFV battles. I suppose Arty’s ‘Spearhead’ is designed for for that. Crossfire is very much designed for infantry companies and does it well.

@davefranklin4136

Жыл бұрын

@@samb2052 You're right about Spearhead. We used to play it a lot, with 15mm (upped all the ranges by 50%). Still play a homegrown stand-is-a-platoon game that leverages a lot from Spearhead's combat system. Spearhead is also another example of a game that once published, Arty seemed to wash his hands of. His "co-author" (not sure he was actually credited as such), a guy named Hans something-or-other, became "the guy" WRT the rules. And IIRC one of the defenders of the "German bias" the rules were often accused of having...

Been playing crossfire since 96, it was our go to rules for all ww2 at my club here in Australia , loved it then and still love it now! Would say that for company level Infantry tactics nothing beats it, should be played at all officer training centers.....p.s we did use it for Armour with our house rules and it worked dam well.

I got Crossfire when it first came out in 1996 and much in this review resonates with me. I too struggled with the way armoured vehicles work once you try and add more than a couple. The other problem I had was linked to how use it in more open countryside when you can see the enemy but they're in the distance and too far to engage. I had some ideas on how to overcome that but as I never found an opponent for whom the rules clicked I never resolved that. Lack of opponents also means that it's spent far too long on the shelf which is a great shame as I also think it's a great set of rules that makes for very engaging games.

@kurtbowker6853

Жыл бұрын

Maybe simply add a spotting die roll for anything over half the board length/width with modifiers for size of unit and intervening terrain?

I bought my copy of Crossfire from 'On Military Matters' the minute I knew it was in print again. Though some of my wargaming buddies have expressed interest, I have yet to get a game on. The latest rule set I have read is 'Cross of Iron' which uses a derivative initiative system from Crossfire. That one too I would like to get one of my buddies to play. I will simply have to grab them and take the initiative. See what I did there. Lol. Good video guys. Thanks.

On MIlitary Matters also sells a reprint of Hit the Dirt, the scenario book for Crossfire for $28

It reminds me of the tabletop wargame we used in the Army to teach manoeuvres so an MG was an MG.

Ol' Ma Deuce stands up just fine against an MG42. What does matter is proficiency in morale of the troops. I would have to heard more about that in your review. That being said it was a pretty thorough review and gave a good picture of how the rules work. Thanks for doing it.

@steveholmes11

Жыл бұрын

Trying to answer, from memory since my ruleset isn't to hand. I recall there being three grades of troops. Better troops have improved odds to rally from pinning or suppression (Important for keeping your force in the game) I think they also get a plus in close combat if better class than their opponents. The upshot is that green formations can begin a firefight on fairly even terms with veterans. But as casualties rise, and the enemy closes, quality starts to sine through.

A very good review

I love Crossfire, currently building Spanish Civil War forces at 10mm, lots of lists and scenarios out there

Have it from 20+ years ago…and played it a few times but WW2 was never my focus so it has languished. Recently played a fair bit of Chain of Command - and like the way national squads are different (admittedly it is a platoon rather than a company game).

A classic game like nothing else out there like this.

With innovative rules in wargames from the 90s, I really recommend a look at Stargrunt II. Easy to convert to historical scenarios, don't let the name distract you.

@sdporres

Жыл бұрын

My favorite game! I believe the rules are now free.

@KimKhan

Жыл бұрын

@@sdporres they indeed are! But I still bought a copy earlier this year. I have problems.

@sdporres

Жыл бұрын

@@KimKhan I get you. The printed thing is nice to have.😀

Hmmm this game sounds soo interesting i will get the rulebook and try it out. I'm also curious about Battlegroup and i would love if you guys would make a rules review for it.Keeo up the awesome contents guys.

@samb2052

Жыл бұрын

Crossfire beats BG hands down. Hopefully we’ll get a Little Wars review and you’ll see why. 😊

@jorgeparson7764

Жыл бұрын

@@samb2052 hopefully

Are you guys gonna cover Fireball Forward as well?

@tonymarano913

Жыл бұрын

Yes!

Great game and a great review. In addition to the criticisms of the vehicle and close combat rules I would add that it is only a two player game so if you are looking for rules suitable for multiplayer games then these aren’t going to be what you want.

Bought this after seeing your game. I like simple mechanics and difficult decisions; very chess like. I am in the UK, but I was able to buy PDFs of the rules and scenarios (Called Hit the Dirt) through the US site. Cheaper, no postage and I can print and bind it how I want; laid flat. Thanks for the heads up!

Still playing my original copies of the rulebook and the scenario book, Hit the Dirt. Just find this game great for the comstant decision making. Works well for multiplayer too.

Cross fire ! Cross fire !

Have you guys tried Too Fat Lardies` "O Group" ruleset? I've heard very good things about the ruleset from military veterans and is certainly done with a good eye on simulating real world command decisions at battalion level. It's my go to ww2 ruleset

@LittleWarsTV

Жыл бұрын

Yes! We like it!

Nice review, I would be interested in your views of Poor Bloody Infantry by Peter Pig.

Given it’s an infantry heavy game that isn’t good for vehicles perhaps it would work well for a trench raid in the last year of WW1, and some of the smaller wars of the 1920’s

I really like the fact that there are no turns.

Crossfire is an amazing infantry game that really captures the feel of the fire and maneuver tactic in ww2. You don’t just charge straight into a prepared defender - you have to wear him down with fire, suppress him, then use a smoke screen to move in and grab him by the belt buckle! If you just run your troops across that open field in front of that dug in MG, it will take you to school and then steal your lunch money!😊. As you guys mentioned the vehicle rules are really bad - don’t use them. Either keep it all infantry or find a forum that has a set of house rules for vehicles.

It's crazy people keep unlearning what makes this such a timeless classic. I just got O Group and it's bogged down in overly worded, repetitive and weirdly laid out sequence of game mechanics that are the polar opposite of Crossfire. It may 'look' better as a book but it's tedious to read and didn't make me excited to try the game. The shoutout to Balagan's website is great, his website has loads of material on the game.

@samb2052

Жыл бұрын

Glad it’s not just me . . .

I got a copy from Caliver books. I think they have the scenario book too. I suppose house rules can be found on BGG? Sounds like they need them, but looking forward to trying them out soon.

@theandf

Жыл бұрын

The most useful house rules got compiled by Steven Thomas at his website Balagan.

@13thLegio

Жыл бұрын

Great, thank you for that.

Think you nailed it, it has the potential to be the best WW2 game, as it is is, it’s just the best WW2 infantry game, if only it could be developed for combined arms formally, it could be awesome.

This is a great game but much easier to learn from someone who already plays it compared to trying to learn from the rulebook (big thumbs down for the rules how they are displayed). A "Revised" edition with a more modern layout would breathe new life into this game and get new players.

Crossfire is an outstanding WW2 wargame - tremendous fun. If you play Bolt Action or any other popular set, you can easily convert in a matter of seconds. We made a few minor adjustments: increased the Soviet rating by 1 (or they'd never succeed) and reduced the Germans by 1 (or they'd never fail). Also, with regards to melee: more stands but not 2x defenders was +1; 2x but less than 3x was +2; 3x or more was +3, et cetera. These changes made the game more dynamic and enjoyable for all dozen+ of us. 👍🎅👍

Very entertaining and interesting talk, as CrossFire is my favourite WW2 miniature wargame, but please remove or reduce the noise on the audio, I think it is pretty distracting

G'day fellas, thanks for the review. :) Just wondering your comments regarding 54mm Wargaming using the "crossfire" rules. Many thanks Chris

I would be interested in more detail on bad scenario design for CF

@theandf

Жыл бұрын

Some examples of bad scenario design for CF: a map with not enough terrain, or too many open fire lanes. Barren terrain and two armies that just face each other (a "kill everything that moves" scenario is never fun with CF). This is a tricky one: "hold objective for X turns" -- very doable with other rulesets, but what does it mean for CF which has no notion of turn! You cannot use initiative, since failing will cause fast turnovers, but "getting your way" doesn't cause a turnover at all.

@steveholmes11

Жыл бұрын

As Mr Ferrari says: "Within X turns" really fails when the game has no turns. Another big fail is "retreat 2/3 of your force off the board" - because of the way movement works. Another big fail is an "exit one unit off the enemy baseline" combined with terrain that allows the attacker an easy unopposed end run. You really do need objectives where the winner must defeat the enemy. But it is better if the objectives include possession of a certain physical objective. "Clear the bunker", "Capture the command centre", ""Command the houses around the crossroads" ...

This sounds intriguing, but I have found my company-level rules with Big Chain of Command. For Batallions+ I am now trying out O-Group.

So what would you house rule to make the Vehicle rules better? You alluded to the close combat house rule you thought would work but what about the vehicles? Would you simply borrow from and bolt on another WW2 rule sets vehicle rules? Bolt Action? Flames of War?

I’m hoping we gotta wargame coming

@LittleWarsTV

Жыл бұрын

Several!

I'm hopeful someday you might get around to review another of Arty Conliffe's rules. I can't find a single review of Armati on KZread. Sadly, it's completely overshadowed by other ancient rules, like DBA

@LittleWarsTV

Жыл бұрын

We’ve played Armati! It’s been awhile but we did enjoy that game many years ago in the club

What about crossfire with flames of war?

Hi guys, I'm half way through building 2 opposing armies from the Seven Years War. The armies consist of infantry and artillery only. My interest has always been infantry. My knowledge of cavalry is limited in comparison. Is it worth investing time into studying, ordering and painting cavalry in this case? Or should I be satisfied playing without them?

Crossfire simply ROX. Great game for all players especially experienced players with lots of accumulated inits and terrain. Awesome ruleset for blitzkrieg action. Use the terrain to also suck the enemy into traps. Set up your fields of fire and wait...

Greg I have to warn you; speaking with your hands while holding a dram of scotch can lead to spillage.

@LittleWarsTV

Жыл бұрын

Funny-this actually happened while filming. True story.

I still have my original copy and it is in excellent condition. I don't know that I would want a "prettier" version, all that would do is add more pages, make things harder to find, and increase the cost.

awsome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I prefer WW2 era combined arms rulesets, that operate on a combat group / task force / Kampf Gruppe game level. Usually, one or two platoons of infantry, with a platoon of AFVs for support plus maybe die roll determined called in artillery or air support. Rule sets such as Operation Battlefront (1976), Kingfisher WW2 (1982), Tactical Commander (1985), Panzergranate (1987), Cambrai to Sinai (1978), etc.

to be honest this reminds me of BKC IV

Seems as if the troublesome vehicle rules were not really explained. Cut out or die I missed them?

This is the only game I play

Question. Why play this instead of Flames of War?

@tonymarano913

Жыл бұрын

Because Crossfire & Fireball Forward are good..... and Flames of War is, well they have nice minis

plis can you play batel of Brest 1941

I also love Crossfire. Just for info the scenario book is called Hit The Dirt by Bill Rutherford and John Lewis also sold by On Military Matters. Paul Ward has a KZread channel that covers the rules and hey has a game play through. His take on the armored rules are in this episode which I use. They act like regular units in the game. kzread.info/dash/bejne/X4Vota56oLOrd6Q.html Keep up the great work men!!!

@LittleWarsTV

Жыл бұрын

I’ve watched Paul’s videos and totally agree with how he uses vehicles. A simple solution.

Also a total fan of Crossfire and I agree the presentation is terrible. It looks like a fanzine. What's puzzling to me is that the hardcore Crossfire community actively resists changing the presentation. Arty isn't interested in it, some people who collaborated with him also aren't interested. I don't understand why. This is a serious flaw in my absolutely favorite WW2 ruleset, which makes me sad.

@LittleWarsTV

Жыл бұрын

Can’t speak for Arty or anyone else involved in the original design…but player expectations have changed a lot over 30 years. This remains a great game, but sadly, doesn’t look like one for anyone judging the book by flipping through it. And that would be so, so easy to fix.

@ItsDrMcQuack

Жыл бұрын

​@@LittleWarsTV To me, the most frustrating part is that Arty has been unwilling to outsource a redesign to others. Plenty of times, I have come across fans of the game who want to do a redesign. It's all but impossible to contact Arty, and it's been made very clear in the community that he wouldn't allow it anyway. That being said, I think I remember recently hearing vague rumors about "something" being in the works. It might not be a refresh, it might be nothing at all.

@theandf

Жыл бұрын

@@ItsDrMcQuack Steven Thomas (Balagan) has apparently been authorized by Arty to create an additional scenario book, which is great news since Steven keeps what is probably Crossfire's best website (along with Lindybeige's). But I don't know if he has made any progress with this project.

Where do I buy crossfire

How to buy it?

Amazing rules set. It's a huge frustration for me that the author has no interest in producing a second edition with better production values, fixes to some rules, more detail and an expanded AFV rules section.

15:25 the allies won sure, but that does not mean the mg42 is not better than the allied mgs, especially in the rifle squads. Firstly war is not a vacuum, it was never a 1v1 fight (espeically since the allies outnumbered the germans), and you have support from artillery/etc in addition to just strait up imbalances of numbers in both men and ammunition. The strengths and weaknesses of the weapons in a squad, platoon and company also affect how it fights. Its tactics/etc. So it really does detract from a ruleset when they over simply things like this.

16:31 To be fair the .30 call has more punch and distance and the MG-42 has more bullets even at a company level that is a big difference the MG .42 suppresses better and is better against infatry but the .30 cal is better unarmored vehicles and has more acerate range fire... This is my first time hearing of the rules so I don't know if their is that kind of detail in them... but it makes me wonder why WW2? Why not universal and though in heavy and light melee units that have zero range but dominate in CQB with different health and movement ranges. Like once you add that what is stoping you from using this rules in any time period? Like you can already I presyume use these rules in WW1-Modern day atleast... And with some more units you could even have napolionic. Kinda makes me want to make an unofficial expanstion for it so it can be universal but I have enough on my plate already. Still great review and it sounds like a great light system!

Since Crossfire is really an infantry game, and at most you should have a "vehicle or two" (see the introduction), I am not sure that the came can really be criticized for having somewhat light vehicle rules. That said, however, the tanks are differentiated fairly well in the rules, and I would certainly rather be in a Panzer VIB: Armor 8/4, Accuracy +2, Penetration +3, HE 5/2SQ, and HD Yes; than a Sherman: Armor 4/2, Accuracy 0, Penetration 0, HE 4/2SQ, and HD Yes. Also, you forgot to mention that the game comes with a Scenario Generator (pages 31 - 40), as well as the historical scenario.

A quibble regarding Innovation: You mention that Crossfire is innovative by not having 'turns', rather the active player/side maintains initiative until the opponent succeeds in interdicting successfully to wrestle the initiative away from the active player/side - usually by a successful opportunity fire result as an example. Thus, the active side switches initiative back and forth to demonstrate the difficulty of maintaining initiative in a modern combined arms milieu. However, this mechanic is not an innovation by Arty Conliffe and it has been used at least 10 years in advance of the publication of Crossfire (1996) in the Avalon Hill wargame, Air Cav (1985 - Joseph M. Balkoski, Greg Costikyan, Eric Goldberg, Tony Merridy) - a squad level 'modern' (the 1960s-1980s) combined arms operations tactical wargame featuring helicopters. I am sure that you were not aware of the existence of the Air Cav rules. Additionally, I doubt that this is the very first time this mechanic has been used but, Air Cav is the first time I became aware of the switching/fluid initiative game mechanic. I have adapted the Air Cav rules from the cardboard chits on a paper map game that Air Cav is, into a miniature (1/256th scale) tabletop wargame rather easily. Fighting numerous regimental-level engagements over the years since the conversion. Otherwise a great review gentlemen.

Crossfire was one of my first games besides Battletech when I was a wee lad being introduced to tabletop games. I have a minor disagreement on the scenario part, the recent remake of the Foy video using Crossfire is proof that making a good scenario isn't too difficult with the abundance of historical references to inspire ideas from. A lot of these match play type wargames have very "meh" scenarios by comparison.

What are we drinking gentlemen?👀

I have this rules book along with the 'Hit the Dirt' scenario supplement. A very unique and quirky game. A 9/10 from me.

Could never take the photo on the cover of the book seriously, the guy trying to pose as they charge for the photoshoot. And the guy further back looking like "Vladimir, what the shit?"

My game group played these rules when they came out. I had played everything Arty had published at the time and we thought this looked really interesting. And this is a really interesting game. But for us it was a complete failure. First we always play with a minimum of 4 or more players and this game does not work for multiple players. I notice that this is the second time I have seen one of your videos with a one on one game. Though the WWI air game might count as well. The other was your Pyrrhic campaign. The armor was obviously a problem but again we play only infantry games as well so we could ignore that. What really bothered us the most was "no fire" and lack of "fire & maneuver". The "no fire" really just was a problem. I realize that it is to make the non-initiative player choose fire or not. But the penalty was not something I could see in combat. "Hey we missed, I guess we will just bury or heads in the sand and forget about them sneaking up on us for the rest of the action." Which is were the almost lack of fire by the maneuver side is another annoyance to me. I am sure someone will be thinking the "no fire" are pinned. But they are not, by any action in the game. We found the best way to pin the enemy was to taunt him into firing and then just ignore the stand till it could be close assaulted or fired at with overwhelming fire. Instead of using that fire to pin or distract the stand first. This completely broke the game for us. As we did not see any WW2 tactics actually coming into play.

Interesting review and recap. Rules are nearly 30 years old, not 20. So what's up next 'Rapid Fire' rules or as these are British you will be ignoring them.

@LittleWarsTV

Жыл бұрын

Never heard of Rapid Fire, but if you prefer “British rules” (not sure there’s really a notable distinction here…) we’ve reviewed everything from General d’Armee, to Chain of Command, Black Powder, Men Who Would Be Kings, Lion Rampant, etc. On WW2 specifically, aiming to do an O Group review, as this is a game we’ve played a number of times in the club

@samb2052

Жыл бұрын

@@LittleWarsTV well put, and I wouldn’t bother with ‘Rapid Fire,’ it’s a thing of it’s time and dated now. Purports to be a brigade level Wargames but plays like a skirmish. No relationship between orbats and manoeuvre units but it does have some good scenario books which can be adapted to better rule sets.

In like Flynn with the first comment