Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • Author
  • #111205

    I’ve had this ruleset on my bookshelf for more years than I care to remember. I’ve seen the rules crop up in this month’s WI and wondered if any of the Brethren here has any experience of them? Are they worth me dusting off and trying a game when I get home this weekend?

    "Wot did you do in the war Grandad?"

    "I was with Harry... At The Bridge!"

    Avatar photoRuarigh

    I have a friend who thinks they are the best WW2 rules ever written. I didn’t get on with them despite liking the ideas behind them. Your best option is to dust them off and try a game. I get the feeling that they are Marmite-like.

    Never argue with an idiot. They'll only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


    Avatar photozippyfusenet

    I’ve played Crossfire some, not intensively and not recently. They’re designed for squad/platoon level infantry skirmishing and assaults with lots of terrain. A company would over-load the rules. They have not much scope for armor, artillery or airstrikes. Machine-guns dominate. They’re great for what they are. You don’t need many toy soldiers to get started, but you need a lot of terrain.

    You'll shoot your eye out, kid!


    Thanks for that chaps, might give ’em a whirl and see wot’s wot.

    "Wot did you do in the war Grandad?"

    "I was with Harry... At The Bridge!"

    Avatar photoMike

    Am I correct in thinking that everything is in weapon range and you keep moving your model until it crosses into LOS of an enemy at which point they can react?

    Avatar photoDaniele V

    Am I correct in thinking that everything is in weapon range and you keep moving your model until it crosses into LOS of an enemy at which point they can react?

    Yes, and movement is not measured with a ruler, you move each unit (squad or commander) from one terrain feature to another. Hence you need a lot of terrain. They are great for infantry in bocage, urban fighting, etc; there are rules for tanks, mortars etc but don’t work very well.



    Avatar photoJozisTinMan

    Late to the party, but I love these rules. I played the heck out of them 12+ years ago.

    just remember, their sweet spot is company to battalion sized infantry actions. Plus make sure you have enough terrain.  It is the best rules I have found for making you think about fields of fire when defending and covered and concealed avenues of approach when attacking.

    Here are some good articles: https://crossfire.wargaming.info/faq.htm


    Avatar photoJohn D Salt

    I’ve only played a few games, but it is a novel system with some excellent ideas. I can’t imagine why zippyfusenet thinks “a company would overload the rules”; I should have thought a company was about the minimum needed for a good game. As you will see from JozisTinMan’s reading list, they are a great favourite of toast-farmer Lloyd (otherwise known as Lindybeige).

    I do not much care for the style of the rules writing, and there are quite a few things I think could do with improvement — as has been mentioned AFVs and heavy weapons are not integrated well — but the basic idea of the rules is utterly brilliant, and quite unlike any other set I have seen. Because each side is essentially allowed to do what they like until they fail in an attempted action, the kind of tactical behaviour rewarded is entirely different from most wargames. In “Crossfire”, unusually, it is necessary to maintain an all-round defence, and you are rewarded, rather than punished, for keeping a reserve. In terms of tactics, I’d say it is probably the most convincing representation of low-level infantry combat I have seen, and I don’t understand why there isn’t a huge family of derivative games stealing the brilliant basic idea and polishing up the other bits.

    By all means give them a go, and see if you can design something using the same basic “keep going until you can’t” sequence of play.

    All the best,


    Avatar photoian pillay


    its my go to WWII rules, I love em. Mainly play solo but sometimes with my little boy. They are really easy to get into and at first read seem simple, but they have some great depth to them. As those have said you need a good amount of terrain to play however if you check out wargaming with Maximus Gluteus blog – http://mgluteus.blogspot.com/search/label/Crossfire

    he has some nice small table scenarios that don’t have loads of terrain and in all fairness play really well.

    dust them off and give them a whirl, you will not be disappointed.



    Tally-Ho! Check out my blog at…..

    Avatar photoDave Whitehouse

    Very good game that, despite its abstractions simulates the problems of company level combat at the sharp end. The armour rules are the weak point. I used to play a lot. You need to take time to learn the subtlety. It’s different with a good narrative.

    Avatar photoDon Glewwe

    As mentioned, because LOS and movement is governed by terrain features, breaking up the table with lots of them is important.


    I use the ‘cloth-over-stuff’ style of table to provide contour lines. I add pipe cleaners and/or floral wire (different sizes) to represent the folds, depressions, and /or ridgelines that are often left off the usual ‘billiard table’ tabletop landscape – this satisfies the requirement for lots of features with a more ‘realistic’ look (imo -it’s all personal taste, of course).

    Along the same lines, make up large(r) sections of wood with a few smaller bits between which LOS and movement is interrupted. Anything, really, to keep a player from leaping across the table in two or three bounds.

    Avatar photoMartinR

    I’ve played a fair bit of Crossfire over the years. The standard game uses sections as the element with platoons as the manouvre unit and is aimed at company to battalion sized actions.

    Some variants drop a scale.

    As John notes, it is a bit ropey in places but tbh it is the only game I’ve ever played which comes even close to replicating to my experience of playing at soldiers at 1:1 scale. Tactical combat is really hard to simulate, but this comes very close.

    If you don’t like having to concentrate all the time or hate inituative based activation systems, it won’t be for you.

    A more structure alternative is Fireball Forward.

    "Mistakes in the initial deployment cannot be rectified" - Helmuth von Moltke

Viewing 12 posts - 1 through 12 (of 12 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.