Background:
I've played quite a few games of Crossfire (CF) both per the rules as well as
using various 1:1 tweaks. I find the games to be very dynamic and fun. CF
seems to generate two responses among people who try it out. You either get
"Love It!" or "Hate It!" I love it.
For those who have not played CF the basic concept of the rules is that you
continue performing actions until you fail at something or are suppressed with
reactive fire. "Failure" typically means you
tried to roll to un-pinn or un-suppress one of your stands and failed
to do so. Other sorts of failure include failing to score a suppression on an
enemy stand when you fire. There are other sorts of "failure" but you get the
idea.
Reactive fire occurs while you are moving. If an enemy stand can draw LOS to
your stand as it moves the enemy may open fire on you. If the enemy fire
results in a suppression your stand stops where it is and initiative passes to
your opponent. Initiative flips back and forth between the players until the
scenario objectives are complete.
The Question:
If you were to apply this concept (which I'll call "momentum" for the time
being) to SG2 how would you do it?
Would you perform single actions with your squads until the opponent does
something for initiative to pass?
Would you keep the game as-is and allow the activating squad the
ability to make a motivation check to continue performing additional actions?
If this motivation check fails the game passes to your opponent...., etc.
D.
I think that the Crossfire concept of Movement/Initiative/Interruption
should work well enough.
IMHO I think you could still carry on with the Single action for each squad as
that very much equates to the actions in Crossfire.
Loss of Initiative and Reactive Fire are the two elements that is the basis of
the game mechanism in Crossfire. Failure to get a Suppression in Direct Fire
results in loss, as does fail to Rally. In Stargrunt would this equate to No
Casualties or perhaps a result of Potential Casualties but doesn't matter if
you cause the casualties?
For the other player I think you would need to permit continuous Reactive Fire
but how to represent the No Fire result if the reacting unit fails to get a
PIN?
The other major feature element of Crossfire is the "no ruler" concept. That
is there is no limit to movement and no range restrictions on most weapons. As
you mentioned Initiative is lost once the activating player has failed in some
task and that includes Suppressing an enemy in ranged fire or losing a close
combat. Implications to Stargrunt? Well, on a 6' x 4' playing area with
reasonable amount of terrain most troops are within at least extreme range so
the range comparison shouldn't cause us too much issue.
Overall I think a few playtest games would sort out a few kinks but on first
impressino I think it might work very well indeed!
Good catch Damo!
Owen
> -----Original Message-----
Owen Glover schrieb:
> I think that the Crossfire concept of Movement/Initiative/Interruption
I too like Crossfire, but there is one point that should be borne in mind when
thinking about such a mechanism. It is not well suited to a
multi-player game, as there tend to be long phases where most players do
not have much to do.
Greetings Karl Heinz
Karl,
I have to agree with you there, however, this issue affects many rules systems
that we've played at our club; Stargrunt, Crossfire, Disposable Heroes, Flames
of War, Warhammer Ancients......, unless you come up with an in house
mechanism to deal with it I pretty mcuh think it will affect any basic game
system.
Certain scenarios can be like that too; Defense Attacks games for example
where a static defense results in much activity by the assaulting force with
often not a lot happening by the defender until he
commits reserves/counter attacks.
Still, I always thought that the vehicle rules let Crossfire down. Add the
move mechansim to Stargrunt and you pick up an excellent ranged fire and
vehicle rules!
Cross-Grunt anyone? Er.. Star-Fire I think is already taken....
Owen
> -----Original Message-----
_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-lOn Feb
> 5, 2008 1:48 AM, K.H.Ranitzsch <kh.ranitzsch@t-online.de> wrote:
> I too like Crossfire, but there is one point that should be borne in
That is *very* true but can be mitigated through scenario design. I've run
games with as many as six players on a side using a chess clock (say giving 1
hour to the attacker and 2 hours to the defender or sometimes 2 hours each). A
chess clock and Crossfire is a combination that is just meant to be.
D.