Crossfire Multi-Player Suggestions

	Multi-Player Crossfire Suggestions
	Split Game	Multiple Turnover

Although Crossfire's unique mechanics give the absolute best WWII gaming experience possible for its level of representation (1 stand = 1 squad), it is designed for one on one play, ie, one player per side. This aspect of the rules design is stated by Arty Conliffe on page 44 of the rules: "Crossfire is designed for two opposing players. Multi-player games are possible with the current method but sometimes a player is left out of the action for a length of time." He then presents a method of conducting multi-player games, which I will not describe here as it is in the rule book (plus I want to avoid being accused of web publishing a copyright set of rules!).
We followed this multi-player approach for several years for many of our games. While it worked, what we found over time was that players would often be afraid to take risks in their actions for fear of "messing things up for someone else". For example, in one of the Nikopol refights from Christmas 2001, the Soviet force had three players. One player's forces got into an intense engagement with the Germans on the Soviet right flank. While the other Soviet players were encountering Germans, the action on the right was so close and tense (in the most classic Crossfire way) that they were terrified of doing something that would leave their team mate at a great disadvantage should the Germans seize the initiative. Thus the centre and left flank Soviets kept performing "safe" moves that incurred no risk or simply passed. While the action on the right was very cool, this left two Soviet players and the German player (there were two Germans) whose defending forces were opposing the attacking Soviets more or less twiddling their thumbs.
Another disadvantage of the Crossfire published method of multi-player games is that sometimes players, especially those who are veteran CF players, complained that it broke up the flow of the action too much.
We eventually came to the conclusion that we needed a multi-player method that retained the breathlessly exciting flow a one on one Crossfire game gives. After a fair bit of play testing and development, we have settled on two methods for multi-player Crossfire which I will describe below. The split game method requires considerable preparation, while the multiple turnover method is great for pick up games and is my current favourite multi-player method.
Split Game Approach (Back to Top)
This approach is best described as two or more separate "normal" (ie, one on one games) Crossfire games being conducted at the same time. I actually developed this approach before we decided the published multi-player method needed improvement. My requirement was to find a motive for players not to immediately call reinforcements a scenario might have designated for them. In other words, I wanted them to think like a commander - might there be consequences if I call reinforcements now? Should I call them all? Do I want to commit all my reserves?
Essentially, as already mentioned, this involves running separate games at the same time. There should be an overall scenario background to the games. This would involve saying the games are all part of one overall battle taking place but the actual games are taking place at separate geographical areas in the battle. As per my original requirement, in the scenario, you can specify a set of reserve units which are available to all games. Thus, you will have two teams composed of players all playing individual one on one games. Victory conditions can be specified by individual game which contribute to an overall team victory condition.
The actions represented by the games could be separated by many kilometers or be taking place close by each other. However, generally, you want to have the games pretty much isolated from each other. You could say there are heavy woods, swamp or some other terrain intervening between games or even be relying upon orders that have been issued which assign and restrict separate forces (ie, the players on the attacking side) to specific axis of advance. This is actually very common in my service experience and it is widely acknowledged that if you do stray across boundaries (which may be marked by a road, contours, woods, etc) you run a very high risk of falling victim to friendly fire. In Exercise Cyber Sapper, a split game with two tables, there was a "notional" centre force.
Despite the above cautions to separate the games, you can allow some sort of limited crossover to make things interesting. Some examples from games I've run include: A road through a heavy woods that joins two tables. Dismounted troops which set off down the road might take two initiatives (or you can use a variety of the moving clock from Hit the Dirt) to reach the other table, while slow vehicles could take one initiative, fast vehicles perhaps arrive on the same initiative). Only one side might know about the road joining the games, or maybe both do. A variation of the above is to have neither side know about a "secret passage" or unmapped path through to the other geographic area. You can pass a note to a player whose stands might be near such... "your troops beside the water tower see a path going off to the East which is not on their map - let me know by a note if you want them to reconnoiter it". One or more high features that allow miniatures to "see" and draw a LOS to another table. This could be used by a FO that might be with just one force's table and not any of the others so that he can direct indirect fire to the other game. Another thing that might be possible is to allow direct fire from one table to another, with some appropriate modifier to take into account the much longer range. With the ranges I use in my house rules, I often simply say "measure the range and add...". In such a situation, however, don't bother to try and coordinate passage of time or even coordination of who has initiative with other tables. It's too hard. Just allow the player who has forces on the hill to be able to conduct phasing fire as he wishes, regardless of who has the initiative on the other table(s). Similarly, when that player is non-phasing and the enemy on another table is moving, reactive fire could be conducted. Use your imagination.
Don't bother with trying to coordinate initiatives or time with other tables. It really is too hard a task. For the most part, the games are going to be self-contained, the variations above notwithstanding. Crossfire's abstract time scale as an event based game makes justifying not coordinating time easy.
For games which have a "reinforcement pool", you should specify that reinforcements called for one table are committed to that table only and cannot be called by any other table. In general, once a force commits itself to an attack or battle, it takes a fair bit of re-organization afterward to be pulled out and sent to another area. While this happens, of course, I think within the context of the time frame involved with the Crossfire split table games justifies such a restriction. Reinforcements are not necessary (or you can have some game specific reinforcements) but they add to the "team feeling" of the overall activity.
Except for consultation on reinforcements, you will undoubtedly find players don't pay any attention to other games beside their own. That is the nature of the intensity of a good Crossfire game! Even when you have some crossover features in the scenario (see above), players will rarely talk to each other. What you might wish to do is forbid players to talk to players on the same side in another game unless a radio check is conducted. I usually allow a player to roll for this at the beginning of his initiaitive (if he has no desire to talk to other players, then it's not necessary), but at no other time. If the radio check is successful, I allow the player who made the check 2 minutes to interrupt another game to talk to one of his team mates. Such communication might be necessary if someone is desperate for scarce reinforcements, has found a "secret pathway", or needs some supporting artillery or direct fire!
See the WWII game account for 22 May 1940, the Day after Arras for a good example of a split game. Click on the link where it says "A 'Split Game' Scenario" for details of how reinforcements were dealt with in this game.
One thing should be kept in mind for the split game approach, however. There should be an overall referee (though a creative and clearly specified scenario might be able to be conducted without one). Especially if you have inexperienced players involved, the referee could be in for a tremendous headache keeping track of things going on in multiple games. If both players in a game are inexperienced, a separate referee should be made available. Split games are a great experience, but can be exhausting for the referee.
A final caution on scenario design for split games. I'm sure many scenario designers have experienced one of their games coming to an unexpected end far more quickly than they expected or dragging on for far longer than planned. Much of such experiences have to do with the players but can also be due to inexperience with setting up the scenario or the all important layout of a Crossfire wargames table (terrain placement is crucial to a successful CF game). Sometimes you may find one of the games in your split game scenario might come to an end far more quickly than the others.
By the way, the split game approach is not a strictly Crossfire only approach. It can surely be adapted to many different systems. One project I've been wanting to do for a long time in our US Civil War games is to have a naval and a land game going simultaneously. Obviously two separate scales and rule systems. A spit of land in a 1/600 scale naval game might represent part of the battlefield in a 20mm land game. When ships come within range of the feature in their game, ship to shore cannon fire could be conducted.
Multiple Turnover Approach (Back to Top)
This approach took some development and was first used in a Torch landing game. It has since proven a very good method and avoids the choppiness and hesitation which the published multi-player method tends to produce. I originally came up with the method for 2 on 2 games and with the intention that both sides have the same number of players. However, it has been successfully used in 2 on 1 games (play as if one player only - see below - The 2 on 1 games were played in the recent Crossfire Competition), so it appears to work with differing numbers of players on both sides (so far).
It is a very simple method. Forces are divided as appropriate between the players on a side. The side with the initiative proceeds, with player one performing one or as many actions as he wishes. An overall commander or, as we usually play, a consensus between players on a side, decides when the current player stops his actions for the next player to proceed. Players on the side alternate, performing as many actions as they (or the commander) feels necessary before passing the reigns to their partner. The players continue back and forth until an action fails - see below.
When a player is stopped (suppressed by reactive fire or fails an action), the side makes a decision - pass the initiative immediately or let the remaining player(s) continue with their own actions until they are stopped. If the latter is chosen, ALL NO FIRES ON THE NON-PHASING SIDE ARE REMOVED before carrying on. While it may not appear obvious on reading, there do occasionally [changed from "often" 8)] occur occasions when a side may choose to pass on the initiative to the other side when one of its players is stopped rather than face the possible wrath of "renewed"non-phasing forces reactive fire!