CoC compared to Crossfire

Moderators: Vis Bellica, Laffe

Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Apr 19, 2016 7:49 pm

Re: CoC compared to Crossfire

Post by Munin »

Given that I have small children and it's hard to carve out time for gaming, one of the things I like best about CoC is how well it supports solo-play. Because activations are governed by the Command Dice, you don't know going in what you'll be able to do in the next phase. This uncertainty is great. CoC is the only ruleset I've ever seen where I been able to legitimately ambush myself and be able to honestly say, "wow, I did NOT see that coming."

User avatar
Posts: 458
Joined: Tue Sep 10, 2013 1:17 pm
Location: Cambridge, UK

Re: CoC compared to Crossfire

Post by SteveBurt »

the initiative system makes for very exciting games.
You worry about visibility and how to suppress the enemy, not game things
The 'Hit the Dirt' scenarios are superb
The initiative system can sometimes lead to really gamey stuff as an entire attacking force redeploys through a newly created hole.
The game can sometimes bog down into indecisive firefights.
Armour is not well handled
You can lose due to bad luck (HMGs going no fire and so forth)

Chain of Command:
Lots of interesting tactical decisions
The tactical doctrine of different armies is really well modelled
You worry about visibility and how to suppress the enemy, not game things
Patrol phase and jump-off points are brilliant
Armour well integrated into the game system
Some players seem to suffer from analysis paralysis
You can lose due to bad luck (opponent gets many phases in a row)
Platoons with 6 command dice sort of break the game (there are workarounds).

OT Tom
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Feb 20, 2017 8:50 pm

Re: CoC compared to Crossfire

Post by OT Tom »

Hello Everyone,

I just thought I'd let you all know that based on the M&M podcast planting the idea then we'll reasoned arguments from you all I picked up a copy of CoC from Hammerhead. Not had a chance to dive into it yet, trying to stay focused on Dux for now, but I've no doubt it won't take long lol.

Thank you all for your comments.

Posts: 1
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2019 1:46 am

Re: CoC compared to Crossfire

Post by bh78401 »

I think this discussion has actually made me choose crossfire over CoC.

User avatar
Posts: 1035
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2015 3:57 am
Location: Sydney, Australia

Re: CoC compared to Crossfire

Post by MLB »

All good, whatever works for you, I enjoyed Crossfire it’s a very innovative system.
The Tactical Painter
Painting little soldiers for tactical battles on the table top

Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Mar 03, 2014 8:10 pm

Re: CoC compared to Crossfire

Post by donglewwe »

Like others, I do both - 15mm CoC and 6mm CF. They scratch different command/battle itches, so I don't see them as competing with each other.

I also have IABSM, and have only held off play due to basing...stupid, admittedly, but that's where I sit (in my 50-deg F cellar) where I'm concentrating on getting as much of my CoC backlog into play.

This is an old thread, so is subject to...stuff.

IMHO, The command challenge desired is the driving force when it comes to choosing a set of rules. Chestnuts (if I understand the concept), I know.
What a (potential) gamer wants to know is: Will this game give me a set of choices that I feel represents/fulfills my idea of what a commander in that time/space would face? Or not...I may be wrong.

chris cornwell
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Apr 24, 2017 4:33 pm
Location: Richmond, Surrey

Re: CoC compared to Crossfire

Post by chris cornwell »

In a roundabout way, Crossfire led me to CoC.
I’ve played a fair bit of CF. One of my long-term, lifelong wargaming and life in general chums is a man called John Lander who was (is) the bloke who pushed Crossfire to its absolute envelope, he is the guy who some may remember did the Market - Garden on a 70’ + long table using crossfire at Salute (IN 1/35TH scale, using about 700 figures and 100 vehicles) a few years ago- he also did a few other games of awesome ambition both in terms of modelling and just the scope of pushing a rule-set to its limits and getting away with it. Anyway, so, in short, I got to play a lot of Crossfire in his wargames shed up in Cambridge over the years.
The only thing I ever really found a problem with was Crossfire’s overall unsuitability for multi-player games. We managed ok with John’s games, due to a combination of not playing with twats, his force of personality, and generally always having half-decent umpiring/scenario design, but in the end, crossfire just isn’t that great for everyone for big, multi-player games. I wanted to get a good rule-set which would achieve this, and yet still retained the small unit tactic feel of crossfire. So, I ended up trying to do what Pretty much every WWII wargamer does at some point, which is write my own set.
I wanted a set of rules that retained the small-unit feel of CF, and yet could be used for multiple players a side, and was a bit more friendly than CF, with a more modern, activation approach.
After about 18 months, about the best thing about my rules was probably the working title, which was “Chrisfire” (I quite liked that). However, I wasn’t really getting very far.
Then one day, I found CoC, and then Big CoC.
I thought:
“That was bloody waste of 18 months, this Clarke geezer has already written what I was trying to write”.

User avatar
Posts: 166
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 9:36 pm
Location: Sacriston, County Durham

Re: CoC compared to Crossfire

Post by Nellkyn »

Small world! I played in Mister Lander's Market Garden game. I hate to day this but it was more than a few years ago. Where does the time go?

Post Reply