Profile Photo

WorldWarWeald

  • Public Group
  • 4 days, 9 hours ago
  • 59

    Posts

  • 6

    Members

Rules Discussion

Activity Forums WealdWar2 Rules Discussion

2 voices
6 replies
  • Author
    Posts
    • #285
      Julian
      Keymaster

      A personal favorite of mine would be a Crossfire variant adapted and simplified for 1:1 skirmish with firearms. This could be a settings-agnostic rule set.

      Why Crossfire (check on BoardGameGeek)? Crossfire is fast, has low complexity and is easy to learn. The most interesting part is that it doesn’t have the usual sequential turns which provides you with a completely different perspective and different ways of playing.

    • #286
      Julian
      Keymaster

      For those playing with the adapted rule set it is not necessary to know the original Crossfire rules.

    • #287
      Devour The Kaiju
      Participant

      I still need to check out the crossfire rules – however, they sound exciting. As for a skirmish game – I quite like the idea of 2 squads (5-6 ‘troops’) per team, with some various types of roles – these could be the classic WW2 roles – Infantrymen, Sapper, Radio Expert, Medic and Officer – each with their own special abilities.

      On the opposite side – I think the ‘Gnarl’ infected will have to have some sort melee based combat, traps and also some ranged, and some tanky monsters. (Similar to the Weald28 ruleset)

      For the ‘Diesel Punk’ part – we can have ‘tanks / mechs’ that have their own abilities – and the Gnarl ones can be infected – mechs animated by the fungal and rooting growths of the Gnarl blight!

    • #289
      Julian
      Keymaster

      I was already re-reading the rules and multiple options on how to approach it came to my mind. I would like to suggest to start with “the simplest way with the smallest possible rule set first”.
      No need to worry about factions and specials for the beginning. We could test the basic mechanisms of movement and firing. When they proof playable we’d add the next part.
      Crossfire already has some concepts for party setups, costs, modifiers and special stuff and I think they map smoothly to almost any skirmish setting with fire arms.

      The game dynamics work best with a lot of terrain. For a company-sized Crossfire game we usually had 95% of the table covered in terrain.

      Where to start
      Both sides have one group of 3 plus 1 leader (regular troop types w/ rifle, leader has +1 to rally, all have the “begin movement within LOS” rule).

      • #303
        Devour The Kaiju
        Participant

        Ok, good approach.

        So, just to imagine how a game would play in the simplest of terms (all speculative)

        – Play area is determined – with lots of terrain
        – Players roll off to decide who deploys first (this can change in various scenarios / game types)
        – Troops are deployed in squads ( 3 plus 1 leader to start with)
        – Players roll off to determine who goes first – the winner may decide to pass the first turn, assuming the first turn is a movement (this can change in various scenarios / game types)

        – Player 1 (the Phasing Player) – declares he is moving Squad 1 – to a determined ‘covered position / behind terrain’
        – Player 2 – Can declare a reaction – if the troops are in line of sight (LOS) – if the ‘interrupt’ is successful – the ‘Phasing player’ is now player 2 – if not, Player 1, continues with their next action.

        So I suppose we want to determine the basic actions – and attempt to strip out the complex Crossfire ones – that increase complexity, and are a bit cumbersome. Essentially we want to keep the momentum of battle, and fun!

        Crossfire ‘Actions’
        Move
        Retreat Move
        Ground Hugging / Standing Up
        Direct Fire / Recon Fire
        Rally
        Indirect Fire / Recon By Fire

        I’d like to add some sort of covering fire manoeuvre – that potentially splits up your team – acting as a risk vs reward.
        Half the squad moves – other half covers fire (potential for fail) Other half moves – first half covers fire (potential for fail) – however this should be a safer move, if the enemy has LOS

        We may also need to determine alternative ‘actions’ per faction – can’t see Gnarl infected / zombies being very safe, and trying to avoid fire – so they should have an advantage to movement / being shot at. But can’t ‘Hit the deck’ etc

        (Copy/Paste and Edit above as you see fit Julian, no doubt there are some parts I’ve got wrong!)

      • #304
        Julian
        Keymaster

        “I’d like to add some sort of covering fire manoeuvre – that potentially splits up your team – acting as a risk vs reward.
        Half the squad moves – other half covers fire (potential for fail) Other half moves – first half covers fire (potential for fail) – however this should be a safer move, if the enemy has LOS”

        That could be covered already: if you suppress a target successfully in your action the very next action could be to move other miniatures through the now “unprotected” gap. I suggest we improvise a game on a miro board so that I can show you the basic mechanisms.

    • #317
      Julian
      Keymaster

      In crossfire some actions are limited per initiative, like calling in heavy artillery once per initiative. Also officially a tank has only one action per initiative. In our house rules we increased the number of actions for a tank but still kept the fastness of the game. The first action was for free, the second failed with a die roll of 6, the third with a roll of 5 or 6, and so on.
      I think we should – rather than having powerful free action – introduce an increase in limited actions per initiative.
      So for the Japanese sapper example something like: calling in artillery generally is limited to once per initiative. But the Japanese sapper could call in artillery twice per initiative.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Groups