Inlay

Tabletop wargaming has long struggled with visual spectacle and mechanical clarity, and few topics highlight that tension more clearly than the use of tokens, markers, and tabletop gaming aids. In todays video, I take a closer look at whether these tools enhance or detract from the immersive experience that draws so many hobbyists into miniature wargaming in the first place. The discussion originates from a viewer who observed that early photo's of playtesting of our 1812 Retreat from Moscow rules introduced a range of counters and markers onto the tabletop. While entirely functional, it was noted that these elements sometimes “spoil the visual effect of the armies.” That observation opens up a much wider question that that I wanted to discuss today: how much visual clutter is too much? So today I briefly discuss some of the major categories of wargaming tokens used across historical and skirmish systems. These include casualty and wound tracking markers, activation and turn order counters, status and condition effects such as pinned or suppressed, and tactical resource tokens like command points or ammunition tracking. Each serves a practical function, reducing bookkeeping and helping players manage increasingly complex rule systems without constantly referencing notes or rosters. These markers can enhance gameplay, but with a visual trade-off. Historical wargaming is built on atmosphere, with painted miniatures, carefully crafted terrain, and cinematic table layouts forming a key part of the hobby experience. When that battlefield becomes crowded with brightly coloured counters and reminders, some of the illusion can be lost. The question is not whether tokens are useful (they clearly are) but whether their implementation can be improved. The video also explores practical solutions for hobbyists who want both clarity and aesthetics. One approach is integrating tokens into the visual language of the table itself. Instead of generic plastic markers, players can use scenic elements such as equipment piles, smoke effects, terrain-integrated counters, or themed objective markers. These subtle changes can preserve immersion while still providing the clarity needed for smooth gameplay.

In this video, we explore a surprisingly divisive topic in tabletop historical wargaming: tokens, markers, and tabletop clutter. Inspired by a viewer comment on 1812: The Retreat from Moscow – A Battle Chronicle Wargame, we dive into whether cards, dice, activation counters, wound markers, and condition tokens enhance gameplay or spoil the visual spectacle of beautifully painted miniatures. Are these essential tools for tracking complex game states, or do they break immersion on an otherwise cinematic battlefield? We break down the main types of wargaming tokens, from casualty tracking and activation markers to hidden movement and resource management, and discuss how they shape modern rule design. Finally, we look at creative ways to integrate tokens into terrain so they enhance rather than disrupt the tabletop experience. Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-OyOZpU-R7PNBOFwP4mu3g/join

What comes first when starting a new historical wargaming project: the rules or the armies? It's a simple question that sparked an interesting line of thought on my channel after viewer Terry Warden asked whether most historical wargamers choose a ruleset first and then build their armies to match, or collect and paint their armies before looking for suitable rules. The more I thought about it, the more I realised that there isn't a single answer and that different hobbyists approach new projects in very different ways. In this week's video, I explore three common approaches to starting a historical wargaming project. Some gamers begin with a set of rules. They want to know exactly how armies are organised, how many miniatures they need, and what basing system will be required before buying a single figure. Others take the opposite route, collecting and painting the armies that inspire them before worrying about how they will be used on the tabletop. Then there are gamers like me, who usually start with a particular historical period and scale before asking what rules are available. Along the way, I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, the importance of basing decisions, the influence of local gaming clubs, and why enthusiasm for a particular period often outweighs careful planning. I also consider whether there is such a thing as a "normal" way to start a historical army collection, or whether the diversity of approaches reflects the broad appeal of the historical wargaming hobby itself.

What is the most common tactic used by tabletop wargamers, and does it actually reflect the reality of historical warfare? In this video, I explore the attempted outflank, arguably the most frequently used manoeuvre in miniature wargaming. Whether you're a historical wargamer, tabletop gamer, miniatures painter, or military history enthusiast, we'll look at why players instinctively try to overwhelm one wing, pin the enemy frontally, and sweep around the flank. We'll also compare these tabletop tactics with famous battles from history and ask whether wargamers are recreating genuine military principles or simply exploiting the nature of the gaming table. Join the discussion and share your own experiences from the battlefield. Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-OyOZpU-R7PNBOFwP4mu3g/join

A few nights ago, Ray and I got together with Paul Brooks from Pazoot for one final chat about our recently published campaign book, 1812: The Retreat from Moscow – A Battle Chronicle Wargame. Rather than discussing the rules themselves, we spent some time reflecting on the journey that took the project from a slightly mad idea to a finished publication. We talked about where the concept came from, how it evolved during development, the challenges we encountered along the way, and the many rounds of playtesting that helped shape the final product. It was an enjoyable opportunity to look back on a project that has occupied a significant amount of our time over the last few months and to share some of the behind-the-scenes stories that never quite make it into the finished rulebook. I appreciate that this is rather different from my usual video content. It's longer, more informal, and much more of a relaxed conversation than a scripted hobby discussion. However, I thought some viewers might find it interesting to hear about the realities of taking a wargaming project from initial concept through to publication. One final apology: the video and audio quality are a little rough around the edges. The discussion was recorded over Google Meet, so it's not quite up to the usual production standards. Still, hopefully the content makes up for the occasional technical wobble. If you've ever wondered what goes into creating a wargame publication, or you're interested in the story behind 1812: The Retreat from Moscow, I hope you enjoy the conversation.

The Posties Rejects were back at the Broadside Wargames Show today, hosted by the Milton Hundreds Wargaming Club. Broadside has become a regular fixture in our calendar and we make a point of putting on a participation game every year. We all take turns bringing games to the show, and this year it was Ray and I who had the pleasure of collaborating on a project that has occupied a great deal of our hobby time over the last couple of years. Today we finally got our 28mm Retreat from Moscow collection onto the table in all its wintery glory. Even better, at the end of the day we were absolutely delighted to be awarded Best in Show. Needless to say, we're both over the moon. The Battle of Berezina, November 1812 Our game recreated part of the Battle of Berezina, fought between 26 and 29 November 1812 during the catastrophic retreat of Napoleon's Grande Armée from Russia. To understand why Berezina became such a desperate struggle, we need to go back to June 1812 when Napoleon launched his invasion of Russia. Around 600,000 men crossed the frontier in what remains one of the largest military operations in history. The intention was to force Russia back into compliance with the Continental System and strengthen French dominance across Europe. The Russians, however, refused to fight the decisive battle Napoleon wanted. Instead, they retreated deeper into their vast territory, destroying food, supplies and shelter as they went. The strategy forced the French to advance ever further from their supply lines while finding less and less to live on. The two armies finally met at Borodino on 7 September. The battle was a French tactical victory, but it came at an enormous cost, with roughly 70,000 casualties suffered between the two sides in a single day. More importantly, the Russian army survived intact and withdrew in good order. A week later Napoleon entered Moscow expecting Tsar Alexander I to seek terms. Instead, much of the city was destroyed by fire and the Tsar refused to negotiate. After waiting more than a month in the ruins, Napoleon finally ordered a retreat. What followed was one of history's great military disasters. Forced back along the same devastated route his army had already stripped bare, Napoleon's troops faced starvation, disease, exhaustion, relentless Cossack attacks and an unusually early Russian winter. By mid-November the remnants of the Grande Armée had reached Smolensk only to discover that its supplies were already exhausted. Worse still, several Russian armies were converging to cut off their escape. The Crossing of the Berezina By late November Napoleon's army found itself trapped against the Berezina River. The main bridge at Borisov had been seized by Russian forces under Admiral Pavel Chichagov, while other Russian armies closed in from different directions. The situation looked hopeless. Napoleon responded with one of the most impressive deception operations of his career, convincing the Russians that he intended to cross further south. Meanwhile, French engineers identified a crossing point near the village of Studienka. Under the leadership of General Jean-Baptiste Eblé, several hundred Dutch pontonniers entered the freezing, ice-filled water and constructed two temporary bridges. Working chest-deep in near-impossible conditions, they made the crossing possible at the cost of their own lives. Most would die from exposure and hypothermia in the days that followed. As French troops crossed the river, Russian forces attacked from both sides. On the western bank, Marshals Oudinot and Ney fought desperately to keep the escape route open. On the eastern bank, Marshal Victor's IX Corps formed a rearguard and held off the advancing Russians while tens of thousands of stragglers, wounded soldiers and civilians struggled towards the bridges. It was this desperate eastern-bank action that we chose to recreate at Broadside. The fighting was brutal. Artillery pounded the French positions while Victor's outnumbered troops fought to buy time for those attempting to escape. By the morning of 29 November, Napoleon ordered the bridges destroyed to prevent pursuit. Thousands who had failed to cross were abandoned to their fate. Although Napoleon escaped, the cost was horrific. Between 20,000 and 25,000 French combat troops were lost, along with perhaps another 20,000 stragglers who were killed, captured or drowned. Russian losses were also severe, but they had failed to achieve their ultimate objective of trapping Napoleon himself. The crossing saved the Emperor and his surviving officer corps, but the Grande Armée was effectively destroyed. Of the approximately 600,000 men who had marched into Russia in June, fewer than 40,000 effective soldiers emerged from the campaign six months later. It remains one of the greatest military catastrophes in history. The Game For the game itself we used our collection of 28mm Napoleonic miniatures to recreate the desperate struggle on the eastern bank of the Berezina. The figures are primarily from Perry Miniatures and Front Rank Miniatures, supplemented by miniatures from Wargames Foundry, North Star, Essex and Murawski Miniatures. The ruined buildings are from Charlie Foxtrot Models, now part of the Blotz range. One of the centrepieces of the table was the Berezina itself. Special thanks must go to Last Valley, who produced the river sections and bridge to our specifications and helped bring the battlefield to life. Rules-wise, we used a large-battle adaptation of Sharp Practice. Rather than activating individual Groups, we activated entire Brigades, allowing the game to flow more smoothly while still retaining the character and decision-making that makes Sharp Practice such an enjoyable set of rules. The result was exactly what we had hoped for: a visually impressive table, a game that played well throughout the day, and plenty of opportunities to talk to visitors about both the history and the hobby. A Wonderful End to the Day Putting on a display game always involves a considerable investment of time and effort. There are miniatures to paint, terrain to build, research to undertake, rules to adapt and countless practical details to organise before a single dice is rolled. That's part of the fun, of course, but it makes recognition from fellow gamers especially rewarding. So to be awarded Best in Show was a fantastic surprise and a wonderful way to end the day. Many thanks to the Milton Hundreds Wargaming Club for hosting another excellent Broadside show, to everyone who stopped by the table to chat, ask questions or roll a few dice, and to all the traders, clubs and participants who helped make the event such an enjoyable day. As for the Rejects, we're already discussing what we might bring next year. Though for the moment, we're still enjoying the glow of a hard-earned win.

After months of research, playtesting, writing, rewriting and refining, 1812: The Retreat from Moscow – A Battle Chronicle Wargame is finally available. In this special designer discussion, Paul Brook, Ray Rousell and I sit down for an unscripted conversation about the journey from initial concept to published campaign book. We discuss the challenges of designing a narrative skirmish wargame set during Napoleon's disastrous retreat from Moscow, balancing historical authenticity with enjoyable gameplay, developing linked scenarios, playtesting, miniature collections, and the realities of bringing a historical wargaming project to market. If you're interested in tabletop wargame design, historical gaming, Napoleonic warfare, campaign systems, miniature wargaming or the creative process behind published rules, this behind-the-scenes discussion offers an honest look at what it takes to turn an idea into a finished product. Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-OyOZpU-R7PNBOFwP4mu3g/join

Have you ever wondered what comes first when starting a new historical wargaming project? Do you choose a set of rules and build your armies to match, or do you collect, paint, and base your miniatures first before searching for the perfect ruleset? In this week's hobby discussion, inspired by a question from viewer Terry Warden, I explore the different ways historical wargamers approach new projects. From rules-first planning to armies-first collecting, and the period-first approach that I personally favour, we'll look at what drives project choices across the tabletop wargaming hobby. Whether you're into historical wargaming, miniature painting, army building, basing miniatures, or researching military history, join the conversation and share your own approach. Join this channel to get access to perks: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC-OyOZpU-R7PNBOFwP4mu3g/join