Counterattack at Bir Kalifa

Peter, at Grid Based Wargaming..., among all of his other wargaming irons in the fire, has been looking for a ruleset to bring his 6mm WWII collection back to the table.  The rules currently under review are Lock n Load Publishing's Tank on Tank WestFront.  Despite the title, Peter commandeered these rules straight away and pushed them to the Western Desert.

Since the rules are downloadable from the publisher's website and only contain a handful of pages in length, I was able to read through the rules and familiarize myself with both rules and Peter's scenario beforehand.  With the rules being simple and geared toward fast play, Peter guessed that we would get in two games into our allotted gaming session.  He was right!  

For Game #1, I took command of the counterattacking Afrika Corps near Bir Kalifa.  The German objective was to either destroy every Allied unit on table or exit three units off Allied side of the table within nine turns.

Let's see how I did internalizing the rules and bringing that cursory knowledge to the table.  Germans are attacking from left to right.  

At start deployments with Allies holding the high ground.

Germans make a general advance toward the road and Bir Kalifa.
Wespe is positioned on the high ground to the rear.

As the Germans gain the road,
they attack one of the Grants set up in the broken ground.
Combined arms destroys the Grant!
Oh! This is a bloody and unforgiving game!

The remaining Grant on the Allied right engages a Pz III,
The German is destroyed.
The German righthand brigade shifts farther to the right.

As artillery supports coordinated attack against the remaining Grant,
two A13 Cruisers shift out to the right. 
In heated battles, the Grant is destroyed as is a PZ III.
On the German Right, a pair of Grants pulverizes a Pz IV.
The Germans lose an HQ in this attack but one of
the Pz IVs swings around to flank the enemy position.

Having knocked out two units to one in the previous turn
and seeing reinforcements trickling onto the battlefield,
the Allies counterattack the PZ IV on the road.
With artillery support from the newly arrived Bishop,
the Pz IV is destroyed. 

Action is furious in the center!
The Germans lose another Pz III on the road while the Allies
lose both an A13 and another Grant!

Desperate fighting continues!
Germans lose another Pz III in the center as the German 
flanking attack sends another Grant to the Dead Pile!

That was the end of Turn 8 of nine turns.  Scanning the battlefield and seeing armored rubble strewn everywhere and no way to either eliminate the remaining Allied tanks or exit three units off the table, the Germans call off the counterattack.

Victory to Peter and the Allies!

Wow!  What a bloody and unforgiving game!  There is little subtly here.  You are either dead or alive.  Unfortunately for my German attacking column, most were in the Dead Pile.  At the end of battle, the Germans still had two Pz IIIs and the Wespe.  The Allies could still field two A13s and the Bishop.  Peter presented an impossible task for the German last turn.  Congratulations, Peter.  Well done!

That was Game #1.  For Game #2, we reset the table and swapped sides.  Think I performed any better in Game #2 with the shoe on the other foot?  Well, that is tale for another time.  Perhaps not told by me!

Thank you, Peter, for an entertaining session!

Back to the Painting Desk

Work at the painting desk has been slow with so many distractions.  One of which is rebasing the WotR collection.  Rebasing has required painting a few additional figures to conform to the new scheme.  I am happy to report that the project is behind me, and work continues on adding a new subprocess to the rules which are a work-in-progress.  Once I can clear enough space on the game table, I will present a parade of the newly based armies. 

Until such time, a unit of Arab spearmen muster out from the painting desk to form up with the other opponents to Christendom in the 28mm Reconquista project.  The more I paw through The Lead Pile, the more suitable figures rise to the surface.  This is the first of two such Arab units to march out from this rediscovery.  Excavations also brought up a few Arab crossbowmen and a handful of cavalry.  Figures are 28mm Black Tree Design. 

With the calendar turning over to August, a look at my painting seasonality chart (see Painting Seasonality) suggests that painting output ought to begin ramping up.  We will see if that holds true.  I certainly feel more energized to get back to the painting desk.  Let's see how long this sensation lasts!

Don't forget to fill out your GWS 2026 before the end of August.  Details can be found at If It's August....  Early reports are that completion percentage is running ahead of last year, but it is early in the month.

If it is August...

then it is time for that annual tradition of filling out WSS's The Great Wargaming Survey.  The survey introduction states that 2026 marks its 13th year.  The survey has seen a good run. 

Some new questions have been added to this year's edition of the survey, some response choices have been modified from old questions, and a handful of old questions have been kicked to the side of the road.

You can take the survey at Great Wargaming Survey.  Completing the survey takes about ten minutes or less depending upon your familiarity with the questions and your verbosity on the open-ended questions at the end.

Once again, if you would like to have your responses added into the pool of PWJ blog readers, add in "PWJ2026" code along with other comments in the "Final Observations" open-ended question at survey's end.  If you want, tack on your initials as a suffix so that we can collectively help recall specific reader responses.  With enough interest and sufficient responses, you could see some of the upcoming analyses tailored to this subset of august survey respondents.  Last year, I thought this exercise was a fun diversion and helped to profile readership.

From a preliminary listing I saw, this year's survey offers an assortment of enticing incentives to sweeten the pot for completing the survey.  One incentive of note is that WSS is offering online (or app) access to the entire WS&S back issue archive for three days.

Go ahead, fill out the survey and try to remember your answers when some of these topics are discussed in analyses throughout the upcoming twelve months.  Survey closes on 31 August.

My hope is that this announcement appears in blogrolls before the survey ends!

"Loopy" Wargame Design

I found David's 27 June piece on Principles, Models, and Algorithms interesting and figured the post deserved more than I could produce in a short comment to his post directly.  After some thought, I tackle David's essay.

To briefly summarize David's essay, he argues that rules can be understood at three levels (or layers): principles, models, and algorithms.  Principles are broad goals that require judgment and may be ill-defined or vague.  Models are the underlying ways in which we try to understand reality and quantify those perceptions into workable solutions.  Algorithms are the mechanisms used to resolve and adjudicate game actions without any bias or judgment.  David suggests that this process carries a definite hierarchy with Principles at the top followed by Models and finally Algorithms.

David's perspective on algorithms (rule mechanisms) is that they are useful since discrete rules can be applied consistently by anyone.  That is, if the rules are clear and without ambiguity!  A potential downside pops up when these algorithms mask the principles and models underlying them.

David's hierarchical way of considering rules and scenario writing is a helpful approach.  The distinction between principle, model, and algorithms is useful.  My experience in evaluating ruleset design illustrates that many of the arguments about wargame rules come from confusing these levels or from expecting one layer to do the work of another.

To respond to the post, I first relabel David's levels to terms that carry more meaning to me.  "Objective" replaces "Principle" and "Mechanism" replaces "Algorithm."  "Model" remains the same.  I tend to think of these levels not as hierarchical, one-way progressions but as layers that interact with one another.  When a rules mechanism exposes a flaw in a model, the objective may need to be re-examined.  In practice, designers move back and forth between each of these levels in a loop as shown in the diagram below.

In scenario (and rules) design, the idea that objectives sit at a higher level of abstraction than mechanisms feels exactly right.  The aim of a game is not always simply to defeat the enemy.  Once objectives shift to delay, escort, screen, or hold key terrain pieces, the whole character of the game changes.  Objectives should not be vague or ambiguous.  In a sense, objectives help to shape and classify the historical problem we are trying to represent on the table.  Victory conditions, laid out as an objective, tend to shape player behavior more than mechanisms do.

The idea of a model is also useful, but some clarification is warranted.  A model in wargaming is not only conceptual but takes the role of creating a selective abstraction of causation.  As a designer, we make choices.  In other words, a model tells us what we think matters in a given historical situation.  That seems especially important in wargaming, where two rulesets may look similar on the surface but actually rely on different assumptions about morale, firepower, cohesion, or command.  There are different types of models in wargame design as well.  Models can include physical models (ranges, formations, movement rates, weapons effects), behavioral models (morale, command friction), and perceptual models (fog of war, limited intelligence).  Different combinations of models or different implementations explain why two rulesets with the same, core mechanisms can feel very different.  

On mechanisms removing judgment altogether, I find this not the case.  Mechanisms certainly channel responses, which is valuable, but they do not eliminate judgment from the game as a whole.  Rather than eliminating judgment, mechanisms relocate it.  Players still exercise judgment in movement, target selection, risk-taking, timing, and so forth. Perhaps a better point is that mechanisms confine judgment by removing arbitrary rulings.  Mechanisms allow for a more explicit and repeatable structure.

In the end, the most valuable part of David's essay is that it reminds us to ask not only whether a rule works, but why it works.  A game may have clean mechanisms but still fail to express the historical problem it is trying to represent. Conversely, a simple mechanism can work quite well if it is supported by a sound model and a clear objective. A looping design and development structure helps to focus the interaction between the three levels of objective, model, and mechanism.

GWS 2025 Retrospective

As the launch of the Great Wargaming Survey, 2026 Edition looms on the horizon, I look back upon the questions considered and analyses undertaken from the Great Wargaming Survey, 2025 edition.  Upon reflection, a common theme emerges from this retrospective on the past year's analyses.  Rather than focusing on the tangible (and countable) facets of wargaming such as Top Wargaming Periods, Collection Sizes, Preferred Figure Size, etc., analysis drifted toward the softer skills of wargaming and wargaming as a human activity.  Was this shift in focus intentional?  No.  The questions and subsequent analyses simply moved in that direction naturally.

When I review the topics examined from GWS 2025, survey results and analyses suggest that the wargaming hobby presents itself as a broadly recognizable human activity.  Miniature wargaming is far more than simply moving toy soldiers across a table.  Wargaming offers a multi-faceted activity satisfying core human desires for intellectual stimulation, creativity, historical connection, storytelling, belonging, and mental diversion.  Across these analyses, we see what draws gamers into the hobby and keeps them there.

What did the GWS 2025 results suggest about wargaming as a human activity?

To begin, consider the Top 3 appealing facets of wargaming and why we wargame are (see Figure 1):

1. Historical (or fictional) background interest
2. Creative and hobby aspects
3. Social connection and camaraderie

Background interest was the single most popular primary reason.  This top ranking reflects humanity’s fascination with the past, alternate worlds, and exploring "what if" scenarios through miniatures and rules.  Creative and hobby aspects (painting, building, modeling, terrain) ranked a very close second emphasizing artistry and hands-on craftsmanship.  Social connection and camaraderie featured prominently in third place especially for group-oriented players.  Solo or small-group historical gamers often prioritize background knowledge, storytelling, and education in a reflective mode while gaming mainly at home.  Larger groups in fantasy/sci-fi tend to game at clubs or stores emphasizing social connections and competition.

Figure 1

When survey respondents were asked, "What do you like most about miniatures wargaming?" in an open-ended, free text question, cluster analysis of the thousands of responses confirm that games, people, and craft are the major elements (see Figure 2).  All of the craft elements are tightly connected with creativity often bridging between the historical and hands-on work aspects of the hobby.  Participants are able to distinguish between the gaming and socializing parts of the hobby from the preparatory "hobby engine."  Yet respondents see all of these pieces as a part of whole.  The multi-faceted nature of the hobby, perhaps, explains wargaming's enduring appeal.

Figure 2

Despite its strong social appeal, isolation remains common.  Once introduced to wargaming, practical social frictions arise that can leave gamers feeling isolated in what I termed as "opponent deserts."  These opponent deserts stem less from raw population shortages and more from coordination challenges.  Wargaming acts more like a social network than a simple consumer market.  Success depends on visibility, introductions, compatibility, and regular shared spaces.  Overcoming fragmentation and isolation into small and distinct groups is key to broader enjoyment.  Figure 3 lists the top reasons for not having enough opponents.

Figure 3

As a human activity, wargaming satisfies timeless needs such as intellectual engagement, creative expression, historical imagination, and social belonging.  Satisfying a variety of needs helps to draw in and accommodate diverse personalities.  The solitary researcher-painter, the narrative seeker, the competitive tactician, and the club socializer, all can find something here.  

In essence, we wargame because it lets us play with history (or other worlds), create, exercise our minds, tell stories, and connect with others.  Wargaming is a profoundly human hobby allowing activity anywhere along the spectrums of reflective to sociable, solitary to collective, and cerebral to tactile. These data affirm what many feel intuitively.  That is, wargaming isn’t just about the games.  It is about the people, the process, the passions, and the welcome mental shift that makes life richer.

I am regularly asked why someone should complete the survey.  My answer is that every response adds another piece to the picture.  The more people that answer, the better we understand what wargaming means to its players.  These analyses demonstrate that the survey is worthwhile because it turns individual hobby experiences into shared insight about wargaming as a human and philosophical activity.

Last Stand at Domyoji

After my rematch with Richard on Monday (see Sanada's Death Ride at Domyoji), I enjoyed another rematch with Peter (see first game at BatRep: Domyoji 1615 Game #2) on Thursday.  As in my rematch with Richard, Peter and I swapped sides to try our hand at commanding the other army.  Peter would take command of the Osaka Army while I took the reins of the Tokugawa Army.  Peter's riveting account of the rematch can be read and enjoyed at Rematch of the Battle of the Tombs.  I wonder if we saw the battle similarly?

Let's find out!

As a reminder, opening dispositions are as illustrated in the map below:

Initial dispositions

Tokugawa Army advances toward the enemy.

Wasting no time, Susukida attacks!
After disordering the enemy with arquebus fire,
Susukida leads an attack with his Samurai
but his attack is repulsed with heavy losses.

Losses were heavy on the defender as well.
Susukida follows up by sending his Ashigaru forward.

Persistence pays off!
The Tokugawa Right is driven back. 

Osaka Ashigaru pursue scattering the remnants of enemy
 Ashigaru spear and sending the Teppo reeling backwards.
Katsushige's Samurai are destroyed!

Still Osaka Ashigaru pursue swinging around to hit
one of Tadaaki's Ashigaru spear.
Likely surprised by enemy coming onto a flank, 
these spearmen retreat passing through Tadaaki's command.

Osaka continues pursuit but the rampage is finally halted
when the spearmen crash into a solid wall of spears and then...

Susukida's spearmen are forced to retreat. 
The Tokugawa Right has collapsed!

Emerging from the ford through the Ishigawa River,
Takamasa leads a cavalry charge into the enemy rear.
This outcome was never in doubt.
The Osaka spearmen are cut down.  No chance of escape.

Ack!  What a start to battle!  The battle has only begun, and the Tokugawa Right and Center have been laid wide open by Peter's successful attacks.  With the loss of the Samurai and suffering from three sequential pursuits, I am already down five points on the Breakpoint Clock.  How do I recover from this mess?

I grab a tourniquet, stop the bleeding, and attack, I guess!  Well, before I can regroup, Peter's Osaka Army beats me to the punch!

Kitigawa's Ashigaru spearmen attack from the woods
trampling Masamune's Teppo before they get off a meaningful volley.

What the Osaka may not have foreseen was the ability of
Masamune's cavalry to counterattack.
Osaka Ashigaru are driven back in disorder.

In pursuit, the enemy falls under the hooves of
Tokugawa cavalry and are destroyed.

Masamune's success leads to a chain reaction from the enemy.
First, Sanada leads a countercharge but is repulsed...

Then, one of Sanada's body of Ashigaru spear attack.
They, too, are repulsed!
Perhaps this battle is turning around?

On the other side of Emperor Ojin's Tomb,
Masamune attacks with both Ashigaru and Samurai.

Osaka Teppo are driven back from the tomb.
Tokugawa fail to pursue!
The Osaka Army is being pushed back
nearly to the gates of Osaka Castle!

Battle lines drawn with much of the Osaka Army
pushed back to the brink.

OK!  Even though the Tokugawa Army took some tough licks at the beginning of the fight, the situation looks to have stabilized, and the Tokugawa are taking the fight to the enemy.  Now thoughts turn to whether I can drive them from the field. 

Peter has other plans!
Kitigawa's Samurai attack both of Masamune's foot.

Kitigawa's Samurai scatter the Ashigaru and
send the enemy Samurai scurrying away to the rear.

What remains of the Tokugawa Left is in retreat! 

Kitigawa's Samurai catch Masamune's Samurai
but heroic actions compel the Osaka to retreat!

Back on the Tokugawa Right, Tadamasa and his Samurai
 cavalry charge into Susukida's Samurai foot.
Weakened from earlier fighting, Susukida is sent packing.

Tadamasa pursues and Susukida's Samurai retreat off table. 

Back on the Tokugawa Left, Kitigawa has not given up his
pursuit of Masamune's Samurai. 
This time, Masamune's Samurai are caught and dispatched!

Even with the Tokugawa Army nearing the breaking point,
the Osaka Left has been vanquished and the
Center has been pressed back to the brink.
One good shove might break the enemy!

Unfortunately for Tokugawa, Osaka gets the next shove! 
Tadaaki's Ashigaru are pushed back. 

Masamune charges in leading his Samurai horsemen.
Sanada is forced to recoil but...

he countercharges when Masamune fails to pursue.

With Ashigaru spear in support, Sanada's charge is repulsed.
Masamune fails to pursue again!

Sanada orders one more attack to break the Tokugawa line.

This time, success!
Masamune and his Samurai turn to flee and Tokugawa Ashigaru
 are scattered as Sanada's Ashigaru advance into the gap.
The Tokugawa Army is broken!

Well!  That did not end as I expected!  I thought that the Tokugawa Army might have the upper hand until...they did not!

Great game, Peter, and very well played.  Thank you!  The Butcher's Bill shows that Tokugawa suffered more losses than the Osaka.  Peter's opening attacks really caught the Tokugawa Army off guard and reaped a pile of points as they slashed their way through the enemy battle line.  I thought I had the battle turned around near the end, but it was not to be.  Controlling both tombs, Peter is awarded a Major Victory.

Butcher's Bill

Game duration was about two-and-a-half hours.  

With this defeat, the five-game series shows the score as three victories for the Tokugawa Army against two victories for the Osaka Army.  What looked like a tough situation for the Osaka Army in the first three games, proved to be winnable in the final two games.  Richard and Peter learned a lot from their first games and put those lessons to work.  I may not have learned as much...

Anyway, this was a terrific series of battles, and I enjoyed them a lot.  Thanks to everyone taking a command in one of the games.  What is next on table?  Not sure but my WotR rebasing is almost complete, and I have a few new ideas to test out next time these Medieval armies take to the table.