Reb Infantry and the Next Game

Having played in Matt's Pitzer Woods skirmish last week (see Action at Pitzer Woods), I figured that it was well past time that I bring my own ACW collection onto the gaming table.  Looking back through the archives, I was shocked to see that the last the 10mm ACW collection saw action was nearly two years ago at Shiloh (see Shiloh: Walking a Tightrope) back in NOV 2024!  I still remember those Shiloh battles vividly.

Not only did Matt's game and my wander through the archives and memory lane spur me to consider bringing an ACW battle to the table, but the archive meanderings motivated me to push some more CSA figures into and through the production line with some determination.

Mustering out from the painting desk today are four, 30-figure CSA infantry regiments.  That is 120 figures providing a big jolt to the painting totals for the year.  I needed that!  Figures are from Old Glory.  With these Rebels marching out, the collection now stands at more than 3,600 figures.  Although a number of Rebel command stands remain in The Lead Pile, I have exhausted the stockpile of marching infantrymen.  At least a a couple of bags will be needed to fill out the remaining command stands.  That situation is not likely to happen any time soon.  There are enough Federal infantry to field another four or five regiments but I am in no hurry to paint those either.  I could get cracking on more cavalry as my numbers are quite small for that arm of service.

What battle is under consideration?  Well, after some research, I have landed on Sedgwick's attempt to outflank Lee at Chancellorsville after having broken out at Fredericksburg.  Sedgwick's VI Corps meets Wilcox and McLaws at Salem Church.  More details are forthcoming as I work through creating a scenario and building the battlefield.  Early work suggests that about half of the 3,600 figures will see action at Salem Church.  I have reread Sears’ brief account of the battle and have a scenario that George (Musings on Wargaming and Life) kindly forwarded to me.  Both provide some good ideas.

Action at Pitzer Woods

After having restarted remote gaming with Matt (see Battle of Germantown) after a seemingly long hiatus, Matt hosted a second game without hesitation.  On Wednesday, Matt brought his 28mm ACW collection to the table for a Rebels & Patriots game to refight the action at Pitzer Wood at Gettysburg on Day 2. 

Federal OB
photo courtesy wargamesinthedungeon

Matt sent a scenario briefing and my Federal command for the day.  Rebel troops were unknown, but Matt hinted that opposing forces were about equal in size.  Notice that the Federals field two units of Berdan Sharpshooters.  Sharpshooters are powerful having +1 DRM to fire and a longer, 24-inch range.  All Federal infantry are veterans.  This is a far cry from the American rabble I see in our long-running AWI campaign.  You will see how the sharpshooters controlled the narrative.  

Battlefield and Federal objectives
photo courtesy wargamesinthedungeon

The Federal objective is to scout the woods and pick off as many of the objectives (yellow circles) as possible.  The Federals need to scout three such objectives for victory without seeing their command broken.  Federals arrive at the bottom of the table while Rebels come onto the table at the top.

Now, I know that Matt will provide a BatRep with in-house photos, but for now, I provide my brief impression of the action from a remote viewer's perspective. 

Federals approach Pitzer Wood
 but the US Cavalry fails to move.

Federals continue their advance into the woods.
Rebels are seen in the distance.
Federal Left is having trouble getting started!

All Federals are now on the field with
 two of the five objectives reached.

Rebels come within range of the US Sharpshooters
and Federals open up on the enemy at long range.
Two objectives successfully scouted.
Keep an eye on the Rebel Dead Pile in the top left corner.

Taking fire from Rebels on the left,
US cavalry retires as more Rebels move up to contest the ground.
Sharpshooters in center retire to keep the enemy at arms' length.

Reb casualties mount as US Regulars in the woods open fire
in coordination with sharpshooters. 

More Rebels fall as Federal fire concentrates. 

Sharpshooters continuing picking off the enemy from a distance.
Federal concentration of fire is beginning to tell
as Federals gain fire superiority.

US Cavalry takes losses, but the enemy Dead Pile continues to grow.
Constant sharpshooter covering fire disorders the enemy
as the Federals advance into the woods. 

US cavalry advances to the objective on the left
while Federal skirmishers press on into the woods.
Federals dominate the firefight!

Fire from the Rebs forces the US Cavalry to withdraw
 from the objective before it can successfully be scouted.
Taking much fire in the open field,
 Rebels are forced to seek cover.

Having pushed up into the woods,
concentrated Federal fire causes much disorder among the Rebs.
Are the Rebs nearing their breaking point?

Yes!
Having to take morale tests, the Rebels withdraw from battle!

Victory to the Federals!  With the collapse of the Confederate positions in this part of the line, there may be no Day 3 of Gettysburg!

This was a short and sharp action in which the US Sharpshooters dominated the field of battle.  The Federals kept the sharpshooters back so that they could reach the enemy, but the enemy could not reach them.  With their +1DRM to fire they were expected to cause six hits with every volley.  Sometimes they managed even better than expectations.  The Rebels were being ground down with each volley.  Compound that with Matt's uncanny ability to roll poorly on almost every morale test and the Rebels did not stand much of a chance. 

Good fun (for me!) and a nice change of pace from the AWI fighting.

Thanks, Matt, for a very entertaining game!

Has AI Killed the Blogger Star?

Not that every wargaming blogger is a star, but the title of this post is a nod to The Buggles’ 1979 song, Video Killed the Radio Star.  Who, among us, still remembers the first time we saw this music video on MTV?  I knew right then that I wanted to subscribe to MTV.  Unfortunately, cable was not available in my area.  Much like MTV did for music, AI search is changing the landscape for bloggers.  Is this the next step in media evolution with no turning back?

Having experienced pageviews climbing to unbelievable heights of up to 100,000 views a day, and keyword searches dropping to near zero, something has definitely changed in the search environment.  In my own search for answers, the article, Search Engines Are Dead: How AI is taking Over the Internet, from March of 2026 popped up in the results.  Briefly, the article points out that AI is changing search, its process, and results.  One problem for bloggers wanting increased visibility to their writings is that AI search often does not convert search results into visits.  Directed traffic from search engines is falling by the wayside.  Today, readers must be given a reason to click through directly to a post.  While AI search may reduce clicks, your name, blog link, and unique perspective could still come through in the summaries and citations.  At least most AI summaries still provide citations of works used.  Reduced traffic often leads to reduced reader engagement.  Reductions in visits and engagement support the conclusion of many that blogging is a dying media art form.  Compounding this dilemma is the recent feature of seeing large delays in posts appearing in blogrolls.  If no one reads your contributions, is the effort worthwhile?  Of course, visits and reader engagement may not be a driving reason for why one blogs.

In today's rapidly evolving environment, search engines increasingly try to answer questions without sending anyone back to the original sources.  Gathering and synthesizing the collective wisdom of the internet, AI generates summaries to answer the question posed.  Type in a wargaming question and the search result may now return a brief answer without requiring the researcher to visit a single blog site.  For people who have relied upon Google search engine to send strangers to their posts, this new state can be somewhat troubling.  Are wargame bloggers doomed by AI's interventions?  Lately, I have been thinking about the gloomy claim that AI may be killing blogging and, with it, the motivation to blog.

Wargaming blogs are vulnerable to the rise of AI search because many of the most common topics are searchable in a way that suits AI.  Rules clarifications, historical overviews, army organization, paint choices, figure choices, and beginner advice are all useful, but they are also highly compressible into summaries.  If a post offers little more than the expected answer, then it can be flattened into a summary with almost no loss of content.  On the other hand, a blog post does not necessarily have to be merely an answer to a search.  It can be an argument, a battle account, a project record, a warning, an opinion, or simply an enjoyable report from somebody else’s tabletop.  Nobody really needs an AI summary of the fact that I painted another twelve figures.  Readers visiting the blog, however, may enjoy seeing how the figures came out once painted and based, learning which paint scheme was used, how this unit fits into the project plan, or reading why I abandoned the original basing plan halfway through.

By offering more than a simple answer to a query, wargaming blogs hold an advantage over AI.  Wargaming blogs are built on things that AI cannot (yet!) convincingly fake or manipulate at scale.  Some of the tasks that AI has yet to master include photographs of actual miniatures, handmade terrain, battle reports emphasizing different tactics and decision-making choices, and historical research as seen through the eyes of a particular hobbyist’s judgment.  A good wargaming blog does not solely rely on delivering information.  It also provides evidence of ongoing practice, planning, commitment, point of view, thoughtful commentary, persistence, and accomplishment.  That distinction matters.  Readers can find generic advice anywhere from search, but they come to a "real" hobbyist's blog for the thing that only a real, practicing wargamer can provide.  A practicing wargamer can offer a sense that the writer has actually moved figures across a table, given thought to the exercise, and, perhaps, learned something in the process.

The risk for the blogger is not that an AI system will suddenly make a reader lose interest in painted armies, historical scenarios, or reports from a remote game. The risk is more subtle.  Much more subtle.  AI is making it easier for readers to obtain a quick, generic answer without ever visiting the source that did the interesting (and often considerable) effort in the first place.  AI is killing "Lazy discoverability."

What is “Lazy discoverability?” It encompasses the habit of writing for search engines instead of writing for readers.  This technique produces posts that are technically discoverable but not especially memorable.  Bloggers may operate under the misguided assumption that one can put a reasonably competent post on the internet, include a few likely search terms, and expect search engines to do the rest.  Even before AI algorithms came to dominate search, that model was always rather fragile and suspect.  AI simply makes the weakness harder to ignore.

For hobby blogging, especially wargaming, lazy discoverability offers the possibility of entrapment because the work can become optimized toward being found instead of being worth reading.  AI search systems are very good at compressing those posts into a summary, which means the original blog gets less of the reward while the reader has less reason to click through.

A blog post ought to offer more than a summarized answer to a question.  Bloggers should emphasize depth and personal experience that no summary can replicate.  A good wargaming blog provides an archive of accumulated effort.  This is an asset and body of work that cannot be replaced by an AI summary.

If the wargaming blogger wants to avoid being crushed under the jackboot of the Machine, is there anything we can do to connect into this rapidly evolving situation?  The post linked to above offers some suggestions for adapting to AI.  I explore some of these options using my humble perspective of the PWJ and my nearly fourteen years of tapping out posts.  Where does PWJ succeed?  Where can improvements be made?  The answers may depend upon reader engagement!

AI has not killed the blogger star.  As with radio, there is still a place for blogging, at least for me, and I am no star. 

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.  We used the solitaire rules for Action Point allocation.

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 Turn 9.  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 a 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.