GWS 2026 and a New Project

After the rigorous analysis on what we least like about wargaming, time for a brief update this morning before diving into the first of the Salem Church battle reports.  First, a big thank you to everyone who weighed in with their thoughts on their least liked aspects of wargaming.  Commentary was robust, interesting, and most welcome.

Given that the GWS 2026 data file hit my Dropbox yesterday, attention will turn to preparing that file for the coming year's analysis.  Since I ended the 2025 reporting year examining what we disliked about the hobby, I thought an immediate follow-up with a similar analysis for the 2026 survey might provide an interesting compare and contrast while the 2025 results are still fresh in mind.  Will much change?  We will see.  On a positive note, survey response was up by about ten percent over 2025.  A ten percent increase is a welcome bump from a couple of years seeing a slide in participation.  In a quick count 17 readers put in the "PWJ2026" code into the survey Comments field.  Without confirming, I recall we had 11 such entries last year.  Excellent!  At some point, I will produce select a set of summary statistics for this august group of dedicated readers. 

A New Project

New project?  Yes, it appears that is the case.  Having my arm slightly twisted into submission, I am embarking upon a new, joint project with a friend.  I have long considered this period but figured there were already too many projects in work.  Even if overwhelmed by temptation, I figured that I would tackle this period in 10mm.  Well, I have been a victim to temptation and coercion.  The project will not be in 10mm but 28mm!  The first tranche of figures arrived from the UK on Monday.  What have I done?  Well, giving a little boost to The Lead Pile if nothing else!  The counter in the sidebar illustrates this loss of resolve in reducing The Lead Pile.  Any guesses?

Sedgwick's Corps on the attack!

Next time, a battle report on the first of several playings of the ACW Battle of Salem Church when we see five of Postie's Rejects locked into battle for control of the Orange Plank Road.

Until next time.

Fourteen Years of Marching Through History

Fourteen years ago, in September 2012, the Palouse Wargaming Journal (PWJ) began as a place to record my wargaming activities and perhaps connect with a few like-minded wargamers.  At the time, I had no clear sense of where the project might lead nor how long this venture might last.  I certainly did not imagine that, fourteen years later, the blog would have accumulated 1,915 posts, 62,241 comments, and 341 followers.

Those numbers are more than statistics.  Much more.  Together they represent fourteen years of games played, figures painted, and ideas exchanged with readers and fellow wargamers.  The Palouse Wargaming Journal began as my hobby notebook, but it has gradually become something more.  The PWJ records my ongoing wargaming activities preserved one post at a time.  Occasionally, a little bit of Real Life is tossed in for good measure.

The blog is also a record of the dynamic nature of the hobby.  Some periods have been filled with games and painting projects.  Others have been slowed by competing demands, a wandering eye, or simply the difficulty of finding time to arrange a game.  Projects have been started, set aside, restarted, and occasionally (but rarely!) completed.  Armies have marched onto the tabletop, disappeared back into their storage boxes, and returned years later under entirely different rules.  Sometimes even appearing with different basing schemes.  The blog preserves all of those stages, including the false starts, mistakes, and second guesses that rarely appear in a photo or a summarized battle account.

The past year has been a period of both activity and reflection.  I have continued to report games, show painted figures, and describe the projects occupying my painting desk and gaming table.  At the same time, I found myself thinking more often about the wider purpose of wargaming blogs.  What makes such a blog worthwhile?  Does blogging still have a future in an age taken over by social media, video, and artificial intelligence?  Why do wargamers devote so much effort to recording painting, researching, designing, and playing of games?

My continuing interest in analyzing the results of WSS' The Great Wargaming Survey offers one way to explore these questions.  The survey provides useful information about the people who participate in the hobby, the periods and rules they prefer, and the reasons they continue to wargame.  Yet these data also raise questions that statistics alone cannot answer.  Numbers may reveal patterns, but they do not always explain the personal experiences behind them.  Two people may report playing the same rules or historical period while finding entirely different rewards in the experience.

That tug-of-war between information and experience has become increasingly important as the internet continues to change.  I repeatedly find myself asking whether blogs still matter.  The question has been particularly difficult to ignore during a year marked by ongoing frustrations with Blogger’s infrastructure.  Those technical problems are compounded by the growing influence of social media which offers quick publication and immediate feedback.  Video, too, has become an increasingly popular way of presentation.   Artificial intelligence adds another layer to the changing landscape by summarizing information and answering questions without necessarily directing readers to the original source.

Can blogging offer something different to these newer forms of communication?

I believe it can, although perhaps not by trying to compete with them on their own terms.  The Palouse Wargaming Journal is not simply a collection of answers about rules, armies, or battles that can be extracted and summarized by an AI agent.  For me, it is a personal record of a hobby in progress.  It shows the figures and units as they emerge from the painting desk, the battlefields as they are laid out, the games as they develop, and the decisions that influence battle outcomes.

That personal element is important because wargaming is not only about information.  It is also about interpretation.  A battle report may explain who won, but it can also describe how the game unfolded, which decisions mattered, and what made the contest memorable.  Similarly, a painting post may show a finished unit but also the way attention moves from one project to another, from one army to another, and from one historical period to the next.

As I wrote in Has AI Killed the Blogger Star?, those details cannot easily be reduced to a generic summary.  These details belong to a particular hobby journey and to the individual experiences of the people involved.  A blog can preserve those experiences in a way that is more personal and more durable than a brief social-media post.

In that sense, the blog remains both an archive and a conversation.  Each post records a small part of the hobby, but it also invites readers to respond, contribute their own experiences, and even disagree with my conclusions or decisions.  The comments, correspondence, and remote games that have grown from the blog are as important as the posts themselves.  They demonstrate that wargaming is not merely a solitary activity carried out among shelves of miniatures.  Wargaming is also a means of building connections across distance and sharing enthusiasm with people who may never otherwise meet.

When I began blogging fourteen years ago as a challenge, I did not know whether anyone would read the Palouse Wargaming Journal, much less whether it would still exist fourteen years later.  The wargaming blogosphere has changed considerably since 2012.  Many blogs have disappeared, social media has altered how wargamers share their work, and AI-assisted search is beginning to reshape how people find information online.  Yet the fundamental appeal of the hobby remains unchanged.

There is still satisfaction in painting a unit, studying a campaign, laying out a battlefield, rolling the dice, and discovering what happens when history is placed in the hands of players. There is also value in recording that experience.  Not of value because every game is historically significant or every painted figure is a masterpiece, but because each one forms part of my continuing journey.

Blogging remains my preferred way of sharing that journey.  It provides the time and space to explain not only what happened, but also why it mattered to me.  The Palouse Wargaming Journal continues not only because the hobby remains rewarding, but also because sharing my thoughts and experiences with others makes the hobby better.

Thank you to everyone who has visited the PWJ, left a comment, joined a remote game, offered encouragement, or simply followed along quietly.  Your interest has helped sustain the blog through fourteen years of painting, gaming, research, reflection, and occasional technical frustration.

For now, marching through history in miniature continues.

Edit 11 September:  Even with no (or long delayed) Blogroll widget updates, seeing readers find this post despite the hurdles to overcome is very encouraging!

Never Hurts To Ask!

I have a weakness for operational wargames of the hex-and-counter type.  While WWII miniatures games do not often get a showing out on my gaming table, my favorite boardgames tend to cluster within the WWII operational genre focusing on a single campaign.  With this apparent vulnerability, I am regularly on the lookout for some of my favorite series.  One such series is Clash of Arms' Winter Storm.  The third volume in this series is the 1989 game, Edelweiss, which provides a study of the third phase of Case Blue in the June 1942 offensive into the Caucasus.

Now, I already have a copy of Edelweiss.  Still, when an unpunched copy popped up on eBay last year with a very low opening bid, my interest was piqued.  Why such a low opening bid?  Well, the game has some damage listed of the slight mildew variety.  The photos illustrated the mildew on one of the counter sheets, but the other counter sheets looked unblemished.  Figuring I could, at least, use most of the parts from the game, I committed to the opening bid.  Besides, there was a chance that I could mitigate the damage to that one counter sheet.  When the auction ended with no other bids, my opening bid turned out to be the winner.

Damaged counter sheet

When the game arrived, sure enough, there was damage to the German counter sheet.  There was no musty smell, though.  That was a good sign.  I tried treating the mildew, but my efforts proved unsuccessful.  Not all of the counters showed damage so this could still provide a player's copy as a spare.  I boxed it up and set in on the shelf.

New, shrinkwrapped counter sheet

On a whim and something of a Hail Mary attempt, I sent an email to Clash of Arms last month stating my situation and wondered if there was any chance that a spare German counter sheet was tucked away somewhere in the warehouse.  Next day, I received an email from the company saying that it was my lucky day as there was, indeed, an extra counter sheet in the warehouse.  The new counter sheet could be on its way for $8 plus nominal shipping.  Hooray!  That was my lucky day!  Although the game is more than 35 years old, it never hurts to ask.

What about last week's scheduled run out of the Salem Church scenario as an introduction to both remote gaming and the rules?  Well, I was forced to cancel Monday's session as I was involved in a minor car crash that afternoon.  I escaped unscathed but the car is somewhat banged up.  We rescheduled our session for Friday evening.  Guess what?  We never managed to play a single turn or even turn the cameras toward the table.  We spent the entire two-and-a-half hours discussing the potential for a new, joint miniatures project.  I know, some are probably laughing at the thought of me tackling yet another project.  Don't I have too many as it is?  Yes, but the sales pitch was convincing.  Could I squeeze in one more?  Almost certainly.  We will see where this goes.

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. 

Battlefield Lull

While it has been a busy week, not a tremendous amount of progress on the hobby front.  With nature throwing a switch, temperatures have climbed dramatically in the last week.  What that sudden change in atmosphere triggers is that my workload flips from indoor activities to outdoor activities.  Yardwork jumps to the fore as the garden and lawn spring back to life.  Infrastructure such as sprinkler systems and lawn maintenance equipment need adjusting and a general clean-up is required after putting everything away back in October and forgetting about it.  Cycling back on the roads is seeing a marked increase as well as I test out both body and bike for the upcoming campaigning season.  With that shift in direction, wargaming has seen a bit of a lull. 

Heavy fighting at Casteggio

There was one game on the week's docket.  That remote game, on Tuesday, saw a four-player refight of Montebello.  Tuesday's Montebello witnessed the fourth playing of the scenario, and it was another good one.  With experience from the previous three games and having increased player numbers, I figured the battle might be fought in two sessions.  Well, we managed to fight to conclusion in one long four-and-a-half-hour session.  Everyone was likely exhausted after that mini marathon.  The fellas in England certainly endured a late night.  I finished curating the game photos this morning.  Hopefully, I can sit down and tap out a battle report in the coming days.

On the painting desk, I did manage to produce a second Russian infantry regiment of two battalions for the 1799 project.  Like the Russian regiment produced earlier, these figures are AB Miniatures.

These two, thirteen figure battalions march out as Musketeer Regiment Dalheim.  As expected, the AB sculpts are marvelous.  On the painting desk is a third Russian regiment.  The third regiment will muster out as a grenadier regiment with its short mitre hats.

Painting output was down in April compared against the first three months of the year.  Without going back to painting seasonality analysis and tendencies, I suspect that seeing a drop in April is normal.  We will see if painting ticks up in May.

The lead photo captures a snapshot during the Montebello game with the French attack on Casteggio in the foreground and the detritus of the game room in the background.  The large screen in the background monitors the game in session.

Big Round Numbers and Reflection

Easter Sunday witnessed the PWJ tick past two mileposts.  One is meaningful, the other not so much.  The first, and less important milepost was that the blog saw over 100,000 page views in one day.  In the early days of blogging, this achievement might be hailed with much fanfare.  Today, with AI dominating search and consumption, 100,000 page views in one day does not carry the same weight.  The other, and more important milestone is that the blog surpassed 60,000 comments.  Yes, I realize that half of the commentary is mine, but reader commentary is an important if not vital aspect of sharing the hobby.

Blogger stats: 06 APR 2026

When I publish a new post, whether a battle report, an analysis, or photos from my latest unit marching out from the painting desk, I never quite know how it will land.  While I write primarily to record my thoughts and achievements, I also write to share the wargaming hobby that has fascinated me for most of my life.  Once I click "publish," there’s a pause and, often, a little apprehension.  Will anyone care enough to read let alone respond with a comment?  When a comment appears, I breathe a sigh of relief.

For a wargamer, blogging is often a solitary pursuit that mirrors the hobby itself. We spend long nights painting miniatures, building terrain, or researching obscure campaigns to create scenarios or rules.  From a personal perspective, these are satisfying efforts.  This type of self-exploration, while satisfying, is shaped by appreciation and dialog.  The byline on my blog bio states that,

It is not enough to accomplish. You must share those accomplishments.

Reader comments help turn this solitary focus outward.  When a reader writes "the figures look great" or "Great battle report," these comments remind me that the hours of effort are not only just mine.  The blog allows these efforts to become something shared.

Besides turning a mostly solitary activity outward, comments deepen a sense of community.  Wargaming may center on fighting battles in miniature, but through blogging, conversations turn toward tactics, history, craftsmanship, and battles won and lost.  The comment section becomes a virtual battlefield of ideas through a mutual respect for the hobby.

To me, every comment is like adding another painted figure into a collection.  The comment may be small and unique, but a single comment is important to the overall goal.  Each comment builds momentum as others weigh-in turning a collection of posts into an ongoing campaign of thought and dialog.  Without these responses and feedback, blogging can start to feel like a battle dispatch sent off into a destination not known.

I suggest that we keep in mind that when a reader takes the time to type a few words in response to a post, that even a simple response can carry more meaning than the reader might realize.  These responses remind me why I write.  I write not only to post battle reports or document progress at the painting desk.  I write to connect with others who find the same joy in miniature armies and tabletop exploits on the field of battle.  In a sense, each comment carries the same power as a post-game handshake across the table after a hard-fought game.  In a comment, you share acknowledgment, camaraderie, and respect.

I mark this occasion as a way to thank everyone who has mustered the courage to leave a comment or two over these first 60,000 comments.

Thank you.

Thoughts on Montebello

All is quiet on the battlefield of Montebello.  In fact, the table has been dormant for the past two weeks with no activity at all.  Well, besides figures and sorting projects piling up on it.  That will soon change, though.  Richard has agreed to a rematch from our earlier game (see No Duke of Montebello).  For the next episode, we will swap sides and refight the battle from a different perspective.

Birdseye view of battlefield.

Before that game hits the table, time for a little reflection on the battle, its historical counterpart, and the rules.

Looking back at the battle report linked above, the game offered a tense battle as the French Army under Lannes scraped out a dramatic last‑minute victory.

Game Recap

Against the odds, Watrin’s French division assaults O’Reilly’s advanced position at Rivalta through the tall rye fields surrounding the village.  Initial attacks are repulsed, but repeated assaults eventually break O’Reilly after brutal fighting south and north of the village.  The Austrian jaegers are finally compelled to give up their defense of Rivalta.  As the French push on to the west, Vogelsang brings up his reinforcements to Cascina il Giardina while Schellenberg reaches Montebello.  Ott tries to form a defensive line as the Austrian army falls back toward Casteggio.

Attack on Rivalta.

To the south of Rivalta, the 28th Line ejects Austrians from Cascina il Giardina after repeated attempts to take the strongpoint.  Lannes then leads his hussars in a devastating charge that destroys an Austrian infantry battalion and overruns a retiring battery.  Unfortunately, Lannes falls in the confusion.  The Austrians are not done yet.​

Lannes leads the charge!

Austrian dragoons countercharge and scatter the depleted French cavalry.  Seemingly out of nowhere, a third hussar unit strikes unsupported Austrian infantry.  With the combat raging and both formations on the brink of collapse, the Austrian infantry are scattered and Vogelsang's Division breaks.  With O'Reilly and Vogelsang broken, Ott is compelled to quit the field.  Lannes gains victory with a razor-thin margin.  It could have tipped the other way.

The destruction of Vogelsang.

Post-Game Thoughts

Montebello offers challenges to both players and scenario design.  With both armies arriving piecemeal and a tight timeline to clear the highway, the French are forced into attacking at unfavorable odds.  When Watrin first attacks Rivalta, the defenders hold about a two-to-one advantage.  As the fighting builds with fresh reinforcements reaching the field, the battle emphasizes a measurable quality‑versus‑quantity dynamic as well as trading space for time.  A situation that Ott and Lannes, themselves, faced.  Players faced the same conundrum.  That is, how best to utilize the forces at hand.

With Lannes' qualitative advantage and ability to pick and choose the place and timing of attacks, as Ott, I fell into a similar trap.  When Watrin's initial attacks were repulsed, O'Reilly made the decision to stand and fight at Rivalta.  Only as more French reached the battlefield did he realize his mistake.  By the time Vogelsang approached from the west, it was too late for O'Reilly.  His formation was wrecked and in retreat everywhere.  Vogelsang tried to bring his division up and hold Cascina il Giardina but that stronghold could not be held after repeated attacks.  In the vicious fighting around that stronghold, Vogelsang's Division was wrecked.  With two of his three formations broken, Ott was forced to yield the field of battle.

The flow of the tabletop battle broadly followed the historical battle.  While the fighting may have played out with variation, the end result was the same.  That is, Ott's command was forced to retire from Montebello and head back to Alessandria to lick its wounds.  Five days later fighting would resume at Marengo.

Now, scenario design and often rules' writing remain as works-in-progress.  This refight offers similar thoughts on amending scenario details.  Having realized the historical result in the first outing, how much really needs to be tweaked?  While Victor/Chamberlhac played a role in turning the battle historically, in this playing Chamberlhac barely reached the field.  Same can be said for Schellenberg on the Austrian side.  

Schellenberg arrives.

While providing a good-sized game for two players, Montebello presents a more difficult path for multiplayer games since reinforcements arrive throughout the game.  This might lead to players not getting into the action right away.  Meeting engagements offer unique challenges for multiplayer games.  To steer the game toward this end, the next refight will see game duration lengthened from 8+ turns to 10+ turns while unit arrival times will see some compression.  The caveat, here, is that reinforcement compression may alter the already finely balanced arrivals to match the historical situation.  Do you come down on the side of history or player engagement?  Should arrival times be adjusted based upon the number of players present?  That is, keep historical times in a two or three player game but compress arrivals for larger multiplayer games so that everyone is involved within a turn or two?

Before I take command of the French Army in the next game, there is much to consider.

Wargaming as an Escape

Keith Flint, in his Wargames, Soldiers, and Strategy #137 essay on wargaming as an escape (see WSS#137 Let's Escape pp 62-63) offers an interesting perspective covering several topics.  Some of his brief thoughts on this topic can be read on his blog at In Which I Became a Global Influencer.

To briefly summarize the escapism portion of Keith's essay, Keith highlights a quote that he has heard from wargamers that,

Wargaming allows me to escape everyday life, and it allows me to be someone else for a while.

Now, I have never heard anyone utter similar words and if they did, I would take such claim in a figurative and not a literal context.

Given this statement's literal weighting, Keith argues that we should reject the notion of hobby escapism that allows one to step away from everyday stresses, work, or reality.  Keith posits that this thinking is misguided since one cannot truly escape the real world.  The wargaming hobby is an extension of the real world and an extension of who we are.  Framing the hobby as an escape tends to discredit both daily life and the hobby.  A more wholesome approach is to view hobby time as a constructive shift between different and complementary aspects of life.

How does this tie back to the Great Wargaming Survey?

In an earlier analysis, I examined the question of why we wargame.  In Why We Wargame: A Closer Look, survey results show that when the top three choices are aggregated across all respondents that "Fun and escapism" contributes only about 13% of the top choices. "Fun and escapism" comes in at Rank #5 of 7.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Now, "escapism" is lumped in with "fun" so separating the two is impossible from the 2025 survey.  If this question is asked again, perhaps, "fun" and "escapism" ought to be separated to identify those seeking escapism solely? 

A related question that examines the role of the hobby as an outlet for stress is present in the 2025 survey.  That question asks, 

Would you agree that wargaming helps you forget about the stresses of daily life?

The results are overwhelmingly one-sided.  Figure 3 illustrates that 62.1% of respondents entirely agree that wargaming helps forget about stresses of daily life.  Fully 93% either somewhat agree or entirely agree with this statement.

Figure 3

Rather than looking at the wargaming hobby as a literal escape, perhaps, wargaming ought to be viewed as a relaxing, constructive shift between our different aspects of life? I think Keith would agree. Keith, thank you for offering up some food for thought!

Do you view the hobby as an escape from real life?

On Wargaming and Blogging: Thinking Aloud

In Norm's 14 JAN 2026 post on his Commanders website, his essay Thinking Aloud and a Reduction in Output may strike a familiar chord with other bloggers.  The post certainly got me to thinking.  In Norm's diary entry linked to above, he offers a reflection on the value and sustainability of blogging within the wargaming community.  For those having followed Commanders and its sister blog, Battlefields & Warriors, these ruminations are not new.  Since neither site offers the ability to comment, I offer my thoughts on Norm's post here.

The recurring theme of Norm's Thinking Aloud post centers on the tension between pouring significant effort into creating thoughtful, detailed blog content and seeing minimal interaction or feedback in return.  This one-way communication leads to questioning whether maintaining a wargaming blog (two in Norm's case) continues to be worthwhile.  When compared against simply enjoying gaming without the increased overhead of writing about gaming, the answer to this question, to some, becomes clear.

This diary entry argues that blogging has evolved from simply a means of sharing our enthusiasm for wargaming into another hobby of blogging about wargaming. This sub-hobby demands time, energy, and emotional investment often without reciprocal engagement from readers.  This lack of encouragement may lead to a sense of fatigue and a recalibration of priorities.

Norm concludes that disillusionment about the current state is not the major driver of these reflections but one of reorientation.   Perhaps reorientation allows a reclamation of the undistracted joy of gaming, itself?  There may be times in which each of us asks similar questions.   The answers may be different for each of us, but the theme may rhyme.   Responses likely depend upon why we share our wargaming adventures through blogging and what motivates each of us to continue.

In the end, should wargaming be a private pleasure rather than a public performance?  Do you share Norm's concerns and frustrations?

The floor is open for discussion.

What Have I Done?

I suppose I have held a lifelong interest in WWI aerial games.  Beginning with Milton Bradley's Dogfight in the '60s, play moved to The Avalon Hill Game Company's Richthofen's War in the '70s and '80s.

The '90s saw me take to the air with miniatures using Canvas Eagles (CE).  I have vague recollections of a campaign game or two using these rules besides many one-off contests.  Having played CE, who can ever forget the stat sheet for each aircraft?  We really played CE a lot and I began building models so that I could take to the air.  I only maintained a small assortment of 1/72nd kits but I was always on the lookout for more.

Aircraft stat sheet

Meikraft Models of a German Pfalz DIIIa

While Canvas Eagles remained a staple when games took to the air, the late 2000s saw playtesting of Watch Your Six.  I wonder whatever happened to that ruleset?  Even more models were purchased as opportunities arose but the pile of unbuilt kits was not so great.

OK, maybe I exaggerate a bit.  There were probably more models than realized once I began discovering bargains on eBay.  I even managed to buy small chunks of large collections.

By the time COVID disrupted everyone's lives in 2020, WWI aerial combat had transitioned to remote play with players from far-flung reaches of the globe.  A long-running campaign was fought using Richard Lindley's Knights of the Sky which was perfectly suited to remote play via Skype, Zoom, or Google Meet.  In one of these campaigns, my pilot made it all the way through the war only to be met with disaster on the last sortie of the war.  Curses!

All along the way of this journey, newly acquired unbuilt kits were added into the tubs in which these models were placed for storage.  By this time, there were two such large tubs.  Oh, and a few that would not fit.  Did I expect to build and see these kits in a game?  Of course.

Knights of the Sky via Skype

Baron von Freitag's last flight

Where does this rambling trip down Memory Lane lead?

Well, to gain a sense of the scale of the number of models tucked away, I brought the two tubs out of the storage room and emptied their contents out onto the gaming table.  Stacking them up in a quasi-sort by size and manufacturer, I made a count.

Plastic Pile of WWI Aircraft

Now, many of these models are long out of production.  Some go back to the '60s.  How many are there?  More than 140 kits.  Some of the kits have more than one model and were counted as one unless I could verify.  I noticed several bagged kits had more than one model.  Such an interesting assortment of planes and manufacturers.  I had no idea the size of this collection.

What have I done?  Well, bought more models than I can possibly build or use.  Will all of these models ever get built?  Almost certainly not by me.  One resolution for the New Year is to grab a model or two out of the pile and build it just to remember the joy (and frustration) of putting these kits together.  Who knows, perhaps I will take to the skies in 2026?  At least, all of these kits actually made it out onto the table.

Journey v. Destination: Commentary

Curious to see the Paradox of Modern Wargaming post return to the Top 10 posts widget after having fallen off the leaderboard, I returned to the post for a refresher.

As a corollary to the tortoise and hare fable, I argue that modern miniature wargaming is caught in a paradox.  That is, wargamers invest huge amounts of time in painting, research, and terrain building, yet increasingly favor fast-play rules and shorter games that can play to conclusion in an hour or two.  The contrast between the long “journey” of preparation with the brief “destination” of modern game duration prompts a question.  That is, does an emphasis on speed and efficiency at the gaming table undermine the depth, narrative, and sense of accomplishment that typically justified all that effort?  Of course, this is a simplification, and both have a place in the hobby.

With more than two score of readers weighing in on the topic, I try to distill this collective wisdom, experience, and insight into a handful of common themes from the many, generous responses.  Taking up a tally sheet, I scored the responses.  A synopsis follows: 

Painting v. Gaming

I’ve noticed a bifurcation in how wargamers approach the hobby. Some clearly see painting as a means to an end. These gamers paint so they can play. They describe themselves as warGAMERS, not painters. Others admit that painting figures and building terrain are satisfying in their own right.  Even if an army never hits the table, there is still get plenty of joy from this facet of the hobby.  I reckon blogging feeds into that too.  Being able to share progress, swap tips, and show off completed projects gives painting its own reward separate from gaming.

Game Length and Complexity
The comments about game length are interesting.  Many of us remember those day‑long (or even multi‑day) games of the old days.  I have had many.  Now, most gamers seem to prefer games that wrap up in two to four hours.  Long enough to tell a story but not so long that they feel like slogging through mud. The sweet spot seems to be rules that flow naturally and don’t bury players under numerous tables and exhausting detail.  A few people pointed out how older “proper” rule sets rarely reached a satisfying finish, while modern abstract systems often feel just as plausible and more fun.  I tend to agree.

Skirmish, Scale, and “Realism”
The boom in skirmish and “big skirmish” games has been fascinating to watch develop.  These results are backed by results from the Great Wargaming Survey.  Some historical periods (Western gunfights, pulp, sci‑fi, modern small‑unit actions) fit this format perfectly. Others, like pike‑and‑shot, maybe not so much. On this topic, there is debate. Personally, I like the idea that “realism” doesn’t have to mean a simulation.  I do enjoy simulations, though.  If the outcomes are believable and the game captures the right flavor of a period, that’s good enough for me.

Time, Focus, and the Modern Hobby
The whole “declining attention span” theory gets thrown around a lot, but some (like Stew, Norm, and JWH) don’t buy it.  As several commenters pointed out, it’s more about life and time than attention.  Most of us, having gamed for decades, simply don’t have the same long afternoons we once did.  Well, until retirement, that is!  Shorter games fit better with real life.  I suspect those players craving detailed simulations may now find that level of detail in computer wargames.  On the tabletop, people seem more interested in enjoying each other’s company and finishing games with a sense of closure.

Variety, Choice, and the Future

If the hobby suffers from anything these days, it’s too much choice.  Every month brings new rules, new scales, and new shiny projects to distract us.  Yet, no one seems particularly worried about the future.  A few long‑time gamers said it flat‑out.  If we are enjoying ourselves now, that is what matters.  Whether historical miniature wargaming thrives beyond our generation isn’t the main concern.  Playing with the right people and finding pleasure and satisfaction in the process, whatever form that takes, is key.

Perhaps there is no paradox in this context at all but a nuanced and individual approach to wargaming.

Thanks to all for contributing your insights to my little study.

FPW Prussian Dragoons and Winter Prep

With frost on the ground in the mornings and daylight hours decreasing, time to really think about laying in a winter's supply of black, undercoated figured.  In between various winter prep tasks (actually, prepping and priming figures ought to be added to my list of tasks), the Ready-to-Paint (R2P) box saw a measurable increase in the number of units ready to paint.  The decision of what to prep for winter is always a bit challenging because I must come upon a plan.  This year, the winter theme seems to center around what collection was out on table last.  That would be the Reconquista.  With the recent Zallaqah game, a deep dig into The Lead Pile pulled up enough figures to field several units for both armies.  Do I need more?  Of course not!  Prepped and primed, these handfuls of figures nearly exhaust the tally of unpainted figures remaining in the bins.  Rough count points to about 75 figures plopped into the R2P box.  Also getting attention are several handfuls of figures to expand the Biblical collections.  Of course, some more FPW 15s are heading into the R2P box as are more 18th Century 15s.  The painting queue is getting quite long.

Besides laying in a supply of figures for winter, the painting desk saw some action this weekend too.  The first of these efforts is a 12-figure regiment of Prussian dragoons.  These fellows are from the 7th Dragoon Regiment. 

Figures are Old Glory from 19th Century Miniatures.  With December fast approaching, it is almost time for 19th Century's annual Christmas sale.  I better dig and sift through The Lead Pile to see what I may need to include in my annual restock.  In my recent excavation, I uncovered a number of figures, some from long lost, dormant, or forgotten projects.  Some of these discoveries I set aside for possible Paint'em or Purge'em decisions.  Others, I simply threw back into the hole and reburied to rediscover later.   

Paradox of Modern Wargaming

The paradox?  Speed vs. Journey in the Digital Age.  

As the Palouse Wargaming Journal passes its thirteenth anniversary, these anniversaries often bring up a time of reflection on the past.  Reflections this year saw a return to one particular post I wrote more than two years ago on how battle reports are read (see Reporting from the Front: How are Battle Reports Read).  Besides a perceived change in writing and reading battle reports, has the underlying wargaming landscape, likewise, undergone change in how we participate?  For these reflections, I refer to these perceived changes as "modern" wargaming.

The modern wargaming landscape presents an interesting paradox that hits at the core of wargaming's identity.  We dedicate months, sometimes years, to painting armies, researching historical uniforms, and crafting detailed terrain.  All of these time-consuming preparatory activities result in bringing the efforts to the gaming table in a game that frequently can be completed in under an hour.  This contradiction raises fundamental questions about whether we've lost sight of the journey in favor of quick results, and whether the very tools meant to enhance our hobby experience have inadvertently diminished it.

Rise of the Quick-Play Culture
The trend toward quick-play wargames and rules has become undeniably to the fore in recent years.  This reflects a broader shift in gaming preferences, with players increasingly gravitating toward games that can be completed in two to three hours or less.  The Great Wargaming Survey supports this notion with only 17% of respondents saying that a game longer than three hours is preferred. 

The market has responded accordingly.  Wargames designated as "small footprint" and games designed to be "quick play" have proliferated.  Systems like One-Hour Wargames or the many One-Page rules promise battles that only take about one hour to fight to conclusion. This compression is not only limited to casual, pick-up games.  Even complex historical scenarios are being redesigned for rapid consumption.

The Commands & Colors Revolution
Perhaps no single system better exemplifies this shift than Richard Borg's Commands & Colors series.  I have introduced a number of gamers to historical miniatures gaming through Commands & Colors.  The appeal is clear.  These games provide the feeling of playing a mass battle game while allowing players to refight the entire historical battle in relatively short time.  Often, we can complete four or five games in a single three-hour gaming session.

The genius of Commands & Colors lies in its ability to deliver satisfying tactical decision-making within a streamlined framework.  Players experience interesting tactical decisions despite rules' simplicity.  This combination creates a perfect melding of boardgame and wargame.  Rarely are two games played the same.  With the success of this system, countless other designs have followed a similar path.  Adding miniatures into the mix makes a solid system even better.

The Attention Span Crisis
This shift toward game length brevity may reflect broader changes in human attention patterns.  Research suggests a significant decrease in focused attention.  Decreased attention span is not confined to gaming but surfaces across all digital platforms.  The digital age creates environments where stimuli constantly compete for our attention.  This competition leads to frequent task-switching and cognitive overload.

The push toward shorter duration games leads game designers to create experiences that captivate players without overwhelming them.  Designers must create a balance between engaging gameplay and the brain's need for managing cognitive loads.  This reality suggests that the trend toward shorter games isn't merely preference but an adaptation to fundamental changes in how our brains process extended engagement.

The Painting Paradox
The most striking contradiction in modern wargaming lies in the seeming disconnect between our dedication to army preparation and actual gameplay.  While game size has decreased with an increased tendency toward skirmish games, wargamers continue to invest enormous amounts of time to painting.  Some paint hundreds or even thousands of figures per year.  As supported by the Great Wargaming Survey, for many, painting is the hobby and represents their primary source of satisfaction.

Yet this same community increasingly seeks games that can be completed in a fraction of the time spent preparing armies for battle.  Have the visual and creative aspects of painting and building armies become more important than the gaming experience itself?

The Tournament Mindset
With a move to decreased game length and simplified rules, have we all become tournament players without realizing it?  The emphasis on quick resolution, standardized rules, and efficient gameplay mirrors competitive tournament formats.  Traditional narrative gaming, with its emphasis on story development and immersive experience, requires time and patience.  These attributes seem increasingly scarce.

The tournament approach prioritizes clear winners, efficient mechanics, and reproducible results.  While these aren't inherently negative qualities, they represent a significant departure from the storytelling and narrative-building traditions that historically defined miniature wargaming.  The question becomes whether we're losing something essential in this transition.

Historical Perspective and the Path Forward
Looking at this trend historically, it's worth questioning whether our time constraints are genuinely different from those of previous generations. Wargamers of the 1970s and 1980s faced similar challenges of limited time and competing priorities, yet they typically maintained longer, more involved games. The difference may lie not in available time, but in our expectations and attention patterns.

The solution isn't necessarily to reject quick-play systems.  Many of these innovations represent genuine improvements in accessibility and enjoyment. Rather, we need to consciously preserve space for deeper, more involved gaming experiences that justify the enormous investment we make in army preparation.

Perhaps the answer lies in recognizing that different types of games serve different purposes.  As mentioned about Commands & Colors earlier, quick-play systems excel at introducing new players, providing weeknight entertainment, and exploring new periods or rules.  Quick-play systems, however, should not completely replace the longer, more involved games that allow armies to truly shine and narratives to develop naturally.

The wargaming hobby is broad enough to accommodate both approaches.  What we must guard against is the unconscious drift toward speed and simplicity at the expense of depth and immersion.  The months we spend painting and preparing should lead to gaming experiences worthy of that investment.  We should foster experiences that prioritize the journey as much as the destination, and that create lasting memories rather than merely efficient outcomes.

In the end, the choice between quick results and meaningful journeys isn't binary. Diverse gaming communities will likely embrace both, often in harmony.  I enjoy both types of games and each has its place.  The purpose of the game and available resources should determine the choice of gaming system.  Our beautifully painted armies deserve nothing less than this thoughtful balance.