The Battle of Caldiero

Yesterday five of the Rejects got together for a game in the shed-o-war. Despite the heat, we managed a seven hour game using Richards own early Napoleonic rules and his miniature collection. The Battle of Caldiero, fought on 12 November 1796, took place during Napoleon's campaign in Northern Italy. Having defeated the Piedmontese and forced the Austrians back, the French Army of Italy had trapped an Austrian force in Mantua and repelled an earlier attempt to relieve the city. By early November, however, Napoleon faced a renewed Austrian offensive as two enemy columns advanced from the north with the intention of joining near Verona before marching on Mantua.

Judging the Austrian force approaching from the east under Alvinczy to be the greater threat, Napoleon ordered Vaubois to delay the northern column while he concentrated his main force around Verona. Alvinczy's advance guard occupied positions between Caldiero and Colognola, with the remainder of the Austrian army some distance behind at Villanuova. Napoleon planned to defeat the isolated advance guard before reinforcements could arrive, using Augereau to pin the enemy at Caldiero while Massena attacked their right flank through Colognola.

In this scenario, the French achieve victory by forcing at least half of the Austrian advance guard to retreat, rout or be destroyed, or by inflicting greater casualties than they suffer. The Austrians must retain control of both Caldiero and Colognola until the end of the battle. Harsh winter weather, including snow, sleet and mud, can severely affect movement, artillery, cavalry charges and musketry, while terrain features such as vineyards, woods and fortified villages further influence the course of the fighting.

The Action

The French apporach the two heavily defended tolwns and the ridge line held by the Austrians

The village of Stra, forward of the main Austrian line, was heavily defended,

Slightly back from Stra was the town of Caldiero. This would be a tougher nut to crack as most of the building here were stone built. 

The ridge between Caldiero and Colognda

Colognda was another town held by the Austrians and was fought over fiercely during the battle

Inspecting the troops. They may look rather ragged, but all of the French regiments were veterans.

Cannon fire marked the begining of the battle

French reinforcements in the form of Dragoons moved around the rear of the army to protect our right flank. 

Outnumbered two to one these Austrians probably don't stand a chance

The French advance begins, and casualties begin to mount immediately.

In the Centre, Stuarts troops advance towards the ridge. Point blank musketry and canister would thin their ranks by the end of the day.

Although the French had half the artillery of the Austrians, their gunnery was better giving them an extra dice every time they fired....pity we couldn't hit the broad side of a barn all day! 

My Dragoons canter round the rear of my infantry, full of confidence. 

The first assult of the day. My Grenadiers attack the village of Stra

Snapshot of the positions early in the fight. Look at all those neat blue lines...it won't stay this way for long!

I take Stra fairly easily, and the Austrians have to pull back their gun to save it from capture. With my left flank secured I can advance past Stra an on to Caldiero. 

My Boys in Stra. The Grenadiers were relentlessly targeted after this and eventually had to fall back and rally. But they never got to see any more action. 

Staurts regiments have pased through the Vinyards and are ready to assult the ridge. With the austrians on favourable ground, and flanked by artillery, any assult will be costly. 

Beyond the village my infantry begin massing for the attack on Caldiero

The Austrian Hussars charge and my heavier Dragoons successfuly counter charge. I have a slight advatage but the result is in the hands of the dice gods... 

...and the dice gods laughed in my face. 

In the distance Stuarts assult on the ridge has begun. My troops are now positioned to assult Caldiero

Stuart launches his assult on Colognda and was repulsed. 

The assult on the ridge was more succesful, but at a great cost. We would later come to regreat getting carried away here. 

Forced out of Stra I was alble to immediately retake it, but again, casulaties are mounting. 

This little village saw a lot of bloodshed.

In the final turn I launch my assult on Caldiero.

I manage to take the town. One objective down, and one more to go. 

Staurt captures Colognda. Thats the second objective taken, but the question remains, have we done enough to win the battle? 

The Outcome

Napoleon's attack achieved only partial success. The French managed to seize Caldiero after heavy fighting, but Masséna's attempt to turn the Austrian right at Colognola failed, denying Napoleon the decisive breakthrough his plan required. With atrocious weather disrupting operations and Austrian reinforcements arriving throughout the day, the French were unable to exploit their initial gains. As the balance of the battle shifted, Napoleon ordered a withdrawal, allowing the Austrians to reoccupy Caldiero while retaining Colognola throughout the action. Although the Austrians won the battle, the victory proved short-lived, as Napoleon regrouped and defeated Alvinczy at Arcole just days later, restoring the French strategic advantage.

In our game Stuart and I managed to equal Napoleons result, capturing Caldiero and Colognola, but just like the Corsican Ogre, at great cost. Meanwhile despite Austrian reinforcements not arriving before the end of the game, they were not far away, so the French could not hope to hold their position. We had taken severe casualties in our centre and like Napoleon would have had to relinquish the field. The game was called as a narrow victory for the Austrians. 

Is the Hobby Changing?

After more than four decades in the hobby, I believe the answer is yes—but perhaps not in the way many people expect. Over the last few years, I've attended a number of wargames shows where I've noticed something that would have been far less common when I first entered the hobby. The crowds seem broader. There are more families, more younger gamers, more women, and a wider mix of people enjoying tabletop wargaming than I remember seeing twenty or thirty years ago. More importantly, the atmosphere has been incredibly positive. The enthusiasm for history, miniature painting, tabletop battles, and the social side of the hobby is every bit as strong as it has always been.

In this video, I reflect on those observations and ask whether these changes might actually be one of the best things to happen to historical wargaming. Rather than focusing on controversy, I wanted to look at what I've genuinely experienced while attending recent shows and speaking to fellow hobbyists.

One of the biggest conclusions I've reached is that new players don't replace the traditions that many of us have loved for decades. They add to them. Every newcomer brings different interests, fresh ideas, new projects, and sometimes introduces us to campaigns or historical subjects we may never have explored ourselves. That's one of the great strengths of tabletop gaming. The hobby grows not because it abandons its past, but because each new generation builds upon it.

The routes into historical wargaming are also changing. Where many of us discovered the hobby through clubs and magazines, today's players often arrive through YouTube, podcasts, board games, fantasy gaming, or social media before finding their way to historical miniatures. The destination remains the same: a shared passion for history, creativity, modelling, painting, and rolling dice with friends.

One thing I didn't include in the video because of time constraints was my theory that maybe Covid and lockdowns have accelerated a process that has been happening for a while now. Lost of 'new' gamers rediscovered a hobby they had played when they were younger during this period. But there are also a lot of other new wargamers who seem have entered the hobby since 2020. I don't know if there is any actualy data to support this, its just anecdotal evidence and what I think I can see at shows. Maybe a new generation of wargamers had their perspectives on what was important, and what wasn't during those long lockdowns. As a society we seem to have a better appreciation of metal health and welbeing following the Pandemic, and a social hobby like wargaming, with painting and creativity at its core, fits perectly with that mindset. Maybe that is drawing new people into the hobby? Or maybe I'm imagining it? 🤣

Ultimately, this isn't a video about politics or changing the hobby into something different. It's about recognising that every thriving hobby needs new people, new ideas, and new enthusiasm if it is going to flourish for decades to come. From my perspective, after forty years of gaming, that's exactly what I'm beginning to see.

I'd love to know whether you've noticed the same changes at your local club or the shows you attend. Do you think historical wargaming is changing? If so, do you see those changes as positive? Join the discussion by watching the video and sharing your own thoughts in the comments. The conversation is always better when more voices are around the table.

How do you Hide and Army?

One of the biggest differences between real warfare and tabletop wargaming is information. In most games, we enjoy a perfect view of the battlefield. We know where every enemy unit is located, where reserves are hiding, and often what our opponent is planning to do next. Real generals never had that luxury. So in this week's video, I take a look at one of the most fascinating ways to add realism, uncertainty, and excitement to tabletop battles: simulating the fog of war.

The concept is simple. Instead of allowing players complete knowledge of the battlefield, information is restricted or concealed. This forces commanders to make decisions based on incomplete intelligence, just as their historical counterparts had to do for centuries. Even with scouts, observation balloons, reconnaissance aircraft, and dispatch riders, battlefield information was often inaccurate or out of date by the time it reached senior commanders.

Over the years, my gaming group, Posties Rejects, have experimented with several different approaches to hidden information. Some of our earliest games used a simple sheet hung across the battlefield during deployment, preventing either side from seeing where the enemy was positioned. Once the screen was removed, carefully prepared battle plans often collapsed instantly, leading to frantic redeployments and plenty of laughter.

We've also used the same technique for historical games. American Civil War armies advancing through dense morning fog and First World War dawn attacks became far more unpredictable when neither side knew exactly where the enemy was located. In some cases, random movement was added to represent units losing direction, creating wonderfully chaotic openings to battles.

Another favourite method is the use of blinds. Instead of seeing actual units, players see markers representing possible forces. These may conceal powerful formations, small scouting parties, or even nothing at all. This approach works particularly well for periods such as the French & Indian War, where dense terrain and limited visibility naturally support hidden movement and deception.

The video also explores systems that we haven't personally used, including double-blind gaming. Popular in Kriegsspiel-style games, double-blind systems rely on an umpire and separate maps so that neither side can see the enemy until contact is made. While potentially more demanding to organise, these methods can create an incredibly immersive command experience.

Ultimately, the goal is not necessarily to make games more complicated. Instead, it's about creating uncertainty, surprise, and memorable stories. Some of the most enjoyable games are not those where every plan works perfectly, but those where unexpected events force players to adapt and think on their feet.

Do Tokens Ruin Wargames?

Tabletop wargaming has long struggled with visual spectacle and mechanical clarity, and few topics highlight that tension more clearly than the use of tokens, markers, and tabletop gaming aids. In todays video, I take a closer look at whether these tools enhance or detract from the immersive experience that draws so many hobbyists into miniature wargaming in the first place. 

The discussion originates from a viewer who observed that early photo's of playtesting of our 1812 Retreat from Moscow rules introduced a range of counters and markers onto the tabletop. While entirely functional, it was noted that these elements sometimes “spoil the visual effect of the armies.” That observation opens up a much wider question that that I wanted to discuss today: how much visual clutter is too much?

So today I briefly discuss some of the major categories of wargaming tokens used across historical and skirmish systems. These include casualty and wound tracking markers, activation and turn order counters, status and condition effects such as pinned or suppressed, and tactical resource tokens like command points or ammunition tracking. Each serves a practical function, reducing bookkeeping and helping players manage increasingly complex rule systems without constantly referencing notes or rosters. These markers can enhance gameplay, but with a visual trade-off. 

Historical wargaming is built on atmosphere, with painted miniatures, carefully crafted terrain, and cinematic table layouts forming a key part of the hobby experience. When that battlefield becomes crowded with brightly coloured counters and reminders, some of the illusion can be lost. The question is not whether tokens are useful (they clearly are) but whether their implementation can be improved. The video also explores practical solutions for hobbyists who want both clarity and aesthetics. One approach is integrating tokens into the visual language of the table itself. Instead of generic plastic markers, players can use scenic elements such as equipment piles, smoke effects, terrain-integrated counters, or themed objective markers. These subtle changes can preserve immersion while still providing the clarity needed for smooth gameplay.

We Nearly Broke our Wargame

A few nights ago, Ray and I got together with Paul Brooks from Pazoot for one final chat about our recently published campaign book, 1812: The Retreat from Moscow – A Battle Chronicle Wargame. Rather than discussing the rules themselves, we spent some time reflecting on the journey that took the project from a slightly mad idea to a finished publication. We talked about where the concept came from, how it evolved during development, the challenges we encountered along the way, and the many rounds of playtesting that helped shape the final product.

It was an enjoyable opportunity to look back on a project that has occupied a significant amount of our time over the last few months and to share some of the behind-the-scenes stories that never quite make it into the finished rulebook. 

I appreciate that this is rather different from my usual video content. It's longer, more informal, and much more of a relaxed conversation than a scripted hobby discussion. However, I thought some viewers might find it interesting to hear about the realities of taking a wargaming project from initial concept through to publication.

One final apology: the video and audio quality are a little rough around the edges. The discussion was recorded over Google Meet, so it's not quite up to the usual production standards. Still, hopefully the content makes up for the occasional technical wobble.

If you've ever wondered what goes into creating a wargame publication, or you're interested in the story behind 1812: The Retreat from Moscow, I hope you enjoy the conversation.

Armies First, or Rules First?

What comes first when starting a new historical wargaming project: the rules or the armies?

It's a simple question that sparked an interesting line of thought on my channel after viewer Terry Warden asked whether most historical wargamers choose a ruleset first and then build their armies to match, or collect and paint their armies before looking for suitable rules. The more I thought about it, the more I realised that there isn't a single answer and that different hobbyists approach new projects in very different ways.

In this week's video, I explore three common approaches to starting a historical wargaming project. Some gamers begin with a set of rules. They want to know exactly how armies are organised, how many miniatures they need, and what basing system will be required before buying a single figure. Others take the opposite route, collecting and painting the armies that inspire them before worrying about how they will be used on the tabletop. Then there are gamers like me, who usually start with a particular historical period and scale before asking what rules are available.

Along the way, I discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each approach, the importance of basing decisions, the influence of local gaming clubs, and why enthusiasm for a particular period often outweighs careful planning. I also consider whether there is such a thing as a "normal" way to start a historical army collection, or whether the diversity of approaches reflects the broad appeal of the historical wargaming hobby itself.

Best in Show at Broadside 2026

The Posties Rejects were back at the Broadside Wargames Show today, hosted by the Milton Hundreds Wargaming Club. Broadside has become a regular fixture in our calendar and we make a point of putting on a participation game every year. We all take turns bringing games to the show, and this year it was Ray and I who had the pleasure of collaborating on a project that has occupied a great deal of our hobby time over the last couple of years.

Today we finally got our 28mm Retreat from Moscow collection onto the table in all its wintery glory. Even better, at the end of the day we were absolutely delighted to be awarded Best in Show. Needless to say, we're both over the moon.

The Battle of Berezina, November 1812

Our game recreated part of the Battle of Berezina, fought between 26 and 29 November 1812 during the catastrophic retreat of Napoleon's Grande Armée from Russia.

To understand why Berezina became such a desperate struggle, we need to go back to June 1812 when Napoleon launched his invasion of Russia. Around 600,000 men crossed the frontier in what remains one of the largest military operations in history. The intention was to force Russia back into compliance with the Continental System and strengthen French dominance across Europe.

The Russians, however, refused to fight the decisive battle Napoleon wanted. Instead, they retreated deeper into their vast territory, destroying food, supplies and shelter as they went. The strategy forced the French to advance ever further from their supply lines while finding less and less to live on.

The two armies finally met at Borodino on 7 September. The battle was a French tactical victory, but it came at an enormous cost, with roughly 70,000 casualties suffered between the two sides in a single day. More importantly, the Russian army survived intact and withdrew in good order.

A week later Napoleon entered Moscow expecting Tsar Alexander I to seek terms. Instead, much of the city was destroyed by fire and the Tsar refused to negotiate. After waiting more than a month in the ruins, Napoleon finally ordered a retreat. What followed was one of history's great military disasters.

Forced back along the same devastated route his army had already stripped bare, Napoleon's troops faced starvation, disease, exhaustion, relentless Cossack attacks and an unusually early Russian winter. By mid-November the remnants of the Grande Armée had reached Smolensk only to discover that its supplies were already exhausted. Worse still, several Russian armies were converging to cut off their escape.

The Crossing of the Berezina

By late November Napoleon's army found itself trapped against the Berezina River. The main bridge at Borisov had been seized by Russian forces under Admiral Pavel Chichagov, while other Russian armies closed in from different directions. The situation looked hopeless.

Napoleon responded with one of the most impressive deception operations of his career, convincing the Russians that he intended to cross further south. Meanwhile, French engineers identified a crossing point near the village of Studienka.

Under the leadership of General Jean-Baptiste Eblé, several hundred Dutch pontonniers entered the freezing, ice-filled water and constructed two temporary bridges. Working chest-deep in near-impossible conditions, they made the crossing possible at the cost of their own lives. Most would die from exposure and hypothermia in the days that followed. As French troops crossed the river, Russian forces attacked from both sides.

On the western bank, Marshals Oudinot and Ney fought desperately to keep the escape route open. On the eastern bank, Marshal Victor's IX Corps formed a rearguard and held off the advancing Russians while tens of thousands of stragglers, wounded soldiers and civilians struggled towards the bridges. It was this desperate eastern-bank action that we chose to recreate at Broadside.

The fighting was brutal. Artillery pounded the French positions while Victor's outnumbered troops fought to buy time for those attempting to escape. By the morning of 29 November, Napoleon ordered the bridges destroyed to prevent pursuit. Thousands who had failed to cross were abandoned to their fate.

Although Napoleon escaped, the cost was horrific. Between 20,000 and 25,000 French combat troops were lost, along with perhaps another 20,000 stragglers who were killed, captured or drowned. Russian losses were also severe, but they had failed to achieve their ultimate objective of trapping Napoleon himself.

The crossing saved the Emperor and his surviving officer corps, but the Grande Armée was effectively destroyed. Of the approximately 600,000 men who had marched into Russia in June, fewer than 40,000 effective soldiers emerged from the campaign six months later. It remains one of the greatest military catastrophes in history.

The Game

For the game itself we used our collection of 28mm Napoleonic miniatures to recreate the desperate struggle on the eastern bank of the Berezina.

The figures are primarily from Perry Miniatures and Front Rank Miniatures, supplemented by miniatures from Wargames Foundry, North Star, Essex and Murawski Miniatures. The ruined buildings are from Charlie Foxtrot Models, now part of the Blotz range.

One of the centrepieces of the table was the Berezina itself. Special thanks must go to Last Valley, who produced the river sections and bridge to our specifications and helped bring the battlefield to life.

Rules-wise, we used a large-battle adaptation of Sharp Practice. Rather than activating individual Groups, we activated entire Brigades, allowing the game to flow more smoothly while still retaining the character and decision-making that makes Sharp Practice such an enjoyable set of rules.

The result was exactly what we had hoped for: a visually impressive table, a game that played well throughout the day, and plenty of opportunities to talk to visitors about both the history and the hobby.

A Wonderful End to the Day

Putting on a display game always involves a considerable investment of time and effort. There are miniatures to paint, terrain to build, research to undertake, rules to adapt and countless practical details to organise before a single dice is rolled. That's part of the fun, of course, but it makes recognition from fellow gamers especially rewarding. So to be awarded Best in Show was a fantastic surprise and a wonderful way to end the day.

Many thanks to the Milton Hundreds Wargaming Club for hosting another excellent Broadside show, to everyone who stopped by the table to chat, ask questions or roll a few dice, and to all the traders, clubs and participants who helped make the event such an enjoyable day. As for the Rejects, we're already discussing what we might bring next year. Though for the moment, we're still enjoying the glow of a hard-earned win.

Stop Playing Games, Start Telling Stories

One of the most interesting things about tabletop wargaming is how often the games we remember most are not necessarily the closest victories or the most historically accurate battles, but the ones that created memorable stories. The desperate last stand. The heroic cavalry charge. The incompetent commander (usually me) who somehow survives despite clearly being cursed by the dice gods. Narrative has always existed in wargaming, even if we do not always consciously think about it.

In this video, I explore how my early experiences with role-playing games shaped the way I now approach scenario design and campaign gaming in tabletop wargames. Long before I became heavily involved in historical miniatures gaming, I spent years building fantasy worlds, writing adventures and creating stories for RPG campaigns. Although I have far less time for full-scale worldbuilding these days, many of the same storytelling techniques are still incredibly useful when creating engaging and immersive tabletop battles.

The video looks at how concepts such as character development, backstory, atmosphere and consequence can dramatically improve our games. Not just through complicated mechanics, but through simple ideas like giving commanders personalities, creating meaningful objectives, using written briefings, or linking battles together into ongoing campaigns. I also discuss how places, landscapes and even armies themselves can become “characters” within a narrative, helping battles feel more believable and emotionally engaging.

Another major focus of the discussion is the structure of storytelling itself. Every memorable narrative contains a beginning, middle and end. In wargaming terms, that means establishing a backstory, creating compelling protagonists, allowing dramatic action to unfold on the tabletop and ensuring the outcome has meaningful consequences. Once those consequences begin influencing future games, individual battles naturally evolve into campaigns, and campaigns are often where tabletop wargaming becomes truly special.

As always, I would love to hear your own experiences and opinions. Do you prefer narrative campaigns or more competitive standalone battles? Have RPGs influenced your own approach to wargaming? And what are the most memorable stories to emerge from your tabletop battles?

The Retreat From Moscow Is HERE!

After months of writing, playtesting, and rewriting, our rulebook is officially launching today!

This project has been a fantastic collaboration between Paul Brooks (the man behind the Pazoot Wargaming channel), me, and my long-suffering mate Ray (from the Don't Throw a One blog).

I won’t ramble on too much—I’ve already shared several videos and posts tracking our progress, and the reception from the community so far has been incredibly positive. 

Paul has been working incredibly hard on the website, and we are ahead of schedule, so the rules are available today. If you want to grab your copy ahead of the crowd, head over to the store right now: 

👉 Order your copy here: www.pazoot.com

But wait, there’s more... To say a massive thank you for all your support, you can use the code BIGLEE10 at checkout to get 10% OFF the cover price!