Should History Decide who Wins?

One of the things I enjoy most about making these videos is that so many of them begin with questions from viewers. This week's discussion was inspired by Tony Wentworth, who asked a deceptively simple question: should historical wargame rules do everything possible to produce the "correct" historical result?

Most of us want our games to feel authentic. We want armies to behave as they did historically, commanders to face the same challenges, and the battlefield to reward historically sensible tactics. But at the same time, we're still playing a game. If every battle is predetermined because history tells us who won, where does that leave the players?

My own view is that a good ruleset should always be capable of reproducing the historical outcome. If the rules accurately represent troop quality, command, morale, terrain and weapon effectiveness, then the historical result should be one possible outcome. The important word, though, is "possible" rather than "guaranteed."

History is full of battles that seem almost impossible to recreate without some additional help from the rules. Agincourt relied heavily on terrible ground conditions, French overconfidence and the effectiveness of English longbowmen. Thermopylae depended almost entirely on geography until betrayal changed everything. Rorke's Drift was shaped by carefully prepared defences, disciplined rifle fire, leadership, fatigue and the pauses between successive Zulu attacks.

Without acknowledging those unique historical circumstances, generic tabletop rules often produce results that look nothing like the real battles. That's where carefully designed scenarios and special rules become valuable. They shouldn't dictate the outcome, but they should recreate the conditions that made the historical outcome possible.

For me, that's where the real challenge of historical game design lies. A scenario should encourage players to make the same kinds of decisions their historical counterparts faced, while still leaving enough uncertainty that skill, judgement and luck can produce different results. After all, if players have no meaningful choices, they're simply acting out history rather than exploring it.

That's what makes this such an interesting subject to discuss. There probably isn't a single right answer. Some players prefer tightly scripted historical recreations, while others enjoy seeing history take an entirely different direction once the first dice are rolled. Wherever you fall on that spectrum, I think we can all agree on one thing: the best historical games are the ones that leave both players feeling they had meaningful decisions to make and a genuine chance to influence the battle.

I'd love to know where you stand. Should historical rules prioritise historical accuracy above everything else, or should player agency always come first? Join the discussion in the comments below and let me know your thoughts.

We Turned Sharp Practice into a Big Battle

The latest video on the channel takes a look behind the scenes of our award-winning participation game based on the Battle of the Berezina, one of the defining actions of Napoleon's disastrous 1812 Retreat from Moscow. Rather than simply showing the finished table, the video explores the thinking behind the project and how we adapted Sharp Practice 2 to recreate a much larger battle than the rules were originally designed for.

The Battle of the Berezina has always appealed as a wargaming subject because it combines dramatic history with challenging tabletop decisions. As the remnants of the Grande Armée struggled to escape across temporary bridges over the freezing Berezina River, the French rearguard fought desperately to delay the advancing Russians while thousands of soldiers and civilians tried to reach safety. It is a battle defined by sacrifice, desperate heroism and impossible choices, making it ideal for narrative gaming.

Bringing that history to life required much more than simply painting figures. The project combined miniatures from several manufacturers, custom-built river sections and bridges, carefully researched terrain, and months of planning to produce a table that reflected both the history and the atmosphere of the campaign. Participation games demand a balance between visual impact and enjoyable gameplay, so every decision had to serve both purposes.

Perhaps the greatest challenge came from the rules. We chose to modify Sharp Practice 2 to cope with battalion-sized formations. Senior commanders activated groups of units instead of individuals, the Force Morale system was extended to create a slower-burning but more dramatic collapse, and several historical special rules captured the unique personalities and circumstances of the campaign. Marshal Ney inspired nearby troops, Jean-Baptiste Eblé accelerated bridge repairs, Cossacks terrorised broken formations, and streams of exhausted French stragglers became moving obstacles that influenced both movement and morale.

The result was a game that remained recognisably Sharp Practice while successfully handling a much larger battle. Although turns naturally took longer, the battle developed exactly the sort of momentum hoped for, beginning with mounting tension before accelerating into a dramatic conclusion.

The project also demonstrated one of the great strengths of participation games. They are not simply opportunities to display painted miniatures but a way of sharing history, discussing rule ideas, meeting fellow hobbyists and encouraging conversations throughout the day. Receiving the show's Best in Show award was a wonderful surprise, but perhaps even more rewarding were the many discussions with visitors who stopped to ask questions, roll dice and share their own enthusiasm for historical wargaming.

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.