BigLee's guide to surviving Salute 53

 If you’re planning your first trip to Salute 53, or returning after a long break, this video is your essential primer for navigating one of the biggest tabletop wargaming events in the world. Hosted at ExCeL London, Salute has evolved dramatically over the years, growing into a sprawling, vibrant showcase of everything the hobby has to offer.

In this video, I explore how the show has changed for the better, with a broader mix of historical, fantasy, and sci-fi gaming on display. From immersive demo tables to interactive participation games, Salute is no longer just a shopping trip—it’s an experience. With over 90 demo games and a huge variety of traders, it’s a place where hobbyists can discover new systems, meet creators, and get hands-on with the latest releases and Kickstarter projects.

I also cover the practical side of attending the event. Travel to ExCeL London is easier than ever thanks to the DLR, but parking costs have risen, making planning ahead essential. Inside the venue, accessibility has improved significantly, with pre-bookable accessible parking, free mobility scooters, and plenty of seating areas to rest during a long day on your feet.

Food and drink options are plentiful, though undeniably expensive, so bringing a packed lunch is a popular strategy among seasoned attendees. Queueing, once a major concern, is now well managed with a dedicated indoor space, ensuring a smoother start to the day—even with thousands of visitors arriving before the doors open.

Beyond the games and shopping, Salute offers a rich programme of Hobby Heroes panels and a consistently outstanding painting competition, showcasing some of the best miniature painting talent in the hobby. These elements add depth to the event, making it more than just a convention—it’s a full celebration of tabletop wargaming culture.

Whether you’re a historical wargamer, miniatures painter, or simply curious about the hobby, this guide will help you make the most of your day at Salute 53 and avoid some of the common pitfalls first-time visitors face.

Who is really in command?

Command and control is one of the most important (and often misunderstood) elements of WWII tabletop wargaming. It’s the invisible force that determines whether your carefully planned attack unfolds like a textbook operation… or collapses into chaos the moment the dice hit the table. In my latest video, I take a deep dive into how four popular rule sets approach this critical aspect of gameplay: Flames of War 4th Edition, Bolt Action 3rd Edition, Chain of Command 2, and Rapid Fire Reloaded.

Each of these games tackles the same historical problem (how commanders influence the battlefield), but they do so in very different ways. Flames of War emphasises formation cohesion and the gradual breakdown of organised forces under pressure. Bolt Action leans into cinematic unpredictability with its order dice system, where momentum can shift in an instant. Chain of Command focuses on the human element, placing leaders at the centre of every decision and making their positioning critical to success. Meanwhile, Rapid Fire Reloaded zooms out to a larger scale, where command becomes a question of coordination, distance, and maintaining control across an entire battlefield.

What emerges from this comparison is not a “best” system, but a set of distinct perspectives on how WWII combat functioned. Each ruleset highlights a different layer of warfare—chaos, leadership, or organisation—and in doing so, shapes the entire feel of the game. The same miniatures and the same historical scenario can feel completely different depending on how command and control are handled.

For tabletop wargamers, this is where the hobby becomes especially rewarding. Exploring different rules isn’t just about mechanics; it’s about engaging with different interpretations of history. These systems invite us to consider how real commanders coped with confusion, limited communication, and the pressure to make decisions in the heat of battle.

The Battle of Oltenitsa - 4th Nov 1853 - A Crimean War Batrep

Yesterday’s game in the Shed-o-War with the rest of the Posties Rejects transported us back to a part of the Crimean War that rarely gets the spotlight. While most people jump straight to the mud, mismanagement, and media circus of the later Allied campaigns, the opening phase (before the British and French fully committed) was very much a brutal, grinding contest between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Turks.

By 1853, tensions between the Russian Empire and the Ottoman Empire had been simmering for years. Russia, keen to expand its influence southward and present itself as the protector of Orthodox Christians within Ottoman territories, pressed its claims with increasing aggression. The Ottomans, meanwhile, were determined to resist.

When diplomacy failed, Russian forces crossed into the Danubian Principalities (modern-day Romania), prompting the Ottomans to declare war in October 1853. What followed was a series of sharp, often overlooked engagements along the Danube and in the Caucasus. These early clashes set the tone: determined Ottoman resistance, often underestimated, against a numerically and logistically powerful Russian army.

One of the defining moments of this opening phase came at the Battle of Oltenița, where Ottoman forces successfully checked a Russian advance. It was an early indication that this would not be the quick, one-sided campaign many had expected. The Turks fought hard, often from prepared positions, and proved more than capable of bloodying Russian noses when the ground favoured them.

Stuart set up a scenario based on these early encounters, pitching Russian attackers against a well-entrenched Turkish force in November 1853. On paper, it looked straightforward. In practice, it was anything but. The Turks held a commanding ridge line, broken by rocky outcrops and fortified with a chain of redoubts. Ten objectives in total, each hill and redoubt worth a single point, and, at the start of the game, all firmly in Ottoman hands. The Russian objective was clear: seize at least six to claim victory. Simple, right? Well… no.

Although the Russians enjoyed a comfortable two-to-one numerical advantage, the terrain told a very different story. Assaulting uphill into prepared positions is never a pleasant experience, and the redoubts turned what might have been a straightforward advance into a grinding series of assaults. Every objective captured would have to be paid for.

One of the real highlights of the evening was seeing the Ottoman collection back on the table. This early-war period has a distinct visual character that sets it apart from the later, more familiar Crimean battles. The Turkish uniforms in particular are an absolute joy: bold colours, striking contrasts, and just enough flourish to remind you that 19th-century warfare hadn’t entirely abandoned its sense of style.

It’s a period that deserves more attention, both for its aesthetics and for the fascinating tactical challenges it presents. The asymmetry of these engagements, numerical superiority versus defensive strength, makes for exactly the kind of tense, decision-driven games that stick in the memory. Games like this are a great reminder that history doesn’t begin with the most famous moments. The early phase of the Crimean War is full of compelling scenarios, dramatic clashes, and underappreciated armies that deserve a place on the tabletop.

And from a wargaming perspective, it offers something rather special: a chance to explore a conflict where the outcome isn’t dictated by reputation, but by how well you can manage ground, timing, and sheer bloody-minded persistence.

As for the Russians’ daunting task of prising six objectives from stubborn Turkish hands? After a marathon eight-hour struggle, they fell just short—ending the day with five points apiece and a hard-fought draw. The Ottoman force was effectively shattered, but much like their historical counterparts, they had done exactly what was required: blunt the advance, buy precious time, and withdraw in good order to a new defensive line, leaving the Russians to contemplate the cost of every inch gained.

Clear vs Scenic Bases

One of the fascinating things about the tabletop wargaming hobby is how the smallest details can spark surprisingly passionate discussions. In this latest video, I take a closer look at one of those deceptively simple questions: Should we be using clear bases or scenic bases for our miniatures? 

The topic was inspired by an email from Harry, also known as the Glasgow Warhog, who asked a straightforward question that many hobbyists have probably considered at some point: Should we move to clear bases? His argument was simple and practical. Clear bases allow miniatures to blend seamlessly into any battlefield terrain, whether that’s grassy countryside, desert landscapes, urban ruins, or the interior of a factory. From a gameplay perspective, the idea makes a lot of sense. But like many aspects of miniature wargaming, the answer isn’t quite that straightforward.

In the video, I reflect on how basing has evolved over the decades, starting with the very earliest miniatures I painted more than forty years ago, when bases were often little more than a quick coat of green paint. From there, hobby techniques evolved into textured bases, flock, static grass, and eventually more elaborate scenic basing. Along the way, I even experimented with the legendary “oregano basing technique,” where dried kitchen herbs doubled as convincing dead grass for early miniature armies.

As painting skills improved, basing became an increasingly creative part of the hobby. Today, many miniature painters treat the base as a tiny diorama, adding multiple scenic elements such as rocks, tufts, debris, and vegetation to create a more natural and immersive look. In the video, I talk about the “three-element basing rule” I often follow, which helps create visually interesting bases that feel like small slices of the battlefield.

Of course, scenic bases come with their own challenges. A beautifully grassed base might look perfect in a rural battlefield, but perhaps less convincing inside a ruined building or on a paved city street. That’s where the appeal of clear acrylic bases becomes obvious. They adapt instantly to whatever terrain lies beneath the miniature. Clear bases offer flexibility and realism during gameplay, while scenic bases add character, storytelling, and a finished aesthetic that many modellers find deeply satisfying.

Ultimately, this isn’t about deciding a “right” answer. Like so many aspects of the hobby, it comes down to personal preference and what you enjoy most, gaming practicality or modelling creativity.