The Missing People on our Tabletops

Historical tabletop wargaming is built around recreating battles, campaigns and military history in miniature form, but one thing often missing from our beautifully crafted tables is the ordinary civilian population caught in the middle of those conflicts. After attending the Partizan recently, I found myself fascinated by the small civilian vignettes hidden among the demo games. Refugees fleeing along roads, villagers watching marching soldiers pass through their towns, frightened civilians sheltering in ruined buildings. Tiny details that added atmosphere, realism and storytelling to the tabletop battlefield.

In this video, I explore the pros and cons of including civilians in historical tabletop wargaming. Should battlefields include refugees, townsfolk and civilians caught in the middle of warfare, or is that a step too far for a hobby that is still fundamentally about entertainment? Historical gamers often strive for realism and authenticity, yet many games portray battlefields as strangely empty places populated only by soldiers. In reality, civilians were frequently present during battles throughout history, from Napoleonic campaigns to the Second World War and beyond.

One of the biggest advantages of civilian miniatures is the storytelling potential they bring to a game. Small scenic details can transform a battlefield from a gaming surface into a living world. Civilians can make terrain feel inhabited, create emotional context and remind players that wars affected ordinary people as well as armies. They can also influence gameplay itself by acting as obstacles, objectives or narrative complications. Refugees clogging roads, villagers requiring evacuation or civilians caught between opposing forces can all add unique tactical challenges to a scenario.

At the same time, there are valid concerns about where the line should be drawn. Some players prefer to keep tabletop wargaming focused on military history and tactics rather than civilian suffering. Others feel uncomfortable mixing entertainment with the realities of war, particularly when dealing with modern conflicts or sensitive historical events. This video explores that balance between immersion, realism, sensitivity and storytelling.

I also discuss how civilians feature directly in the upcoming 1812 Retreat from Moscow Battle Chronicle skirmish campaign rules, developed in collaboration with Paul from Pazoot. In the campaign, civilians and displaced people help reinforce the desperation and chaos of the retreat itself, becoming part of the wider narrative experience rather than simply background scenery.

Whether you’re interested in narrative scenarios, historical authenticity, terrain building, miniature painting or wider hobby discussions, this video tackles one of the most thought-provoking and surprisingly emotional subjects in tabletop historical wargaming.

Partizan 2026 Blew Me Away

The Partizan Wargames Show 2026 once again demonstrated exactly why it remains one of the most respected events in the UK historical tabletop wargaming calendar. Held at Newark Showground, Partizan has long built its reputation around beautifully presented demo games, stunning miniature painting, and an atmosphere that many hobbyists describe as a more relaxed and “civilised” alternative to the larger convention-style events. This year’s show absolutely lived up to that reputation.

In this latest video, I take a detailed look around the demo tables and share some of the games that particularly stood out to me during the day. One of the biggest talking points was the growing presence of smaller scales, showing just how cinematic smaller miniatures can look on the tabletop. At the same time, the classic spectacle of large-scale 28mm gaming was still alive and thriving, with massive Seven Years War, Vietnam, Napoleonic, and American Civil War tables drawing huge crowds throughout the event.

Among my personal highlights were the extraordinary Seven Years War game by Friends of a Military Gentleman, featuring around 2,000 beautifully painted 30mm figures, the atmospheric Cape Finisterre naval battle by Like a Stonewall, complete with fog banks and drifting smoke, and Harrogate Wargames Club’s astonishingly detailed Vietnam game Walk This Hue 1968. There were also fantastic participation games, Sharp Practice skirmishes, trench warfare displays, feudal Japanese battles, and plenty of wonderfully eccentric hobby details hidden across the tables.

My show video attempts to summarise my reflections on the social side of the hobby, which for me remains one of the most important aspects of shows like Partizan. Throughout the day, I spent a lot of time talking with viewers, fellow gamers, traders, and well-known personalities from the hobby, including Henry Hyde, Simon Miller, Barry Hilton, Rich Clarke, and John Kershaw. Some of the most meaningful conversations centred not just around rules and miniatures, but around creativity, mental health, friendship, and the positive role that tabletop gaming communities can play in people’s lives.

Partizan 2026 felt like a hobby in excellent health: visually ambitious, creative, welcoming, and constantly evolving. Whether you’re interested in historical wargaming, miniature painting, terrain building, or simply seeing what’s possible on the tabletop, there was no shortage of inspiration on display this year.

The “Historical Accuracy” Trap: Do You Want a Simulation or a Game?

One of the longest-running debates in historical tabletop wargaming is the question of realism. How historically accurate should a wargame actually be? At what point does realism improve immersion, and when does it start to make the experience slower, clunkier, and less enjoyable?

Historical wargamers are passionate about authenticity, and rightly so. Many of us are drawn to the hobby because we love military history, historical tactics and recreating famous battles on the tabletop. But there’s an important problem sitting underneath all of this: no tabletop game can ever be a perfect simulation of real warfare. The moment history becomes a game, compromises have to be made. Real warfare is chaotic, confusing and often deeply unfair. Troops spend long periods inactive, communication fails constantly, and battles are rarely balanced. If a ruleset recreated absolute realism perfectly, would it actually still be enjoyable to play? Or would it simply become frustrating?

In this video, I explore the uneasy balance between historical accuracy and playability. |I discuss why some gamers love deeply detailed simulations filled with charts, modifiers and granular mechanics, while others prefer smoother, faster systems that focus on atmosphere and decision-making instead of bookkeeping. I also discuss the “illusion of accuracy” that sometimes appears in historical rules design. More complicated mechanics do not automatically create a more authentic experience. Every ruleset contains abstractions. Morale, fatigue, terrain, command and communication all have to be simplified to some degree if a game is going to function in a reasonable timeframe.

So what actually creates a believable historical feel? For me, it often comes down to encouraging historical behaviour rather than simulating every tiny detail literally. Good rules encourage players to make believable tactical decisions while still allowing the game to flow naturally. Smart abstractions like morale systems, command friction, and scenario design can often create a stronger sense of history than endless calculations and overly complicated mechanics.

Ultimately, there probably isn’t a single “correct” answer. Some players love hardcore simulations. Others want a relaxed evening with friends and beautifully painted miniatures. The beauty of our hobby is that it is broad enough to support all of these approaches. So where do you stand? Do you prefer realism or smooth gameplay? Can a simple game sometimes feel more historical than a detailed simulation? And have you ever stopped playing a ruleset because it became too complicated?

Boots On The Ground: What Maps can never tell you

For me, there is something uniquely fascinating about standing on the ground where history happened. As tabletop wargamers, many of us spend years reading campaign histories, studying maps, painting armies and recreating battles on the tabletop, but how often do we stop and think about what those battlefields actually looked and felt like in real life?

In this latest video, I revisit the Bosworth Battlefield while on a short trip to Leicester with my wife, and the experience led me to an interesting realisation about battlefield visits, historical interpretation and understanding terrain. I first walked Bosworth several years ago during a freezing February trip, and returning in springtime completely changed how I saw the landscape. Features I thought I could identify before (low-lying marshy areas and subtle rises in the terrain) had seemingly vanished beneath tall crops and dense vegetation. The battlefield itself had not changed, but my ability to read the land certainly had.

That discovery sparked a wider discussion about why historical wargamers visit battlefield sites in the first place. Are we trying to understand the topography and tactical challenges faced by commanders? Are we searching for atmosphere and emotional connection? Or are we simply trying to immerse ourselves more deeply in the history that inspires our games and collections? This week's video explores the long tradition of battlefield tourism, dating back to Frederick the Great encouraging officers to walk historic battlefields as part of their military education. Even today, standing on the real ground can offer insights that no book, map or scenario supplement can fully provide. Distances feel different, hills look steeper, lines of sight become clearer, and terrain features that seem insignificant on paper suddenly make perfect tactical sense.

At the same time, battlefield visits come with problems and limitations. Landscapes evolve over centuries due to farming, urbanisation, river changes and climate. Archaeological discoveries can shift accepted interpretations of where battles actually took place. Emotional attachment to a location can also cloud objective analysis, making it harder to critically evaluate popular narratives or accepted history. From a wargaming perspective, though, these visits remain incredibly valuable. Seeing real buildings, roads, fields and terrain layouts can inspire more authentic tabletop battlefields and scenarios. The video also touches on how modern games and terrain makers increasingly recreate historical locations based on surviving structures and photographs, helping bring battlefields to life on the tabletop.

Ultimately, this is a friendly hobby discussion about history, battlefield walks, terrain interpretation, and how we, as wargamers, connect with the past. If you enjoy historical tabletop gaming, miniature painting, military history or simply thoughtful discussions about the hobby, I hope you’ll enjoy the conversation. And as always, I’d love to hear about your own battlefield visits and favourite historical sites in the comments.