Is Sam Mustafa Right That American Historical Wargaming Is Dying Off?

November 27, 2016

After having to delete a large number of really strange comments (not those that made it to the comment section), I’ve decided to rework this post to make it more academic and less personal. Personal posts just seem to bring out the weird in some people.

In a Meeples and Miniatures podcast, number 179, Sam Mustafa commented about the decline of historical miniature wargaming in the United States. You can find out more about that here: (go to podcast 179, near the end). Meeples and Miniatures is an excellent podcast about wargaming, and I highly recommend it. Some of my favorite podcasts were with Henry Hyde (

I think historical miniature miniature wargaming has declined in the United States for both structural and attritional reasons. By historical miniature wargaming I mean table top wargaming with plastic or metal figures. I do not mean computer wargaming, video games, VR gaming experiences, or board games (by board games declined even historical miniature wargaming). I also am not commenting on fantasy or science fiction miniature wargaming; those seem to be doing fine.

Sam’s question is why does there seem to be fewer historical miniature wargamers in the United States. He based that observation on industry sales (as far as he could determine) and attendance at major wargaming conventions.

First, I think there were several structural reasons for the rise of historical miniature wargaming in the United States in the 1980s and 1990s. They are:

  1. You could find a shop near most places in the United States that sold historical miniature wargaming rules and figures. I first encountered them in a general hobby shop in the 1970s. That shop sold every sort of hobby thing including model trains, plastic models, and the early RC planes in addition to historical miniature wargame figures and rules. Later on, I was able to buy rules and figures at the local game store, of which about 50% of their stock was historical miniatures and board games, the rest was fantasy, especially role playing.
  2. I, like many of my peers born in the late 1950s and early 1960s, had made plastic models. I made a number of them from age 10 to 14. I wasn’t a great model maker, but when someone handed me a pack of metal wargame figures and said go home and paint these, I knew how to do that.
  3. Also starting in the 1970s, historical board wargames were everywhere. They were the first wargame I played. My first game was Avalon Hill’s 1776, which I got in 1775. I went on to play and purchase many other historical board games over the years. By about 1990, I quit playing many board wargames, but they had taught me at an early age (I started playing them about age 12), how to read complex wargame rules and what wargames were about.
  4. There were also a lot of players around, but they seemed to be of a certain age. When I started playing historical miniature wargames in 1982, almost everyone I played historical miniature wargames with was between age 19 and 35. We had heard of older people playing historical miniature wargames, and read their articles in magazines like The Courier, but I honestly had never played a game with one and there weren’t many of them where I lived. As 20 and early 30 year olds, we had lots of time to play, and enough disposable income to buy the figures were needed. Additionally, the people I played historical miniature wargames had often come to them through a different hobby such as model making, board wargames, or role-playing games. So they had already been trained in some aspect of the hobby.
  5. There were also only so many figure scales and rules to use. When I started the main figures I could get were 6mm (Heroics and Ros), 15mm and 25mm. There were also nationally dominant rules like Johnny Reb, Fire and Fury, Napoleon’s Battles, and Command Decision. You could always find someone who was interested in what you were: same figure size and same rules. For about a year, I ran a club that just played Command Decision in 6mm-1/285 scale, and we always had 4-8 people show up for a monthly game.
  6. Additionally, there were people at the local level promoting historical miniature wargaming. Lots of game store owners then tended to also play historical miniature wargames, which doesn’t seem to be the case these days. You would walk in their store and see a game set up or maybe one in progress and ask the owner about what sort of game that was. In my experience, the owners would then give you a dissertation length discussion of historical miniature wargaming and be more than happy to sell you the rules, figures, and paint you needed to get started (they were smart about that).
  7. Finally, there wasn’t much else to gaming-wise. There were no game consoles outside of very basic ones like Atari. Home computers were uncommon and the games for them were horrible, especially in the early 1980s. With no cell phones, you could not open up a game and play it anywhere at any time. You could play board games, which were becoming overly complex by the 1980s or role-playing games, which I did play for awhile but found they really depended on who ran the game and who you played with. In the early 1980s, I did lots of other things like hiking, camping, shooting, earned a university degree, and got an Army commission, but playing historical miniature wargames was something that filled my interest in history, my desire to make something like models but be able to do something with them, and I met a lot of great people my age to game and hang out with.

So what do I think went wrong? First, there seems to be a lack of new players. There are some, and I think games like Flames of War maybe encouraged them to try it all out, but there are not the numbers that there were when I was in my 20s. I do accept the argument that they have other things to do game-wise. My 16 year old son has played a lot of computer and video games, but he and his friends haven’t show massive interest in historical miniature wargaming. Some of the other factors I’ve noticed are:

  1. Kids don’t make plastic models these days. My son has no interest in that and he says that he has never seen a model in one of his friend’s houses. Teenagers and young adults can do exceptional computer modeling these days, but they don’t have any interest or exposure to making physical models. So when you hand them a pack of miniatures and say go home and paint these, they don’t know where to start.
  2. The younger set does play wargames, but they are all moderated by machines. Some of the computer games come with big rule books, but most of the time players seem to just learn how to play by doing. So they lack the experience to read a 50 pages+ set of wargame rules and then play the game. That means that there is a big hurdle to learning how to play a board or miniature wargame all by yourself like I did when I was 12 years old.
  3. Finding a brick and mortar game store that stocks a lot of historical miniature wargaming rules and figures these days is hard. Where I live there are three small stores, some better than others. Two of them used to stock Flames of War figures, but not anymore (the fad seems to have ended). And I don’t get the impression from talking with the owners and staff that they even play historical miniatures wargames. So there is no one there to sell them on historical miniatures wargames as a hobby. Yes, the internet is full of manufacturers’ webpages, but you don’t find them unless you seek them out.
  4. Then there is a lack of peer gamers. If I somehow found out about historical miniature wargaming today, would there be that many people in my age group to play with if I was a teenager or in my 20s? Probably not. Thinking back, it would be weird for me as a 20 year old to be playing games with guys my father’s age and even worse, my grandfather’s age. It would lack the peer to peer social bonding that I enjoyed playing historical miniatures wargames when I was in my 20s and 30s.
  5. Even if I got over those four hurdles, the chances of finding someone who played the rules I liked in the scale I liked would be slim given the massive variety of figure scales and rules available today. I think that this is one thing that the Flames of War system got right; it offered players a clear set of rules and figures in one scale to play. I have seen (about 10 years ago), younger people playing Flames for War, and I suspect it was because the Battlefront people helped them get through these obstacles. But Flames of War is dead where I lived, and I never really liked the rules anyway.

So it is unlikely given the structural forces and competition from other games which are far easier to get into that many people in their 20s will join the hobby, clearly not in the per capita numbers of the 1980s and 1990s. Plus it would just be too strange for me if I was 20 to hang out with a bunch of boring old guys. I don’t have anything against old guys today, but I like to play games and not listen to their medical issues or political views.

But as Sam mentioned, even those gamers from the 1980s and 1990s, now middle-aged guys seem to be declining in numbers. His evidence is not absolute, but I’ve seen the same thing. So what happened to them? Here are some thoughts on that:

  1. Anything that people do has a natural attrition rate. I would estimate that of the people I introduced to historical miniatures wargaming in the 1980s, about half quit playing after a year or two. I suspect that most hobbies are like that. Of those that kept playing, there would be a slow attrition rate. Maybe you moved to a new area and couldn’t find other historical miniature wargamers so you tried a different form of gaming or just did something else with your free time. Plus, real life can get in the way. Jobs become more demanding and families, especially once you have kids, take up more time. So over time, those who started in the 1980s and 1990s will naturally decline and they are not being replaced by the next generation.
  2. Plus I think that there are some historical miniature wargamers who just opted out. They still had the time and a group or another individual to game with, but they had lost interest. That happens. I once was a big historical board wargamer. I think I had 100 historical board games at one time, and I played 2-4 games a week with various people. Then one day, the board games just didn’t work for me anymore. I sold most of them and kept a few favorites, but mostly sit on my bookshelves. The last time I played a board game it was via Vassal on my computer and that was a solo game. It didn’t matter if the greatest board wargame was produced; I am not interested in playing it, let alone buy it.

So that is where I think I would add to Sam’s comments. Sam seems to see the decline as an innovation issue. One of his questions is have American historical miniature wargamers just stuck with what they have and are not open to innovations in game design? He bases that on his sales, which have gone from lots of American customers to few American customers. He has noted that European wargame rule sales for him are steady, but not in the United States. He also notes that American historical wargame convention attendance, as far as he can see, has also declined, so it is just not that players in the United States are not buying his rules, they aren’t buying as many rules from any place.

My answer is that the old regulars of American historical miniature wargaming are just slowly attriting away. Not a major collapse, but a noticeable one. And like in other hobbies, like model trains and making models, they are not being replaced by a younger generation. The younger generation has many structural issues which keep them out of the hobby, and no amount of preaching the value of the hobby to them will bring them back in large numbers as there just isn’t critical mass in numbers of younger players to make it a peer social activity like it was for many gamers back in the 1980s and 1990s. So numbers are down and likely to continue to decline. Maybe we will be like the model train guys who now seem on average to be age 65+.

The decline in numbers and the purchasing of products online as has had an impact on the hobby. Yes, I can go online to a manufacture’s web page and make a giant order and get everything I want and have it delivered to my house in a week or less (except for the Battlefront webstore – they are very slow). I like that, but it also means that the local game store isn’t willing to stock much in the way of historical miniatures and rules. Why should they if we are all buying them online? And could they? You would have to have a mega-store to carry even a fraction of the historical wargame figures and rules available today. Store owners and managers don’t want to invest money in a product that one guy might come in and buy every other year or so. The result is that game stores are no longer for the most part historical miniature wargame stores. It doesn’t sell, so they don’t stock it, and they might not even know that much about it. When historically minded Johnny (age 16) walks in, the product isn’t there to excite him, and no one can tell him how to get started. That isn’t true for the other items that game stores sell. You can walk into any decent game store and find all sorts of fantasy and science fiction themed board games and miniatures. That’s what sells and that’s what the staff knows and plays.

So my take is that the American historical wargaming hobby is slowly dying. No amount of proselytizing to the younger masses will bring them in. Sure a few will start playing historical miniatures wargames, but not in any great numbers. They are interested in things that require different skill sets, they like things that are easier to get into, they buy what they see in the local game store, and most importantly, they want to play what their friends are playing. If gaming has a social aspect to it, then players want to do it with people they have a social bond with, it could be a family member, but mostly it will be with same age peers.

Finally, do I care if the American historical wargaming community declines to just a few old guys? No, not really. I’ve got most of the rule sets I will play for the next 40 years (hopefully that long). I’ll try out a few to replace the rules that I’ve played to death and lost interest in, but I’ve given up on just playing what the “cool kids” play as those are often flash in the pan rules, really hot for 4-8 years and then gone, like out of print gone. There are enough wargame manufacturers out there to keep me going (that is if Old Glory, Blue Moon, and GHQ stay in business), plus I’ve got the mountain of unpainted figures to work through. There are enough local gamers if I feel like a group game, but sometimes they need to be reminded of their interest in historical miniature wargaming. I also have rules like Piquet that allow me to have very enjoyable solo games. And I still have my 16 year old son to game with when he is interested, at least until he goes off to college. I’ve got what I need, and I realize that I can’t overcome the structural forces to bring thousands of new players into the hobby, and why should I force them to play my style of games when they seem very happy with what they are playing now.

I can’t answer Sam’s question about why American historical gamers are in decline and why not gamers in other parts of the world. I lived in London in the late 1990s, and I saw how vibrant historical miniatures wargaming was there. Even then, there were good shows every month, and I went to a lot of them and bought a lot of figures (probably too many as I still haven’t painted all of them!). Maybe because the same structural factors are not in play in Britain. Maybe those Game Workshop stores were a good gateway drug to historical miniature wargames. Maybe having the local club instead of playing in someone’s home gave the hobby a wider view to the potential historical miniature wargamer. Maybe having slick historical wargame magazines in the stores helped; I remember buying my wargame magazines in London at bigger bookstores like W. H. Smith, sometimes even in train and subway stations. Maybe the British just have a stronger sense of community than Americans. I don’t know really know the answer to this question.

My 70-something year old father-in-law really likes model trains, all Lionel O gauge. He doesn’t have a grand layout, more of an old school layout in his family room.  I have even repainted some of the old figures he found for his train. When I visit him, I always check out his train. He always asks me why I don’t get into model trains. I reply, I just don’t have the time, which is partially true, but despite building a model train layout around age 13, I just don’t have the interest. To me, trains are really a very old guy hobby. I suspect that many of the 15-30 year-olds look at historical miniature wargaming like that.



More Optional and House Rules for Nuts! Final Version

November 13, 2016

Sorry to be absent for some time. The obligations of real life were filling up my time over the last six weeks, some of them quite expensive, like having a broken water pipe under your house fixed! Last weekend I tried to play the campaign game of Nuts! Final Version. It sort of worked, but there were some parts that just didn’t work that well. I found that the number of buildings in a sector in the terrain generation rules didn’t work at all. Also the troop density with even a 4′ x 4′ square board was just too high. I’ve compiled the changes I will use when I try the campaign game again in this file: house-rules-for-nuts-1-2. I also purchased the Nuts! Italy After Normandy supplement, which has a lot of great new rule ideas (sadly my copy suffered rain damage while in the outdoor mail box – sorry Oregon rain!). I highly recommend the Nuts! Italy After Normandy supplement. It has a lot of great ideas you can add to your game.

Here are some photos from the four missions I tried:

My squad on its 1st Mission (a patrol):


Mission 2: Attack



Mission 3: Attack (again)






Mission 4: Attack (again)




I didn’t have the right buildings so I made some floor plans with Word and they worked pretty well. I need to reprint them as my color printer cartridge was about out of ink:








R.I.P. My Old Friend Mike Urschel

September 17, 2016


R.I.P. My Old Friend Mike Urschel

Mike’s obituary read:

Michael W. Urschel, 53, Silver Lake, IN died at 2:28 p.m. Tuesday, May 17, 2016 in Peabody Healthcare Center, North Manchester, IN.  He was born January 12, 1963 in Huntington, IN to Glenn & Dorcas (Paul) Urschel.  He graduated from Canyon Del Oro High School in 1981 and attended University of Arizona.  He served in the Army National Guard and worked in construction in Tucson, AZ.  He loved animals and most especially his cat, Neko.  He was a history fanatic and was lovingly referred to as “Professor”

It seems sad to me that a person’s, especially a friend’s, life is reduced to a few lines in an obituary, so I’ll add some more that.

I first met Mike in high school. We were both in First Year Woodshop with Mr. Dave Bromley. Mike had just moved to Arizona from Indiana. He seemed like a good guy, but was very quiet. He was great at woodworking, so I decided to get to know him better, as I was not that great at woodworking. As we worked together at the work bench, I learned that he loved History (along with The Lord of the Rings) and played board games, especially Third Reich, which was one of my favorites. So one day I invited him to play a game of Third Reich with my regular wargame opponent and friend Greg. That started a period of gaming and friendship that lasted until I left Arizona for good in 2002.

Mike wasn’t that great at Third Reich, but once we tried our first RPG, Traveller, Mike was hooked. Greg, Mike and I played a variety of games together for about 2 years. Then I formed a bigger gaming group, and Mike was one of the first people I asked to join. Over the years we played boardgames (Mike loved Squad Leader), numerous RPGs, and eventually historical miniature games (usually American Civil War). That game group eventually fell apart when I was in college in the 1980s, but members of it continued to play some sort of game until the late 1990s. I think the last game I played with Mike was one of our American Civil War campaigns in 1995. Mike loved playing games as they allowed him to use his imagination, which was endless. He was a great person to play games with as he was a great player and always a gentlemanly wargamer.

Mike’s life wasn’t always easy. His family life was a bit chaotic after his parents divorced. He attended the University of Arizona for a few semesters, but left for financial reasons. I had the pleasure of taking a couple of History courses with him while he were both in college. He served six years in the Army Reserve as an Armored Cavalry Scout in the scout platoon of an armored battalion, reading the rank of Sergeant. One of his greatest adventures was going to a REFORGER exercise in Germany, where he was able to visit the town that his family had come from. After college, he worked a variety of jobs, but was always free to play a game. Even when we were not gaming, he always enthusiastically spoke of his endless gaming ideas. He was also more than willing to be one of my groomsman when I got married in 1996, which was a great honor for me. The last time I saw him was in 2002, when he and another of our gaming friends went to dinner one last time before I left Arizona.

Mike was a hard person to keep in contact with. He was the sort of guy you literally had to go to his home to get in touch with. I tried for many years to reconnect with him, but I could never find him via the Internet and he seemed to have lost touch with most of his gaming friends. Yesterday, I tried one of my Google searches for him, only to find that he had died four months ago. I was really shocked and sad that I could not tell him one more time how much I had valued his friendship over the years. I’m not sure that there is an afterlife, but if there is, Mike will be there playing some sort of game as gaming and the friendships he made from gaming were clearly the positive parts of Mike’s life and gave him solace in the many times that life didn’t go his way.

It just seems like yesterday that we were playing games together. Mike loved History, games, shooting, soldering (but he hated the B.S. of the Army, which after being in the Army I understand), and most of all cats.

So here’s to Mike “Orc” Urschel, fellow gamer, soldier, craftsman and most important of all, friend. May you Rest In Peace.

Mike (from about 1985 when I was away in the Army)


Mike in his apartment (@January 1988), where many games were played (but the apartment never seemed to get cleaned)


Mike and two of our gaming friends out for a day of shooting (again @January 1988)


Mike after too many hours gaming (again @January 1988)


Mike (in red) and Kyle during one of our many American Civil War campaign games (@1994)


3rd Try at Camden (1780) with Piquet-Cartouche

August 26, 2016

About 30 years ago I went through the United States Army school for infantry lieutenants (Infantry Officer Basic Course). In that course, we read a book titled, The Defence of Duffer’s Drift ( From what I remember of the book, the author took the reader through the planning of a defensive position. Each time he would point out flaws in the plan and fix them. The book was effective in teaching lieutenants how to think about all aspects of the military planning, including looking for flaws that could be corrected. As my game of Camden was still set up, I decided to give it another go based on what I had learned from the two games of it I had played recently.

For both sides, I realized that firing at enemy troops in open order in light woods (Class II terrain in Piquet) as not that effective as both the open order and Class II terrain were a Down 1 fire modifier. That reduced a d10 fire value to d6. Even worse, many of the American militia units started with a d8 fire value, which reduced them to d4 when firing at British in open order in the woods at normal range. That showed me that the British could and should move to melee combat as soon as possible, especially given the higher quality of many British units and the masses of low quality American militia present. For the Americans, I realized that it was best to use Armand’s command as a second or third line force given the small size of the units; they were good for skirmishing, but didn’t last long in the line of battle. In my second game, Armand’s command was in the front line, and was quickly destroyed by larger British units, which was costly in Army morale chips and units lost.

The American set up on the right and center was three lines: two of militia and one of Continentals. The extreme left was Armand’s command, which was designed to guard the American flank and threaten the British right if they broke through the American center.

The American Right Wing: (click on the pictures for larger images)

American Right Wing

The American Center:

American Center

Armand’s Command on the American Left:

Armand's Command

The British set up with their regular brigade and reserve brigade on their left:

British Left Set Up

Rawdon’s loyalist and militia brigade was on the British Right:

British Right Set Up

Here is a picture of the overall British set-up:

British Set Up

In the game, the British advanced on both flanks, and were able to defeat the American militia with only minimal casualties. Rather quickly, the Americans ran out of Army morale chips. This was a disaster for the Americans as the lost units put a Major Morale Check card in their deck. By turn 4, the Americans were out of Army morale chips and forced to take a Major Morale Check. With no Army morale chips to spend, each American unit had to check morale. Some of the militia and even one of the Continental units failed and retreat. Likewise, the previously unengaged American cavalry started to fall back. Three Continental units and a single militia unit fought a rearguard, but it was ineffective due to the addition of Dress Lines cards in their deck for each unit lost (up to 11 Dress Lines cards were added by turn 5). By the end of Turn 5, the Americans had clearly lost and the game was over.

Again, Piquet worked exceptionally well in terms of command and army morale. The better quality overall commander of the British (Cornwallis) was able to make good use of his two Brilliant Commander cards, while the Americans suffered several times from losing key initiative when Gates’ Command Indecision card came up. I also really liked how the game represented the collapse of the American Army, it almost mirrored the actual events. I still need to review the rules before I play Piquet again to check a few issues, but it was a great game. Piquet works exceptionally well for solo games. I had an overall plan for each side, but the cards dictated when I could implement those plans far better than a you-go, I-go rule system.

Here are some more photos from the game (I was too involved and interested in the game to take many mid-game photos):

American Artillery that dominated the main road through the woods:

American Artillery

American Militia await the British attack:

American Militia 2

The British 71st Highland Regiment advances:

British 71st

British Legion Infantry and militia of Rawdon’s Command:

British Legion & Militia Support

The British Legion Dragoons in reserve (behind Rawdon’s Brigade):

British Legion Dragoons

At the end of the game, the British Legion Dragoons swept the American flank:

British Legion in Pursuit

The American rearguard:

American Continentals & Militia

The American “dead” pile:

Dead American Stands

Another victory for Cornwallis:

Cornwallis 2

The game was played with 15mm figures (from Blue Moon, Minifigs, Old Glory and Polly Oliver). I use 3/4ths size stands and rulers, so the normal 5′ x 8′ map fit on a 4′ x 6′ table.

American Revolution Strength Returns for 1777 in the New York Public Library Digital Collection.

August 23, 2016

1st NH Return

While doing a bit of Google-Fu on the Internet, I found that there were several strength returns for American units in the 1777 Northern Campaign among the New York Public Library’s Digital Collection. I have never seen most of these referenced in a secondary source, so they were quite a find. Here are the ones that I could find:

John Ashley’s (1st Berkshire Massachusetts) Militia Regiment (July 1777): (This is a very rare militia unit strength return)

1st New Hampshire Regiment (July 1777):

3rd New Hampshire Regiment (July 1777):

Nixon’s (Massachusetts) Regiment (July 1777):

Brewer’s (Massachusetts) Regiment (July 1777):

Marshall’s (Massachusetts) Regiment (July 1777):

Alden’s (Massachusetts) Regiment (July 1777):

Bailey’s (Massachusetts) Regiment (July 1777):

Learned’s Brigade (July 1777):

(the first regiment is van Schaick’s 1st New York Regiment – the writing is not very clear, but the comments below make it clear as to which unit it is as van Schaick had been sent to Tyron County to raise the militia.)

Schuyler army-level return (July 1777):

Gates army-level return (October 1777):

American Casualties at First Saratoga (September 1777):