I am almost ready to publish two more offerings. One, a fast-paced WWII “boys’ own” style novel, and the other, a set of rules on the Australian Frontier Wars.

HENNESSY OF THE A.I.F.

War is messy. It involves dust and tiredness, fear managed by friendship, and brief moments of bravery that appear and disappear in the smoke.

Jack Hennessy is a corporal in the Australian Imperial Force—he’s not a hero or a legend. As a section leader with two stripes and an Owen gun, he has the heavy responsibility of keeping his men alive. From the rocky hills near Bardia to the long nights before an attack, Hennessy and his men face hunger, cold, boredom, and unexpected violence in a tough campaign that challenges their endurance.

Hennessy of the A.I.F. tells the story of regular Australian soldiers as they face the challenges of modern warfare. It highlights the tough realities of patrols, sharing jokes in the dark, and the important connections formed when survival relies on their teamwork rather than orders or medals.

This is a soldier’s perspective on the Second World War, combining detailed history with fast-paced, character-focused storytelling. It presents an intimate, realistic, and human portrayal.

For fans of military history and wartime fiction, Hennessy of the A.I.F. begins a journey through deserts, jungles, and the struggles of empire—one difficult mile at a time.

There are several chapters available here to “wet your whistle”.

This one was a bit more problematic. I had shelved this project for several years because of what I thought the ethical ramifications might be. That is until I corresponded with Ray Kerkhove who convinced me otherwise.

Dr Ray Kerkhove is a historian and ethno-historian associated with the University of Queensland, specialising in Aboriginal history, material culture, and the Australian Frontier Wars. His work combines archival research with Indigenous perspectives, and he has collaborated widely with communities, museums, and heritage organisations across Queensland.

Discussion on the ethical issues:

The Australian Frontier Wars demand careful treatment. They were not distant or brief conflicts but long, brutal struggles fought across Australia, driven by the taking of land and the resistance of First Nation people defending their families, country, and ways of life. Police and soldiers were used to impose control, communities were displaced, people were killed, and the consequences of these wars remain deeply felt by First Nation and Torres Strait Islander peoples today.

The question is not whether these conflicts should appear in games, but how. Silence risks erasure. Excluding the Frontier Wars diminishes First Nation experience and obscures histories of resistance, reinforcing false narratives of powerlessness rather than recognising agency, strength, and survival.

This ruleset is built on the belief that honest representation acknowledges experience rather than exploiting it. First Nation resistance is portrayed as deliberate and culturally grounded, not as random violence. Colonial forces are not presented as heroes or neutral actors but as participants in systems of power that often escalated beyond control. Both sides are shown as human, shaped by fear, pressure, and consequence.

The game does not seek to justify violence or turn suffering into victory conditions. Many historical acts—such as collective punishment or attacks on non-combatants—are not player choices. When harsh events occur, they exist as consequences, not rewards. Discomfort and frustration are intentional outcomes, designed to provoke reflection rather than mastery.
Australian Frontier Wars is not about winning. It is about endurance under pressure and the gradual loss of control. Survival matters more than success, reflecting the reality of frontier conflict. If the game feels unsettling, it is doing what it was designed to do.

This game does not claim to speak for First Nation peoples or to resolve the past. It exists to insist that the Frontier Wars be acknowledged as real conflicts involving real resistance and real consequences—and that remembering them with care is better than forgetting them altogether.

The rules are still a month or so off publication. I am completing my own internal proof reads, play testing, and checking before it goes out for full play testing and to people like Ray Kerkhove for comments.

The rules have a unique game system:

Australian Frontier Wars depicts conflict as a result of ongoing pressure. It’s not about winning battles; instead, it simulates local interactions influenced by uncertainty, rising tensions, and retreat. Violence seldom solves problems and usually leads to failure. The true goals are survival, denial, and perseverance. If the game concludes without a clear victory, it has achieved its purpose.

Australian Frontier Wars is designed to model conflict as it was experienced on the frontier: uneven, localised, shaped by country, and driven by pressure rather than formal battle lines. The rules aim to reflect how small actions could trigger rapid escalation, how terrain dictated movement and survival, and how initiative passed quickly between groups once violence began.Country is not treated as a neutral backdrop but as an active force. Landforms, vegetation, water, and visibility shape every decision made on the table.

First Nation forces are assumed to possess deep familiarity with the country they fight on, allowing them to move, hide, strike, and disengage with confidence where others hesitate. Settler and government forces may bring firearms, formations, or numerical strength, but these advantages are constrained by unfamiliar terrain, limited sightlines, fragile supply lines, and difficulty maintaining cohesion once contact is made.

Pressure represents the accumulating strain of danger, fear, fatigue, and loss of control. Rather than tracking morale as a single abstract value, pressure grows through events such as sudden attacks, casualties, isolation, failed actions, or being forced to react rather than act. As pressure increases, options narrow. Units may hesitate, act rashly, withdraw prematurely, or lose the ability to coordinate effectively. Pressure is not treated as failure but as the natural consequence of operating in hostile country under constant threat.

Reaction chains replace strict turn-by-turn certainty with a sense of momentum. Actions provoke immediate responses: an ambush demands reaction, a retreat invites pursuit, a missed shot reveals a position. Once a chain begins, initiative can pass rapidly between players as each side responds to unfolding events rather than following a fixed sequence. This creates engagements that are fluid, fast-moving, and often decided by timing rather than sustained firepower.