As the year waddles to the finish line like a penguin in a hurry, I just wanted to shout a big ol’ thank you, preferably while wearing a party hat and confetti rain!

Thank you for stopping by, reading, and for putting up with my ramblings over the past year! Whether you stumbled upon this blog yesterday or have been here since the dawn of time (or at least since I started it), your interest, comments, and stealthy support have been more important than the last cookie in the jar—trust me, that’s saying something!

Writing can often feel like a solitary act, like talking to your plants—except your plants don’t judge your puns. But knowing that these words are being read adds a touch of camaraderie, turning your lonely scribbles into a group therapy session. That sense of connection is what keeps the work going, like that first coffee on a Monday morning!

I hope Christmas wraps you in a blanket of relaxation, with good company that doesn’t eat all the cookies and a few blissful seconds of peace before the family chaos kicks in. Here’s to a new year that’s kinder than your last holiday shopping trip, steadier than a sugar-fueled kid on a trampoline, and packed with more worthy distractions than your social media feed!

Thank you again for being here, and for reading.

Merry Christmas and best wishes for the year ahead.

In a grand gesture of gratitude to all my landlubber followers, I’m thrilled to announce that ye can snag a free PDF of me jolly pirate wargaming rules, “Scurvy Dogs,” from now until Christmas Day! Aye, don’t miss out—download it here before it walks the plank!

After reading Despertaferres’ latest post I decided to have a play on ChatGPT with modifying some images and had a lot of fun. Note – Guru is a technological Luddite and anything I say in this post should be taken with the knowledge that you are reading the work of a technophobe!

Here is the original photo I am using:

This appeared in a recent post. Some ChatGPT changes

ChatGPT’s version of a Dystopian style – I like this one.

A good representation of a Monet style. Although I am a huge Monet fan this one just doesn’t cut it for me.

ChatGPT’s version of a Dali style. Not as askew as I thought and after a few tries this was the best Dali representation I could get – again not for me.

A Rembrandt style version that I quite like.

A John Constable style. Kinda quirky but I like it.

I then thought I would try the same image with Google Gemini.

Hmm. Matched my view of Google Gemini’s drawings.

Nano Banana is Google’s AI image model for Gemini, and IMHP is not a very powerful tool. OpenAI developed its own competing image model, GPT-Image-1.5, for ChatGPT. Both have moved from a text based model to a Multimodal one but ChatGPT seems to provide a richer result.

Thanks Despertaferres’ another afternoon successfully wasted!

This was ambitious task as one of us had no idea, two had an unopened copy of the rules and one had flipped through. A case of the blind leading the blind!

Despite this we meandered through and still had a lot of fun.

I decided to take as many of the German funnies as I could in 750 points above are my Nachtjager about to cause havoc amongst the Japanese “zombies”,

Schrekwulfen, Nachtalben, and Heinrich Gross holding the centre.

Japanese advance on the Americans who were allies with the Germans!

A heavily converted US “big walky thing”.

Consolidating behind a wall after wiping out a Japanese squad,

What remains of the Japanese after the Shreckwulfen and Nachtjager attacks.

I need to do a lot more work on the rules before I tackle it again.

Found this gem the other day, I had heard about it but never had the chance to read it.

Rommel? Gunner Who? was written by Spike Milligan with Jack Hobbs.

This book is really funny and also very honest at times. It is about Spike Milligan’s time as a gunner in North Africa during World War II. Rommel? Gunner Who? is not really about the war as a campaign or a series of battles; it is about what war feels like. It shows confusion, fear, boredom, and exhaustion. It is about the everyday things that happen during war—the shouting, the sand that gets everywhere, the shellfire, and the endless waiting. Milligan does not make war look exciting or heroic. Instead, he shows the truth of it, which is often ridiculous, ugly, and deeply sad. The story is told entirely from ground level, where war is not a plan or a strategy but something you hear, see, and feel moment by moment.

The book is really about showing that many of the stories people tell about war are not true. It is the opposite of the big-picture view. Figures like Rommel, the “Desert Fox,” loom large in official histories and officers’ briefings, but to the gunners, Rommel is just a name they hear when they are being shelled. Milligan shows what it is like to be small, powerless, and largely unaware of what is going on, used as part of something far bigger without ever understanding it. The book makes it clear that ordinary soldiers often do not know where they fit into the war at all.

Milligan’s comedy is exactly what you would expect, but it is also more important than it first appears. It runs through the entire book. His humour shows how soldiers kept themselves mentally intact. He jokes about pointless orders, petty rules, incompetent leaders, and the gap between what the military claims to be doing and what actually happens. His writing can be strange and disjointed at times, sometimes stopping abruptly, which mirrors the mental state of men who are completely worn out. The comedy and the fact that people are dying exist side by side throughout the book.

What really matters is that combat is never made to sound exciting or impressive. When fighting starts, it is terrifying and confusing. People are so frightened that they freeze or wander around not knowing what to do. Milligan’s descriptions of explosions, wounds, and fear are powerful because he does not try to make them dramatic or noble. He simply tells the truth. There are no heroes, just people who are shocked, hurt, lost, or missing. Combat comes across as chaos, fear, and humiliation, and his descriptions of sound, pain, and confusion feel painfully honest.

One of the things that makes the memoir so effective is that Milligan clearly cares about people. He is very blunt about officers and the military system, but at the same time he writes with real affection for the men he served with—gunners, drivers, cooks, runners. These were ordinary people who went through terrible experiences together and still found ways to laugh. Milligan never turns them into stock characters from a war story. They matter because they are ordinary.

This book is important for many reasons. It is about history, but it is also about the human mind. At the time Milligan was writing, people did not openly talk about what we now call combat stress. He writes about the psychological effects of soldiering with remarkable honesty. If you know what later happened to Milligan and others like him, parts of the book read very differently. The humour does not feel like a way of avoiding reality; it feels like a warning signal that something is wrong. The jokes act as a survival mechanism, a way to stop everything from becoming unbearable.

Rommel? Gunner Who? is a special book because it tells the truth about war without dressing it up. Milligan does not try to make war meaningful or glorious. He simply shows it as it was lived. Some readers may not like it because it does not focus on maps, tactics, or detailed battle plans. But for anyone who wants to understand what it was actually like to be there, this book is invaluable.

It will be most appreciated by readers who enjoy sharp comedy, personal storytelling rather than formal history, and writing that captures anxiety, boredom, and absurdity as much as danger. Rather than celebrating war, Milligan shows how soldiers endured it, laughed at it, and were permanently affected by it. In doing so, he wrote not just a comedy memoir, but one of the most honest and moving personal accounts of the Second World War.

If you haven’t already gathered I “really like” this one!

Some extra “IRA” figures that were hanging around. They are Wargames Atlantic Partisans

I just need to finish off a Motocycle combo and a car to complete the army. Both are almost completed. Hopefully in the next few days.

Just a few more bits and pieces to finish off this army.

Tomorrow some more IRA.

Just working on some figures hanging around the painting table Some German Officers

Tomorrow some IRA figures!

Went to the “League” today to drop off some figures that I had sold on Facebook and to catch up with some guys I hadn’t seen for a while. A variety of Games were being played – predominately 15mm.

28mm Saga

15mm Glory is Fleeting

15mm Glory is Fleeting

15mm Glory is Fleeting

15mm Chain of Command

15mm What a Tanker

28mm Hail Caesar

15mm L’Art de la guerre

15mm L’Art de la guerre

28mm Bolt Action

15mm Strength an Honour “Zama”

15mm Command and Colours “Zama”

There was also a game of “Don’t Mind the Bill Hooks” going on, but they had packed up before I had a chance to take a photo.

If you haven’t been it is well worth a visit. The Caulfield RSL venue is spacious, atmospheric, and has great food and bar.

This has greatly influenced wargaming rules design since a designer can now test an idea fast and confidently. AI does a faster analysis of rules compared to traditional play testing. Indeed, flawed mechanics, dominant strategies, and surprising results can easily be recognized in the earliest stages of design. The change now compels game designers to put across rules that are more flexible in nature, reflecting uncertainty, morale, fatigue, and command challenges.

AI has really changed the way we’d abstract complex history down to a game. The intelligence reveals to the designers which factors in a given scenario most drive the outcomes, helping them focus on decision-making, team play, and endurance without blurring the message with too much technical detail. For that reason, many modern rules reward good judgement and timing more than raw power or optimization.

Examples include advances in the field of AI, improving enemy behaviour to be more realistic and adaptable. Instead of rigid sets of rules, games nowadays utilize systems that dynamically change according to player actions, thus making the game easier to manage. This enhances the solo experience without calling for any complicated record-keeping.

Overall, AI’s impact on the design of wargaming rules is to enhance clarity and speed of development rather than to replace designers-at least, not yet. When used effectively, AI helps create stronger rules clearer in purpose and more realistic for human conflicts. And if you believe all that, then I’m a wise little Guru!

I wanted to try out how AI designed a simple game. So Hi Ho, Hi Ho is onto Chatgpt we go.

This is what I typed in”

“Design a simple one page set of rules for cavemen fighting a Woolly Mammoth. Needs to require little resources- just some cavemen and one mammoth plus a small amount of terrain on a 300mm X 300mm table. Design like a standard QRS style.”

Here is what it came up with:

I have no changes here except to turn the information into three columns.

I also have two more sets of rules which are similar in genre: “Tusk” and “Prehistoric Settlement”. Here is my quick comparison:

Mammoth Hunt, Tusk, and Prehistoric Settlement are all prehistoric-themed; however, each has a rather different style of play. Mammoth Hunt is a fast, one-play game wherein a small group of cavemen are trying to hunt one dangerous mammoth. The rules are very simple: few statistics, a behavior table to make the mammoth unpredictable instead of a balanced enemy. It is fast and tense-a great deal of lethality can be involved, and not all hunters may survive.

Tusk is a campaign-based skirmish game featuring various tribes, characters, equipment, and creatures. It is more structured and forgiving than Mammoth Hunt, allowing the players to befriend their figures and develop ongoing stories across multiple games. Combat in the game focuses on the player’s tactics and not on chaos.

Prehistoric Settlement is less about fighting and more about surviving and prospering. It’s all about resources and population, and making choices that will have consequences far down the line. The action unfolds not in pulse-pounding single takedowns but incrementally as a society comes to terms with its environment.

Mammoth Hunt is ideal for quick, portable, high-risk games; Tusk caters to players interested in character-centric storytelling; Prehistoric Settlement-for when strategy and long-term survival appeal more than combat.

Hmmmm. Adds fuel for thought doesn’t it?

I also asked Chatgpt to simulate a play test of the rules and here is what it came up with:

A standard test setup uses six cavemen against one mammoth on a 300mm square table with five small terrain pieces. The cavemen deploy on one edge, the mammoth in the centre. On turn one, most cavemen will move and attempt either harassment or spear throws. With six cavemen, you can expect two to three successful harass or spear results on average. This usually produces one or two wounds on the mammoth and often triggers agitation. At this stage the cavemen feel fragile but active, which is correct.

During the first mammoth phase, the behaviour table immediately creates pressure. Rampage and Trample results occur two-thirds of the time, meaning the mammoth is usually moving aggressively and threatening multiple cavemen. Automatic hits followed by a 3+ kill roll mean cavemen die quickly. In most test runs, one or two cavemen are killed by the end of turn one. This reliably creates tension without immediately ending the game.

By turn two, the core loop is clear and functional. Cavemen are forced to choose between attacking for wounds or harassing to control behaviour. If they focus purely on attacking, the mammoth remains unpredictable and kills hunters rapidly. If they coordinate harassment, they gain short windows of improved effectiveness but still suffer losses. This trade-off works and requires no additional rules explanation.

Morale triggers at the right frequency. Losing two cavemen in one turn happens regularly but not automatically. The morale roll introduces a real chance of sudden failure, which matches the theme of a fragile hunting band. Importantly, morale does not trigger too often; most games reach at least turn three unless the players are reckless.

Across multiple simulated games, outcomes are consistent. With six cavemen, the mammoth is killed in roughly one third of games. With eight cavemen, success rises to about half. With five cavemen, success is rare. Average game length is four to six turns, comfortably within a 20–30 minute play time. This indicates the wound count, hit chances, and kill rolls are broadly balanced for a one-off scenario.

No rule contradictions or dead moments appear during testing. There are no phases where players have nothing meaningful to do, and the mammoth always acts. The behaviour table produces enough variation to prevent repetition without requiring extra bookkeeping. Terrain rules are simple and are remembered in play without reference.

The only minor friction identified is that thrown spears are very strong early and irrelevant later, but this is historically and thematically appropriate and does not break the game. If desired, limiting spear throws to half the cavemen rather than all would slightly extend average game length, but this is optional.

Overall, the rules function as intended. They produce fast, tense games with high lethality, clear player choices, and minimal overhead. No essential rules changes are required for the stated design goal of a simple, QRS-style mammoth hunt.

This is a powerful tool if you are designing your own game.

The second in this series. This time a small dome structure.

Yo can see the partially opened door,

Catch up tomorrow. Not sure what will be on the menu as a couple of books arrived on the “Queensland Frontier War” for me to review. One on the Battle of One Tree Hill where the settlers were decisively defeated a by Frank Kerkhove and Frank Uhr, and the second also by Kerkhove on “How They Fought” which looks extremely interesting. Un fortunately these will be a new year review.