Psychogeography and wargaming: Some more thoughts

Caveat: Whilst I know a reasonable amount about wargaming, I am a complete novice when it comes to psychogeography … so if I’ve have misunderstood aspects of the latter, please will my regular blog readers bear this in mind when it comes to any comments they might wish to make. I always welcome constructive and informed criticism … but not the other sort!

---

I became interested in psychogeography because I had watched John Rogers’s YouTube videos, listened to him discussing psychogeography with Ian Sinclair, and discovered that Guy Debord had been both an early advocate of psychogeography as well as being a wargame designer.

At first, I could not see any other links between psychogeography and wargaming … and then began to look at how the former looks at maps and terrain. Guy Debord was a Situationist, and one of their approaches involved what is known as dérive, which can best be defined as being an unplanned journey through a landscape. I suspect that wargamers would consider what they do to be the opposite of this; in other words, they plan their journeys through the landscape.

So, it seems that psychogeographers and wargamers look at landscape in diametrically opposed ways … but do they?

When a wargamer looks at the terrain they a going to fight a battle on, the rules they are likely to use will include penalties or bonuses that relate to that terrain. For example:

• Hills: Give units on them better visibility of the surrounding terrain and a bonus if they must defend it.
• Forests and woods: Provide cover to units in them but reduce the mobility of units moving through them.
• Rivers: Are obstacles to movement.
• Roads: Increase the mobility of units moving along them.
• Built-up areas: May be an objective that must be retained or captured as well as providing cover to units in them.
• Railways: Provide strategic mobility and act as supply routes.

Applying psychogeography to these same features, questions arise that are not incompatible with wargaming. For example:

• Hills: Will a unit that occupies a hill for where they can see their hometown experience enhanced morale?
• Forests and woods: Are enemy units concealed therein, and therefore should they be avoided?
• Rivers: Is the small bridge over this river the only place for miles where an army can cross unhindered?
• Roads: Is this road sufficiently robust to allow heavy vehicles to use it?
• Built-up areas: A city contains a cathedral that is of great historical importance. Should it be defended – and thus exposed to the possibility of destruction – or should the city be declared ‘open’ in the hope that it will be preserved intact?
• Railways: Can our railway locomotives and rolling stock use this railway or is it the wrong gauge?

In other words, terrain has meaning as well as military characteristics.

It is important at this point to consider maps as interpretations of terrain and that they are not neutral objects. For example:

• A military map will emphasise road networks, hill gradients, and the location of bridges and settlements.
• A political map will emphasise local, regional, and national borders.
• A railway map will emphasise the rail routes that are available, the location of stations and depots, and interchanges between different rail networks.

Psychogeography challenges the idea that there is such a thing as a ‘correct’ map … and wargamers tend to do the same thing.

For example, if you give three players with different roles maps of the same country:

• The army commander will want a map that shows roads, rivers, the height of hills, bridges, and built-up areas.
• The railway logistician will want a map that shows railway routes, the location of sidings, depots, and workshops, and the gradient of railway lines.
• A local resistance commander will want a map that shows unused footpaths and the location of sympathetic villages, potential hiding places, police stations, and abandoned buildings.

They are geographically the same country but in wargame terms they are three completely different landscapes.

This appears – to me – to be close to psychogeographical thinking.

The Situationist dérive – which forms part of the thinking behind psychogeography – involves moving through a place without following a normal, predetermined route and seeing where the environment leads you.

There is an obvious wargaming equivalent to this … running a campaign or fighting a battle in terrain that is poorly surveyed … if it has been surveyed at all!

For example, a player might record the following the following in their campaign diary:

• Left the country’s capital by the northern road.
• The road was excellent as far as the provincial capital.
• Local people warned us about the nearby forest.
• The bridge across the main river appears weak and will need strengthening if we intend to use it as a major supply route.
• The country beyond the provincial capital feels increasingly hostile and villagers have refused to supply even basic foodstuffs.

In this instance, the player’s mental map of the terrain is developing alongside the physical map they are using. Some of the information they garner will be factual; some of it will be rumours; some will reflect prejudices; and some of it may simply be wrong.

Things are now beginning to resemble how historical commanders understood campaign geography, and one is drawn to the conclusion that campaign narratives naturally embrace psychogeography.

A long-running wargame campaign generates something similar without anyone consciously designing it. Locations become memorable because of a campaign event that occurred there. The physical terrain hasn’t changed … but its psychological geography has.

There is also an interesting link between psychogeography and nineteenth-century Kriegsspiel.

In a traditional Kriegsspiel, the umpires deliberately restrict what opposing commanders know. As a result, the players manipulate units on an incomplete map. They also receive reports and issue orders based upon incomplete information. Consequently, the commanders operate partly within an imagined landscape that is inside the commander’s head.

Psychogeography suggests that it might be able to take this further and create a psychogeographical campaign system where every important location has three characteristics:

• Physical value: what the terrain does.
• Perceived value: what a particular army believes about it.
• Emotional value: what previous events have caused it to mean.

After several campaign turns, the campaign map accumulates memory … and that is psychogeography emerging through play. It also suggests something potentially quite powerful: the campaign map itself could change according to what happens in the campaign without the physical geography changing at all.

I have seen this happen in several Matrix Games and RPG campaigns, and on reflection it would seem to me that many wargamers have been including psychogeography in their games without realising it.

These are my thoughts so far, and I would welcome comments on what I have written.

Nugget 383

The editor sent me the latest issue of THE NUGGET earlier this week, and I sent it to the printer (Macauley Scott Printing Company, Welling, Kent) yesterday. I hope to collect it and post it out to members of Wargame Developments by the middle of the month.

---

IMPORTANT: Please note that this is the FIRST issue of THE NUGGET to be published for the 2026-2027 subscription year.

If you have not yet subscribed for the 2026-2027 subscription year, please request a PayPal invoice from the Treasurer or follow the instructions on how to pay by bank transfer using the information on the relevant page of the website.

Another progress report about my Portable Belle Époque Wargame rules (3)

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, the significant changes I am making to THE GATLING'S JAMMED rules from THE PORTABLE COLONIAL WARGAME book are as follows:

• Machine guns a treated like artillery and have their own fire phase.
• The number of units a general can activate each turn is subject to a degree of randomness that depends upon their ability.
• A timescale has been introduced.

The section that deals with the third of these currently reads as follows:

Timescale

• The game day is divided into eight daytime turns and a night turn.
• Each turn represents the time taken for two activation cards (one for each side) to be turned over and the relevant activations to take place.
• Dawn (6.00am to 8.00am)
• Early morning (8.00am to 10.00am)
• Late morning (10.00am to Midday)
• Noon (Midday to 2.00pm)
• Early afternoon (2.00pm to 4.00pm)
• Late afternoon (4.00pm to 6.00pm)
• Early evening (6.00pm to 8.00pm)
• Late evening (8.00pm to 10.00pm)
• Night (10.00pm to 6.00am)
• Battles usually start at dawn, but players may wish to randomise the start time.
• No fighting is allowed during the night turn and therefore not activation cards are turned over.
• Units may move once during the night turn without needing to be activated but may not move into a grid area that is adjacent to the front, flank, or rear of enemy unit.
• During the night turn, units that have not been destroyed may regain a lost Strength Point (SP) by rolling one D6 die per unit.
• Elite units add 1 to their D6 die score and Poor units deduct 1 from their D6 die score.
• Results:
• D6 die score = 5 or more: The unit regains 1 SP.
• D6 die score = 4 or less: The unit does not regain any lost SPs.

Psychogeography and wargaming

Over the past couple of years I have been following the adventures of John Rogers, a YouTuber and writer whose channel is dedicated to 'immersive London walking tours exploring the hidden history of London, its streets, suburbs, and forgotten places – from ancient paths and lost rivers to post-war estates and overlooked corners of the city.' He also explores 'coastal paths, countryside walks, and historic locations across the UK.' His films 'combine walking, storytelling, psychogeography, and cultural history, uncovering the layers of the urban landscape and the stories embedded within it.' John is occasionally accompanied by others, including Ian Sinclair, who is a great advocate of psychogeography.

So, what is psychogeography?

Psychogeography was developed as a concept by members of the Letterist International and Situationist International in the early 1950s and is defined as being 'the exploration of urban environments that emphasises interpersonal connections to places and arbitrary routes.' The concept was influenced by Marxist and anarchist theory and the Dadaists and the Surrealists.

In INTRODUCTION TO A CRITIQUE OF URBAN GEOGRAPHY – published in 1955 by The Situationist International Text Library – Guy Debord defined psychogeography as 'the study of the precise laws and specific effects of the geographical environment, consciously organized or not, on the emotions and behaviour of individuals.'

In the UK, it has a small but very active following, particularly amongst academics, artists, filmmakers, and writers. The latter include Peter Ackroyd and Will Self.

So, why did I become interested in psychogeography?

The answer is very simple. I live on Shooters Hill and it has been identified by the late Steve Moore and Ian Sinclair as being a psychic hotspot, which apparently makes it an important location in psychogeography.

And what links psychogeography to wargaming?

Again, the answer is simple ... Guy Debord. In the 1960s, he felt that if the left-wing remained ignorant of military strategy, they were unlikely to prevail in the class war he expected to take place soon. In conjunction with Alice Becker-Ho, he devised a grid-based wargame – LE JEU DE LA GUERRE – that he hoped would fill this void.

The cover of the 1987 edition of Le Jeu de la Guerre.

The game was published in France in 1977, and an English edition followed in 1985. In recent years, Class Wargames – a London-based group – has revived interest in the game, and an electronic version is available to download.

Members of Class Wargames playing Le Jeu de la Guerre in Brazil.

I have played the latter solo many times on my iPad (it has an AI opponent option available as well as the option to play online against other wargamers), and it certainly helps to develop ones strategic thinking!

A screenshot of the electronic version of Guy Debord's wargame.

Time – and life – permitting, I hope to investigate further into the possibility of applying psychogeography to wargaming.

Another progress report about my Portable Belle Époque Wargame rules (2)

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, the significant changes I am making to THE GATLING'S JAMMED rules from THE PORTABLE COLONIAL WARGAME book are as follows:

• Machine guns a treated like artillery and have their own fire phase.
• The number of units a general can activate each turn is subject to a degree of randomness that depends upon their ability.
• A timescale has been introduced.

The section that deals with the second of these currently reads as follows:

Grading a general and activating units

• To determine a general’s grading, two D6 dice are rolled, and the combined dice score determines the general’s grading.
• Dice score = 10, 11, or 12: General is graded Good 
• Dice score = 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, or 9: General is graded Average
• Dice score = 2 or 3: General is graded Poor
• This grading helps to determine how many units they can activate each turn.
• If used during a campaign, a general’s grading can be changed to reflect their success … or lack of it.
• Before the battle begins, each side is allocated a playing card colour (i.e. red or black).
• The number of units they command is totaled, divided by 2, and rounded up.
• This gives the median value of the playing cards that the general will be allocated.
• The median value of the playing cards is then adjusted according to the general’s competence:
• Good general: Increase the median value of the playing cards by 2.
• Average general: Increase the median value of the playing cards by 1.
• Poor general: No adjustment is made to the median value of the playing cards.
• The players extract the red and black playing cards from two packs of playing cards and place them in separate piles.
• The general who has been allocated the red playing cards removes the red playing cards that have their modified median playing card value from their pile plus the red playing cards that have their modified median playing card value plus 1 and minus 1. These form their pack of activation cards.
• The general who has been allocated the black playing cards removes the black playing cards that have their modified median playing card value from their pile plus the black playing cards that have their modified median playing card value plus 1 and minus 1. These form their pack of activation cards.
• The two piles of coloured activation cards each have a Joker added to them to form that side’s pack of activation cards.
• Each side’s pack of activation cards is then shuffled and placed face down.
• Important note regarding the activation of artillery and machine gun units
• During the turn sequence, the artillery and machine gun fire phases take place before a side activates its other units.
• Both sides can – but do not have to – activate their artillery and machine gun units each time one of their side’s activation cards is turned over.
• If they do this, these count as one of that side’s unit activations.
• Once all the units that side can activate have been activated, the playing card is discarded and placed face up next to that side’s pack of activation cards.
• This process continues until a Joker is turned over, at which point the discarded activation cards are returned to the relevant pack of activation cards and the whole pack is re-shuffled, and the process begins again.

Ceci n'est pas une pipe and Harry Beck: When is a map not a map ... and does Harry Beck's diagram have wargaming potential?

One of my favourite paintings by René Magritte – the Belgian surrealist painter – is 'The Treachery of Images' (In French, 'La Trahison des images').

It is often referred to by its alternative – and probably better known – name of 'This Is Not a Pipe/Ceci n'est pas une pipe' ... and it depicts an image of a pipe with the words 'Ceci n'est pas une pipe' underneath the image.

What I like about it is the fact that the painting conveys an apparent paradox! To the casual observer, it looks like a pipe ... but the actuality is that – as the words underneath the image state very clearly – it isn't a real pipe.

Now what on earth has this to do with wargaming?

Bear with me; things will become clear ... I hope!

Back in 1931, Harry Beck designed a schematic diagram of the London Undergound network ... and if you ask the internet to find a map of the London Underground, a modern version of Harry Beck's design will appear.

Harry Beck's original 1931 diagram of the London Underground network.

Perhaps it ought to have 'Ce n'est pas une carte/This isn't a map' underneath it?

The Cambridge Dictionary defines a map as being 'a drawing of the earth's surface, or part of that surface, showing the shape and position of different countries, political borders, natural features such as rivers and mountains, and artificial features such as roads and buildings' and the Collins Dictionary states that it is 'a physical or digital image of a particular area such as a city, a country, or a continent, showing its main features as they would appear if you looked at them from above'.

By these definitions, Harry Beck's diagram is not a map. You certainly could not navigate your way around London's roads using it as the actual geographic positions of the underground stations is very different from their relative positions on Harry Beck's diagram. For example, this is the section of Beck's diagram showing the section of the tube from Earls Court in the west to Waterloo in the east and Queens Road in the north to West Brompton in the south.

Here is the same section of the London Underground superimposed on a road map of the same area. (N.B. the colours used to designate the different tube lines is different.)

Bearing in mind that most of the tube lines shown were constructed using the 'cut and cover' method and followed the route of existing roads. the differences are very noticeable.

As an aside, according to Transport for London (TfL), the average time it takes to travel between stations on the London Underground is 2.5 minutes ... so, by counting the number of stations between one's starting point and end point and multiplying by 2.5, you can calculate the approximate journey time from one station to another.

So, what has all this to do with wargaming?

One style of wargaming 'map' is the point-to-point one, like this ...

A point-to-point map of the area around the Battle of Waterloo. The travel time between each of the places on the map is approximately the same ... and the geographical positions of each is correct.

... and it seems to me to bear more than a passing resemblance to Harry Beck's design ... especially if you add a colour code to the different parts of the road network!

So, could Harry Beck's design – and the many similar designs used across the world – form the basis of a point-to-point wargame campaign map? I think so ... and if I get time, I may explore this idea further.

Another progress report about my Portable Belle Époque Wargame rules (1)

I have been making somewhat slower progress on my Portable Belle Époque Wargame rules than I expected ... but I'm gradually getting there!

As I mentioned in an earlier blog post, the significant changes I am making to THE GATLING'S JAMMED rules from THE PORTABLE COLONIAL WARGAME book are as follows:

• Machine guns a treated like artillery and have their own fire phase.
• The number of units a general can activate each turn is subject to a degree of randomness that depends upon their ability.
• A timescale has been introduced.

The section that deals with the first of these currently reads as follows:

Machine gun fire phase

• Machine gun fire definitions
• If an enemy unit can be seen by a machine gun unit (i.e. there is a direct line-of-sight between the target and the machine gun unit firing at it), the machine gun unit may fire at it.
• Machine gun units can fire over other units that are in front of them if they are on a hill that is higher than the target.
• General machine gun fire rules
• Machine guns fire within an arc-of-fire that is forward of the direction in which it is facing.
• Machine gun ranges are measured through the edges and not the corners of the grid areas.
• Machine gun units can only fire once each turn.
• Machine gun units that fire cannot move during the same turn.
• Machine gun fire can destroy any type of ground unit.
• Machine gun units can fire into woods, built-up areas, and fortifications.
• Machine gun units can fire out of woods, built-up areas, and fortifications if they are in a grid area that is on the edge of the woods, built-up areas, or fortifications (i.e. the adjacent grid area in the direction they are firing does not contain woods, built-up areas or fortifications).
• Machine gun fire rules
• The target grid area is identified.
• Roll three D6 dice for the machine gun unit firing at the target grid area and add or subtract any relevant modifiers:
• Increase the D6 die roll score by 1 if the machine gun unit has fired at the same stationary target during the previous turn.
• Increase the D6 die roll score by 1 if a friendly general is in a grid area that is adjacent to the machine gun unit.
• Reduce the D6 die roll score by 1 if the target is in cover or fortifications.
• Results:
• Modified D6 die roll score = 5 or more: Machine gun fire lands on the target grid area.
• Modified D6 die roll score = 4 or less: Machine gun fire has been totally ineffective.
• If the machine gun fire has been effective, any unit that is in the grid area in which the machine gun fire lands is hit, and a D6 die is rolled to determine the effectiveness of the artillery fire upon the target unit. (See the Resolving hits on units section of the rules.)

Another Nagato!

In July, thanks to the generosity of Nigel Drury, I added a model of the IJNS Nagato to my collection of 1:1200th/:1250th-scale Japanese warships.

Since then – and thanks to eBay – I have acquired a second model of a Nagato-class battleship ... so now I can field both IJNS Nagato and her sistership IJNS Mutsu in a naval wargame.

I now have models of six of the ten battleship that the Imperial Japanese Navy had in service in 1941. To complete my collection, I need another two Kongo-class fast battleships (IJNS Hiei and IJNS Kirishima), the IJNS Yamashiro (a Fuso-class battleship), and IJNS Hyūga (an Ise-class battleship).

Battles of the Balkan Wars

Further to my recent blog post about the First and Second Balkan Wars, I have put together a list of the main battles of each war.

Battles of the First Balkan War (1912–1913): Fought between the Balkan League (Bulgaria, Serbia, Greece, and Montenegro) and the Ottoman Empire.

Battle of Kirk Kilisse (24th to 27th October 1912) – Bulgarian victory over Ottoman forces in Thrace.

Battle of Lüleburgaz (29th October to 2nd November 1912) – The largest battle of the war, leading to an Ottoman retreat.

Battle of Kumanovo (23rd and 24th October 1912) – Decisive Serbian victory over the Ottoman Vardar Army.

Battle of Sarantaporos (9th and 10th October 1912) – Greek victory opening the way to southern Macedonia.

Battle of Yenidje (2nd and 3rd November 1912) – Greek victory leading to the surrender of Thessaloniki.

Siege of Adrianople (3rd November 1912 to 26th March 1913) – Fall of the key Ottoman fortress to Bulgarian and Serbian forces.

Battle of Monastir (16th to 19th November 1912) – Serbian victory securing control of Pelagonia.

First and Second Battles of Çatalca (17th and 18th November 1912 and 20th to 22nd March 1913) – Ottoman defensive successes holding the line near Constantinople.

Battle of Bizani (5th to 6th March 1913) – Greek victory leading to the capture of Ioannina.

Battle of Bulair (8th February 1913) – Ottoman tactical success against Bulgarian forces.

Siege of Scutari (28th October 1912 to 23rd April 1913) – Montenegrin and Serbian siege of the northern Albanian town.

Naval Battles of Elli (16th December 1912) and Lemnos (18th January 1913) – Greek naval victories ensuring control of the Aegean Sea.

The Matrix Game map of the Balkans during the First Balkan War from the book THE BALKAN LEAGUE.

Battles of the Second Balkan War (1913): Fought when Bulgaria turned against its former allies, Serbia and Greece, joined later by Romania and the Ottoman Empire.

Battle of Bregalnica (30th June to 9th July 1913) – Major engagement and Serbian victory along the Bregalnica River.

Battle of Kilkis–Lachanas (19th to 21st June 1913) – Decisive Greek victory over Bulgarian forces.

Battle for Knjaževac (4th to 7th July 1913) – Bulgarian offensive action against the Serbians.

Battle of Doiran (23rd to 25th June 1913) – Engagement during the Greek advance against Bulgarian positions.

Battle of Kalimanci (18th and 19th July 1913) – Successful Bulgarian defensive stand halting the Serbian offensive.

Battle of Kresna Gorge (8th to 18th July 1913) – Fierce Greek counter-offensive operations trapping the Bulgarian army.

Battle of Pirot (24th to 27th August 1913) – Late-stage engagement near the Serbian border.

Siege of Vidin (14th to 19th July 1913) – Serbian siege of the Bulgarian fortress city.

Southern Dobruja Offensive (July 1913) – Unopposed Romanian invasion of Bulgarian territory.

Ottoman Recapture of Adrianople (23rd July 1913) – Unopposed re-entry into Eastern Thrace by Ottoman forces as Bulgarian troops redeployed.

The Matrix Game map of the Balkans during the Second Balkan War from the book THE BALKAN LEAGUE.

New YouTube video ... that shows how I make my YouTube videos!

I recently wrote two blog posts that explained how I created my YouTube videos using MS PowerPoint and NCH VideoPad video editing software. I decided that it would be a good idea to use these methods to create a YouTube video about how I make my YouTube videos ... and that is exactly what I have done!

The video lasts approximately eleven and a half minutes and can be found here on the Wargaming Miscellany YouTube channel.