About a month ago, I started a new feature on the blog called Discussion Thread where I pose a question or a situation and seek your input and comments on the issue to gain greater understanding and to encourage thoughtful feedback. The response to the first post about In-Game Retribution was positive and there were a lot comments and opinions shared. I now wanted to do another post in the series but focus on the subject of Zones of Control and their importance in wargames.

A Zone of Control, typically referred to as ZOC, is the area immediately surrounding a military unit that exerts tactical influence over adjacent spaces, which in turn restricts enemy movement, closes up gaps in a line preventing enemy units from moving through, forces combat or triggers some sort of reactive action such as opportunity fire or engagement without the passive player needing to occupy those hexes or take any actions. They are designed to create some sort of resistance to enemy units as they approach. Mimicking real world combat and adding in this concept of awareness of enemy movement.

I think that everyone has an opinion on the subject of ZOC’s and these opinions are mixed regarding complexity, the type, being rigid or sticky, and their in-game effects, but there is a consensus that they simulate well the concept of military friction and holding frontline positions. Let’s take a quick look at the different types of ZOC’s and I will share my thoughts on each.

First up, is the rigid/locking ZOC where units must halt their movement the moment they enter a space where an enemy unit is exerting a Zone of Control. The ZOC in this case forces the moving unit to terminate its movement for that turn. I very much prefer these type of ZOC’s as I think that they really simulate the concept of prepared and even sometimes dug-in troops have the advantage and can force advancing units to stop trough interlocking fields of fire or heavy gun projection on the area such as off-board artillery.

Next, we have the soft ZOC where advancing enemy units can move through enemy ZOC influenced spaces, but suffer some sort of movement point penalties, attrition, or extra costs. I also really like this concept as it typically functions similarly to more rigid ZOC’s by costing a +2 or +3 movement cost which typically ends a units movement but not always. I have seen moving units have to take a step loss to take an extra move or more simply extra movement costs such as the placing of a disrupted marker or the like. This type really focuses on the pressures and cost of moving into and through these Zones of Control but are simpler than the more rigid variety.

Finally, I have seen more fluid ZOC’s such as when units can pass adjacent to enemies, but doing so might trigger attacks of opportunity or reactive fire at a disadvantage such as providing the units projecting the ZOC a positive DRM in their attacks or attacking with a column shift on the Combat Results Table. This concept is that moving or advancing units have less cover, less caution and open themselves up to attack more so than those that are forced to stop.

I think that all 3 of these types have their merits and downsides but their use typically depends on the situation represented in the design, the mindset or experience of the designer and the varying historical troop quality and fire power of the units. A line of tanks dug in is much more fearsome and demands a different level of respect in their ZOC projection than say a small arms squad of soldiers who do not have heavy weapons such as LMG’s. And I think that all are viable in design.

Then there is the lack of Zones of Control. I am not a fan of this concept at all but have found that it is typically used in more introductory wargames that are less complex and focuses on being less of a simulation than a traditional hex and counter affair. Many years ago, and at a time when we were still early in our wargame learning journey, I played a game called Paul Koenig’s Market-Garden: Arnhem Bridge from Victory Point Games. I think that I was attracted to it because of the subject of Market-Garden and the inclusion of Allied airborne units. In looking at the game, the main focus and goal is to move toward the bridge and capture it. The path to move to the bridge is through fairly dense urban hexes with a road leading right to the on-ramps.

Strategically, a German commander would have lined the streets with their best units to prevent the enemy from simply riding right down the middle of the street to the bridge. This commander would have given orders to fire on anything approaching and would have had reserve units located in the buildings to the left and right of the streets to prevent small unit interdiction through the back alleys. These units would have taken up positions to bring heavy fire upon any approach hex and this is typically simulated in other games through the use of a Zone of Control. This ZOC would typically cause advancing units to stop while taking fire from an adjacent unit but in this design, the units just kind of ride on by, waving to the nasty MG-42 nests on the 2nd floor of the buildings and blowing kisses to the Panzers hidden in or behind the piles of rubble!

In reviewing the history of the campaign, one of the major problems the British had in advancing on the bridge was that relatively small German forces had taken up positions in the woods and on the outskirts of the city and effectively pinned down most of the advance of British forces toward Arnhem. This, in my opinion, is a major design flaw and should be house-ruled or cause a redesign of an otherwise fun and good playing game. I have illustrated this point with the pictures below where the British 4-6 Infantry unit simply moves right down the street between 4 better groups of units (an 8-9 Tank, three 6-8 Mobile Infantry and a crack 6-6 SS unit) without taking fire or being stopped! Seems silly doesn’t it?!?

I really tend to prefer the sticky/rigid/locking Zones of Control that seem to be found in most of the hex and counter wargames we play. I am more ok with the less restrictive soft or fluid ZOC’s in a tactical wargame where I can hold actions to then inflict opportunity fire on advancing units. But, as I said before, once you introduce the big guns in the form or tanks or heavy artillery, I really like the sticky/rigid/locking Zones of Control. Is this a taste thing or am I in the minority?

So what are your thoughts on the importance of Zones of Control? Can you enjoy and play a game that doesn’t have them? What is your preference in their stickiness/level of exerted influence in a game? What games do them best? Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts. I will come up with a few more of these posts over the next few months to share and I hope to see lots of comments and reaction.

-Grant

I am going to start this new feature on the blog called Discussion Thread where I pose a question or a situation and seek your input and comments on the issue to gain greater understanding and to encourage thoughtful feedback. I think this will only be successful if we get lots of opinions and queries so please speak up and let me know your thoughts. Big or little. Nothing is out of bounds. I also feel that this series will be a bit therapeutic for me and my mental health. I am not sure how often I will post these type of things but wanted to see how it goes and also to share something that happened to me recently in a game that got my gears a grinding.

*All names have been changed or omitted to protect the privacy and identity of those involved.

But first, I am going to have to set the scene for you. As you know, we really enjoy attending conventions and playing large multi-player wargames such as Here I Stand, Virgin Queen, War Room, Alliance and many other titles. Over the years, we have absolutely had a blast at these conventions and they are the best places to play these large 5+ player wargames. Recently, while attending the World Boardgaming Championships in Seven Springs, Pennsylvania. This year I attended alone, as Alexander was on vacation in the south of France with family, and I was able to coordinate a full 6-player game of the amazing Imperial Elegy: The Road to the Great War 1850-1920 from VUCA Simulations. This game was released in late 2025 and we have since played it 3 times, including this play at WBC. Imperial Elegy is a is a card driven game that blends diplomacy, warfare and statecraft and feels a bit akin to games like Here I Stand and Virgin Queen from GMT Games. Like those games, IE is a grand scale sweeping epic that play multiplayers and take a day to play (literally 12-14 hours to see the game through to the bitter end). The game covers the dying throes of the colonial and imperial powers of the 17th and 18th century as they deal with local colonial uprisings, attempts to unify fractured countries, build alliances for protection and to aid in their own expansion and economic concerns of population growth and industrialization. Players will take on the roles of 1 of 6 unique major powers in the game including Germany/Prussia, the United Kingdom, France, Austria-Hungary, Russia and the Ottoman Empire. This is a really deep and involved game and frankly after 3 plays I am finally grasping what it is that I should be focused on, how to go about building alliances and the benefits that I must get from those to have a chance at survival. But I am still learning and have only played as the German/Prussian Empire and France, so there is a lot yet to learn and explore.

While playing a 6-player game at WBC recently, I was the French. Previously I had played as the German/Prussian Empire and this was going to be a new experience where I could see what another faction was about and begin to understand their motivations, goals and objectives. A fellow player, who was playing as the UK, which is a natural ally of the French, saw my taking of some actions that didn’t sit well with him and he was actively trying to find ways to punish me for doing what he didn’t agree with. Keep in mind he never said anything about his reasoning at the time of taking the action, because it made zero sense at the time in the state of the game, nor did it make any sense in the game for the UK’s long term strategy. It was simply odd and I was searching for understanding as to why he would choose to do what he did.

In the game, I had just agreed with Germany to voluntarily give up Alsace Lorraine because I had no way to prevent him from coming in and destroying my 1 army there. He had 2 full armies, one of which had an Elite Corps. as well as an adjacent army supporting it on the board. So I decided I would sue for peace and try to avoid a prolonged battle that would waste my resources and that would ultimately, at least in my opinion, lead to me losing the location. The German/Prussian Empire is trying to unify their country and must control a certain number of countries on the board marked with a German flag, of which Alsace Lorraine is one. As a concession with the German player, I was able to convince him to give me 2 cards from the deal, which were randomly drawn as you cannot simply give over a specific card, and they were both 1’s. Bummer. But, I now had 2 extra cards to perform a few more actions that turn and that was a good trade off for me.

I was planning to go hard into colonies in Africa, Asia and even into North America to get to 6 Colonial Keys to accomplish one of my National Goals and to gain an extra +1 Card and +1 Manpower. I had already made good progress by taking Algeria and gaining traction in Morocco in North Africa and controlled 1 of the spaces on the Africa sub map.

That’s when he played a 3 Ops Card called Folie de Grandeur for the event which allowed him to place a revolt in a French controlled colony in Africa, Asia or North America and he went behind me to take out Algeria which meant I would have to go back and move an Expeditionary Force there and spend 3-4 impulses to Pacify it and get it back under my control. It sucked. The event also forced me to lose a Stability and take a -1 Card marker. This was a devastating and mean card to play at that time.

I asked him why he would play this card, as we were moving toward becoming allies and had discussions about how things should and could go, and I had done nothing to him but had been simply trying to do what France should do by going into City of Light points, intervening in Italy and their unification and building colonies. I was admittedly a bit upset and kept pestering him about his reasoning through the whole game. He said at the time he played that card, he had a good hand with several large Ops cards and didn’t need the extra 3 from this card (I call BS as you can always use more Ops). Plus I actually watched his final card plays that round and he didn’t have good cards but had a middling hand with several 2 OPs cards. I was taking notes.

So we played out the game and he actually screwed me over later with another stupid event (man there are a ton of those Mandatory little events that make taking colonies very dicey) and he was absolutely not in the game at all. He had only scored 2 VP from his National Goals and had only a few colonies with just 2 in South Africa. Later that evening over dinner, I asked him again why and told him his reasons used at the table were BS. He said to me straight faced that I had pissed him off with my move with Germany and he was punishing me. Punishing me? In a game that I am still exploring to learn and understand the buttons to push and levers to pull. As mentioned, I have only played 3 times with Germany/Prussia and France. He was PUNISHING me! Are you kidding me?!? Geeze. This has still bothered me to this day and I wanted to share to have you either talk me down off the ledge or give me some reasoning to make it all make sense.

I want to clarify that this person is a good friend. We have played games together for years and we are always mixing it up. I plan to continue playing games with him and I am sure will have many other experiences to share over the years.

So what are your thoughts? Was I misguided in my angst? Did I take it too personally? Was he justified in his actions? What do you do when you have a situation like this in a game? Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts. I will come up with a few more of these posts over the next few months to share and I hope to see lots of comments and reaction.

In the meantime, we have put out several pieces of content, including written posts and videos. You can visit those by following the links below:

Unboxing Video:

Video Review:

Summary on Solitaire Bots presented by our friend James:

Written First Impressions Post on the blog: https://theplayersaid.com/2026/05/06/first-impressions-imperial-elegy-the-road-to-the-great-war-1850-1920-from-vuca-simulations/

My Favorite Wargame Cards – A Look at Individual Cards from My Favorite Games – Card #85: Hydraulic Recoil: https://theplayersaid.com/2026/07/07/my-favorite-wargame-cards-a-look-at-individual-cards-from-my-favorite-games-card-85-hydraulic-recoil-from-imperial-elegy-the-road-to-the-great-war-1850-1920-from-vuca/

-Grant