A few months ago, I started a new feature on the blog called Discussion Thread where I plan to pose a question or a share 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 followed by a not so successful post on Zones of Control. I now wanted to do another post in the series and focus on the all too common problem that non-wargamers have with the word Wargame and misinterpreting or misunderstanding what it actually is.

The most common misconception about a board wargame is that it is simply a casual, luck-based mainstream game such as the likes of Risk or Monopoly, that cheapens or treats lightly the historical period covered and those who participated in the event and who fought and gave their lives. Conversely, some people hold that wargames are an inaccessible, dry academic simulation meant only for hardcore military personnel or history professors. Many non-wargamers assume that “wargame” simply means moving plastic armies around a world map and rolling dice to conquer territories. But in reality, traditional board wargames, such as hex and counter games, prioritize historical operational mechanics, logistics, supply lines and terrain modeling over casual social dice-rolling. They also do a credible job at attempting to recreate the outcomes of these battles by ensuring that various elements are accurate including terrain features, weather, commanders and the make-up and skill of troops involved. Finally wargames are a serious matter. No one who plays them takes them lightly nor do they not consider the history covered.

So the reason for me writing this post came from something that I experienced last weekend while attending the Gaming the American Revolution Camden 250 Event in Camden, South Carolina. At this event, which was sponsored by GMT Games, about 100 gamers showed up to play games on the American Revolutionary War from GMT Games including titles such as Washington’s War, Liberty or Death, the upcoming announced Common Sense and the various games from the Battles of the American Revolution Series. As a part of the convention, which was held at the Revolutionary War Visitor Center at Camden, there was a 4-hour tour set up that took participants to see the Camden battlefield, located about 8 miles out of the city limits, and the Hobkirk’s Hill battlefield located in Camden. This tour was expertly lead by the South Carolina Battlefield Preservation Trust Executive Director Rick Wise who was very knowledgeable and entertaining to listen to. You could really feel his passion for the American Revolution as well as the role that these battles in South Carolina and the Southern Theater held in the wider war and the eventual surrender of Lord Charles Cornwallis and his army at Yorktown, Virginia.

But, when he spoke on a few different occasions he brought up the fact that we were wargamers and that we were gathered to “play” games. This statement is not incorrect as we are all wargamers and were there to play games together. He also said that we needed to understand and keep in mind that there were soldiers who fought, bled and died to win independence and establish the great American nation. I felt like he was really preaching to the choir here with this group as everyone was there for the gaming and the recognition of the history tied to that gaming. Also many attendees were former military and had also served. Finally, I think almost every one in attendance participated not only in his 4-hour guided tour, but also walked the grounds of the Camden Visitors Center to take a look at the redoubt there as well as the Kershaw-Cornwallis House that was used by Lord Charles Cornwallis and Lord Francis Rawdon as an active HQ during the occupation of Camden from 1780-1781. In addition, many attendees came to South Carolina early to visit other battlefields in the area such as Cowpens, King’s Mountain, Waxhaws and Eutaw Springs. I bring this up because of Rick’s tone, and I am not sure that it was valid or necessary in speaking to this crowd, was assuming that as wargamers we were trivializing or taking lightly the gravity of the history involved in the games we were playing. I know that he was not trying to offend or belittle us and our focus but simply wanted to drive home his point of the sacrifices that were made and that we were playing out in a game with dice.

Well, I want to point out a few things about these wargames. They are not trivial but are focused on the actual historical details of the period and the battles involved. Wargames are built upon a few stalwart truths…the people who participated and the terrain upon which they fought and died. These are both hallmarks of every single wargame that I have ever played. The designers take these battles seriously and do hours upon hours of research and investigation to make sure that they have the details correct. For example, with the Orders of Battle or OOB’s, they find the names of each formation, typically named after their commanding officer, and in smaller scale games the names of actual soldiers who were there. These details are listed on the counters and have an impact in the game play itself. But, sometimes the names don’t have an impact and are just added to bring the battle to the view of the players and to hammer home the human element. The designers want players to understand who was involved, how they fit into the larger battle, who their leaders were and even adding in small historical details to make the game grounded in the history. The Battles of the American Revolution Series does this exceptionally well.

The detail about the makeup of the soldiers involved, as well as their relative strengths and weaknesses, are on full display and are central to us as wargamers gaining insight into the conditions under which they fought, the issues that they would have experienced and the challenges that their commanders would have dealt with in directing their efforts. I like that one of the more interesting parts that is included in this makeup typically is a unit’s morale or their willingness to continue fighting in the face of mounting casualties and fatigue. Numbers are typically assigned for things like morale by designers after reading the histories and taking into account the performance and standing of these troops. More veteran troops typically have higher morale than green or relatively less experienced troops. These factors and attributes are all based on the history and are typically designed as a simulation of the event, or at least as the most realistic and plausible recreation of the event that can be made. And that is the appeal. Understanding the situation from the participants point of view and seeing how it turned out and why. I have played dozens upon dozens of wargames and have always thought about the soldiers and their sacrifice. How did they do what was done? Where did their bravery come from in the face of overwhelming odds? How could they have possibly held up to the better trained and better equipped professional armies of the British? For me, the soldiers are the reason that I play these games. And I assume the same for many of you.

I understand why the average person doesn’t understand wargaming and I get that the word “game” is found in what we do. To the average person, the word game is associated with lighter fare such as Risk, Trouble or Sorry, which are games where you can laugh and joke about things and focus on having a good time and experience with your family and friends. But wargames are more than that…they are a look into the past. A look that includes the gory details, the challenges and the difficulties….and they are made as an homage to the past. Just as books are written to commemorate and outline the details of these battles, wargames are made to serve a similar purpose. To teach, to instruct, to challenge and to test the meddle of players to see if they can meet or exceed historical outcomes or even flip the script and turn history upside down with a totally different outcome. And they are made to be enjoyable but in a different way to the games I mentioned earlier. I love playing games with friends, being with them for hours upon hours, getting to know them, better understanding them and better understanding the history. I would deign to say that I even enjoy playing wargames and do have a good time with them. But I always do keep in mind the history and the soldiers and their sacrifice.

What are your thoughts on this topic? Did I miss the mark in my response? Am I being too sensitive? Thanks for reading and for sharing your thoughts. I will come up with a few more of these posts to share and I hope to see lots of comments and reaction.

-Grant

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