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