Most board wargames have a hex grid laid over them, regulating movement (and ranged combat). Almost all of the wargames I played for the first 5 or so years of my wargaming life were hex-based. Of course, there were notable exceptions, such as Diplomacy, Civilization, and Machiavelli, but, for the most part, hexes ruled the roost -- not to mention that many folks would debate whether these three games are actually "wargames."
But something inside me always disliked hexes.
I know, I know... A hex grid allows all hexes on the map to be an equal distance away from the six hexes surrounding them, and those six an equal distance away, and so on. One can't do that with squares, for moving horizontally or vertically from a square is not the same as moving diagonally. Interestingly enough, some early wargames used offset squares which are, in essence, hexes!
But all spaces on a board shouldn't be as easy (or fast) to move to as all other spaces -- for instance, sitting here in my study (we'll pretend it's a big hex), the "hex" containing the garage is directly to my east. Yet the garage hex is harder to reach than the living room hex (which is a couple hexes away), for it's separated from my study by a solid wall. So, with hexes, wargame designers had to come up with "terrain effect charts," to regulate movement (and combat, but that's a story for a different day). Some hexes would cost more to enter, and some hexsides (such as between my study and garage) would be impassable.
But, something inside me has always said, "This doesn't feel right."
So, what's a wargame designer to do? The answers have been to move to areas or "points." Both have advantages over hexes, imo, at least in battle or strategic level games (not sure about tactical level, as hexes actually seem to work at low levels).
Breaking the game board up into areas allows the designer to show some areas as larger (easier to move through, clear terrain, etc.) and others as smaller (harder to move through, denser terrain, etc.), allowing more accurate movement without chart look-up for "terrain effects." Boundaries are more easily highlighted as "impassable," or "harder to move through," than would be tiny little hex sides (and as the years progress and my eyes get older, I welcome anything that makes playing games easier!). Finally, combat effects can be printed right on the board, in the area. Here, movement is "channeled" in a more realistic way as players will be figuring out which approaches offer the best cover and will let one get there the "firstest with the mostest" -- players will not spend time counting hexes and movement points, they'll actually be thinking (more) like a general and less like a problem solver.
A big step in area games came when Storm Over Arnhem (SOA) hit the shelves (and come to think of it, this is fairly tactical, though it is a mix of tactical and operational, I think). Finally, a game where city blocks, bridges, fields, and rivers weren't made to slavishly conform to a hex grid. One felt like they were playing the situation, not counting hexes. In the years since SOA, many more games with areas as the movement/combat overlay have come into being, and I generally enjoy playing them.
Like areas, points connected by transportation lines have been another way to overcome "Hex Grid Hell." In point-to-point games, strategic areas are connected to one another and military units can only travel along designated routes (so the designer gets to, in effect, design his own "terrain effects" right into the map). Because the movement routes are often restrictive, point-to-point games generally work best for strategic level games where main routes of advance can be shown -- for these are what armies use, on a strategic level -- the roads and waterways that played a part in the campaign or war being simulated. Some roads can be made easier to travel upon (pikes vs. dirt tracks), and some rivers may be better than others (or one side may be better able to utilize river movement, an example being the Union in the Civil War game For the People). A designer can elegantly add "movement rules" that conform to the movement of troops -- no more veering off the transportation network for months at a time, as we often see in hex-based games.
One of my first encounters with a point-to-point game was with War of 1812 (1812). I have always enjoyed this game. Strategic points in Upper Canada, New York, and along Lakes Erie, Ontario, and Champlain are where units move to and from. Battles happen in places they historically did, for not every inch on the map is accessible. 1812 channels the action nicely, giving a very good feel to this theater of the war. As with areas, I get the feeling I'm leading a military campaign, not solving a hex-based puzzle.
So, for me, areas, or point-to-point are the ways to go. While there are several hex-based games I really enjoy, such as Combat Commander, Command & Colors:Ancients, and Totensonntag, they all have other attributes that make their hexes more palatable, such as cards and/or random impulses for movement (which are subjects for another day!).
I understand this hasn't been an exhaustive thesis on "terrain overlay projections for wargames," but it wasn't meant to be. Instead, just a way of telling y'all what I like, and (quickly) why. I know that if I ever get some of my design ideas off the ground, you'll be seeing point-to-point or areas, not a steenkin' hex anywhere.
Except maybe in a beehive...
