Most wargames use either squares, hexes or non-uniform areas (or, equivalently, points connected by lines). Each have their advantages and disadvantages.

Squares: Well suited for terrain that is naturally laid out in a square grid, such as buildings and modern cities. Familiar to all. The 4-at-a-point connections have bad topological properties, however. Different cost for edge/diagonal movement is needed to get good distance approximation. Needs terrain modifiers for movement, etc., if not uniform.

Hexes: Good distance approximation by counting hexes. Needs terrain modifiers for movement, etc., if not uniform. Has good topological properties. Doesn't map well to square-gridded cities or buildings.

Areas: Allow terrain effects to be built into area shape and size, e.g., elongated areas where travel is easier in one direction than in another (e.g., roads and canyons). Can adapt to different shapes, such as natural or political borders. Impossible to number systematically (no coordinate system).

So, apart from putting more burden on the designer, non-uni-form areas suffer mostly from lack of a coordinate system. Coordinate systems are useful for writing down positions and moves and for calculating long distances (where a formula based on coordinates can be used).

For Manhattan-like cities, a square grid is fine. For older (less uniform) cities, I think I would prefer non-uniform areas, as these would be no easier fitting to a hexagonal grid than to a square grid.

This article appears in MagWeb (Magazine Web) on the Internet World Wide Web.
Other articles from military history and related magazines are available at http://www.magweb.com