Simultaneous Movement

The first time I played a real game that required adult thinking and none of that hopeful dice rolling you find in Risk was in Colin's basement playing Diplomacy with six experienced warlords. I was a young pup named France and when England and Italy found out I didn't understand the rules, they did what anyone should do in those situations -- they cut me to pieces and mailed the remains to my mother.

Diplomacy is one of the most elegantly-designed, emotionally-affecting games you'll ever play. The concept of talking with an opponent to affect the game, of being able to legally deceive other players with no penalty (save future distrust) still gives me chills. Years later in grad school, I suggested to some untested political science students that we play. The moment Russia and Germany realized I had lied to both of them and thereby captured four cities in a fall turn gave me an adrenaline rush I'm still riding.

None of those back alley negotiations, however, amount to anything without the simultaneous movement mechanic which asks players to write their orders down and reveal them all at once. You thought Germany was going to support you into Warsaw? Think again, Austria-Hungary, and there's nothing you can do about it, because your orders are binding contracts and now Turkey's got a shot at Budapest.

I've been fretting about simultaneous movement for our game; not because players may throw alans (my new term for temper-tantrums), but because if movement on a large map is going to be useful, it should take time. Take a look at this snippet of the Empires in Arms map:

Most stacks in EiA can move 3 spaces, so if I want to get from the city of Posen to Lemberg in East Galacia, that's going to take two turns. That kind of slower, methodical movement is preferable to the kind of nonsense you see in Risk where armies move across a continent in a turn -- ridiculous not because it's unrealistic (a fun game is more important than historical accuracy), but because there's less opportunity to outflank, cut off supply, or capitalize on an opponent's mistake. If this were our map:

Courtesy of Ikusa, formerly Samurai Swords, formerly Shogun

I could go from Hida to four other provinces in one move. That means I could go from one economic resource producing area ($) to one of four other capitals in one turn. The problem is that when everyone is that maneuverable, war becomes a standoff. If I attack Echizen from Hida, the troops in Shinano will swing in to fill the vacuum. I decide not to attack and instead begin an arms race...and arms races are never fun.

Alright, almost never.

Here's the rub: if we use an Ikusa map from above but slice it up into smaller areas like in EiA, then moving from Posen to Lemberg above might take five weeks in real time: frustratingly slow. Each time we need a decision from a player, the game slows as we wait for an email reply or a piece to move, and unless we're waiting for a combat to be resolved, I don't want anyone to wait to play.

If we slice the map into smaller areas and have players move roughly 3 areas per turn by writing their army's route, what happens when armies move near each other? Armies could circle each other because they've been ordered. If we ask the player to adjust, that could mean a day or two waiting for a reply. I need more options, gentlemen, give me some.

1. Smaller Slices - if the Hida territory above was cut into perhaps 3 areas as a province, with one area containing the capital, we could avoid multi-movement decisions.

2. Zone of Control - if armies were forced to stop moving when they moved next to each other, we could stop them from never colliding, but if they stop, then next turn one could keep running away.