I have consulted with Zim and he has agreed to a vote to choose which method of strategic movement we will use for the first civil war. Settling this issue now should help us finalise remaining issues to do with PvP mechanics.

The alternatives, as described in the draft rules, are:

1 - Basic LotR system: Players move normally on the map and battles occur when they encounter one another.

2 - Phased Movement System: as was used in the LotR War of the Four Basileis. Essentially, players submit movement orders by PM to the GM, who then makes all the moves simultaneously, using the console to allow multiple movement phases without advancing the game year. Units could be moved at 2x speed or 2.5x speed etc.

3 - MTW/Risk-style system: Similar to phased movement, but players submit orders to move based by province. For instance, any player can move their army up to two (or one, or three, or whatever) consecutive provinces per turn. When players enter a province with a hostile force, a battle occurs. Battles are treated as they are in MTW, namely that if one army is moving into a province with the enemy, but the enemy was stationary that turn, the moving army is the attacker and the stationary army is the defender and may get a terrain/settlement advantage. If both armies were moving, it is a meeting engagement and occurs on an open battlefield without one side getting a terrain advantage.

4 - Instant battle system: As soon as a civil war is declared, all players declare who they support or whether they are neutral. When this is completed, a battle instantly occurs with all participants on both sides showing up. When the battle is over, the war is over.


There has been some discussion of the alternatives in the draft rules and PvP mechanics threads, with a consensus moving towards either option (2) or option (3). Some of the points raised include:

The problem with option (1) is that slow in-game movement speeds may result in 'phony' wars with no fighting whatsoever. It also suffers from an IGO-UGO problem over which player should move first in a given turn.

The problem with option (4) is that it allows for pretty much no pre-battle strategy beyond politically recruiting allies.

Options (2) and (3) are both WEGO systems (simultaneous movement via the GM). The risk style system is likely to see wars resolved more quickly, while the phased movement allows more strategic maneouvring on the campaign map. There is an issue of how the movement of neutrals is handled under either option, but an obvious solution is just to allow normal movement for non-combatants (the accelerated speed of combatants could be thought of as force marching).

I know some players would rather defer our choice of movement system until the first civil war actually breaks out, but there are good reasons to make the choice now:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

(a) it will guide us on the issue of recruitment in a civil war. Most people see a problem with keeping "only the Chancellor recruits" mechanic in a civil war. But we can't really finalise any proposals until we know the movement system. If it is risk style, there's a case to telescope any non-Chancellor recruitment into turn 1 of the war, as wars will be quick. Systems linked to in-game movement speeds could allow more gradual recruitment.

(b) it will help people plan ahead if they know the rules. Know how quickly your army can fight a potential enemy will be a big help in planning to launch or defend against a civil war.

(c) we can have an impartial discussion or vote on the issue now while we are all still behind a "veil of ignorance" not knowing our avatars and allegiances. By the time war breaks out, there may be a temptation to push for a system that favours "our" side in the war.

(d) leaving it to the last minute will mean lots of second-guessing about Zim's choice, and likely some special pleading to try to influence it or at least have it revealed in advance.