NAPs

[Belac]

I apologize for asking this again instead of looking in the forum history, but the search function won't find "NAP" as it's too common a word.

What is the timeline for ending NAPs?

Say you have a NAP-3, and you announce its end on turn X.

Turn X+1 you do nothing.
Turn X+2: Can you order attacks to take place on turn X+3? Or do you have to wait for turn X+3 to give attack orders, which will happen on turn X+4?

[Gregstrom]

The normal procedure is to order attacks on X+3. It's worth formally stating when you expect attacks can be ordered when you give notice that the NAP is ending.

[Torin]

i think its important if the opposite player has done his turn or not. That will change the timing by one.
Its of bad taste to assume he can redo his turn. He could be sleeping.

[aaminoff]

Ah, now I can hijack this thread to ask about all sorts of diplomatic things.

So, what is the common understanding about what a NAP entails? In particular, is one allowed to transit stealthy units through the NAP counterparty's territory? It seems like reasonable options might be

1 - no stealthy units may enter at all
2 - only single scouts
3 - only stealthers that do not have bad effects (eg Heretics which reduce dominion, unrest inciters)
4 - all stealthers OK

It seems unlikely that 4 would be OK, or at least, if anyone were to do that, they would be convicted of sophistry in a court of public opinion if they claimed they were not breaking the NAP.

But 3 is interesting. If any stealthers are allowed, then a stealth nation can move large stealth armies all over someone's territory before declaring war.

So it seems like how this is commonly understood would have a significant effect on how spiffy stealth nations can be.

- Alex

[Calahan]

If I cancel an NAP with someone, or indeed if someone cancels one with me, I always find it helps, and indeed good manners to agree a timetable with them. For example.


Game turn 20 - Atlantis cancels its 3-turn NAP with Oceania. This is turn 1 of the required NAP notice.
Game turn 21 - This is turn 2 of the required NAP notice.
Game turn 22 - This is turn 3 of the required NAP notice. Hostile orders can be given.
Game turn 23 - The required 3 turns notice was correctly given and complied with, and any combat that took place did not violate the NAP.

Other players though can view things differently, and see it as.

Game turn 20 - Atlantis cancels its 3-turn NAP with Oceania.
Game turn 21 - This is turn 1 of the required NAP notice.
Game turn 22 - This is turn 2 of the required NAP notice.
Game turn 23 - This is turn 3 of the required NAP notice.
Game turn 24 - The NAP is cancelled, The required 3-turns notice was correctly given and complied with, and hostile orders can be given.
Game turn 25 - Any combat that took place did not violate the NAP


So you can see why it is good practice to agree a timetable, as there is a 2 turn difference in the above examples, and both could be regarded as a valid procedure for cancelling an NAP (as well as several other variations on the above examples). So it's always best if possible for the players to agree a schedule before the fighting starts, as that avoids a lot of needless problems and/or bad feelings.

And as Torin said, it's also polite and good practice to make sure that if you are cancelling an NAP with forum PM's or email, that you do it very soon after a new turn comes out, and not leave it until the last minute. Since it's unfair to suddenly spring a NAP cancellation on a player at the 11th hour, especially as Torin says, if they have already submitted their turn.

Edit:

Originally Posted by aaminoff

Ah, now I can hijack this thread to ask about all sorts of diplomatic things.

So, what is the common understanding about what a NAP entails? In particular, is one allowed to transit stealthy units through the NAP counterparty's territory? It seems like reasonable options might be

1 - no stealthy units may enter at all
2 - only single scouts
3 - only stealthers that do not have bad effects (eg Heretics which reduce dominion, unrest inciters)
4 - all stealthers OK

It seems unlikely that 4 would be OK, or at least, if anyone were to do that, they would be convicted of sophistry in a court of public opinion if they claimed they were not breaking the NAP.

But 3 is interesting. If any stealthers are allowed, then a stealth nation can move large stealth armies all over someone's territory before declaring war.

So it seems like how this is commonly understood would have a significant effect on how spiffy stealth nations can be.

- Alex

You will find this very much varies from player to player, and the only way to be sure which one is in effect for your NAP's is to specifically bring up the issue before agreeing to it.

I personally always operate under #3 from your above list, and know a lot of other players follow this as well. But I've also had games where players I've had NAP's with have gone mental on me just for having a scout on our border. So always better to check first if you are unsure of the players (and their playing style, habits etc) you are signing your NAP's with.


You may also want to do likewise for certain global spell. Since again there is a difference of opinion as to which globals are considered to instantly violate all NAP's.

Arcane Nexus, Utterdark and Burden of Time are on most peoples list. But some also consider things like Forge of the Ancients, Gift of Nature's Bounty, and even Well of Misery to be NAP breaking. Again, everyone has their own opinions on these things, and always wise to iron such differences out before signing NAP's (although this can get very tedious very quickly)

[zzcat]

What about offensive globals like the wrath of god, the kindly ones or wild hunt? Can I assume our NAP is violated if my ally casted them without my approval? Perhaps the spell causes more damage to our enemies than myself, but it can be quite annoying if my important commanders get killed occasionally.

[GrudgeBringer]

Wow.....Nap's, it seems like it comes up every now and then and after that we get a bunch of angry players.

I will give you some options and then what I do personally.

1. MAKING A NAP.... Some people (like myself)think it is best to 'register' a nap in the forum. Something very simple (Arco and Ulm agree to a 3 turn nap)clear up to a three paragraph document where they (I actually have seen one of these)spell everything out agreement.

Others think it wise NOT to list it as it may give away where you are (if Arco has a Nap with Ulm and you know where Ulm is...then you can approximate where Arco is). As well as being able to ask for Arco's help if you want to break the Nap with Ulm.

Canceling a Nap...

All the options in the above posts are 'Correct' as there is no absolute right or wrong.

I always cancel a Nap in the forum but I don't always notify the person by PM. Some cancel by PM but do not put it in the forum.

Let me explain the 2 differences...

1. Cancel in the Forum..if you cancel it in the forum it is there for all to see, I feel that you should run by the forum everyday to see what is going on, extensions, wars, etc (a lot of good info). I also feel it is not my fault if you DON'T read the forum and all of a sudden you are attacked.

However, if you post in the forum, the others may see an opportunity to wait a few turns and pile on, Guess the choice is yours.

There is ALWAYS a question of what '3 turns' is and they can be crucial. You read the example's in earlier posts, now let me give you one some of the older guys have used before, (and it makes perfect sense...but it is REALLY a LOT different).

Announcement in forum...

"Arco breaks nap with Ulm turn 21 hostilities may begin on turn 23." Think about that for a moment, if it is before the turn hosts then 21 is turn 1 and 23 is turn 3. Some have different feelings of what 3 turns are and when you can attack...but if they spell it out in the forum and there is no rebuttal...then on turn 23, they fire away, 1 turn earlier than others may feel is right (AND catch you unaware).

Not saying it is right, but it iS right there in the forum for you to dispute.

I think everyone will agree that ANY troop of any kind (Skeptic, Stealth Troops, even an Arco Oreo that can cause damage to a nation can NOT go thru the nation without permission and CERTAINLY not have Stealth armies in position INSIDE the borders of your foe when the nap expires.

I saw a mention of 'official' nap breakers (Arcane Nexus, Burden of time, Utter dark, etc (and there are more)....

But let me pose a question (this is actually happening in a game on here (starting of end game)right now.

There are about 6 nations left, 4 are very strong and vying for position and short treaty type agreements. 1 almost dead and ONE that is right in the middle and has no army to speak of or any deterrent at all, EXCEPT..he IS in the middle and separates the potential warring factions (kind of like Switzerland in WWII).

He cast Arcane Nexus and there was an uproar, but he asked this simple question...."Would you rather I had it with enough gems that it cant be over written or dispelled, Or would you guys rather one of the other nations have it (of course he promised not to give, loan to or help a faction in any way).

I suppose if he was attacked he could wreck the game by casting some pretty nasty spells (I think they call this the 'Doomsday Defence). But he couldn't win it anyway.

So before you lock in what a Nap is or isn't in your mind...what the conditions are or start declaring war brcause someone cast something...think about what works for you.

I personally have a reputation that I will NEVER stab anyone in the back, Makes it pretty easy for me in early game and midgame. Some will stab you in a heart beat or just take a Nap so you quit preparing to attack them while they start preparing to attack you...

So make your decisions based on your play style and how YOU want to play the game...just remember, although they say it stays inside the game, people remember when they play with you agian.

Hope this helps some of you, MY way isn't the best way...it it just one way

[Maerlande]

Good stuff Grudge.

You might want to defend your reputation as a fair player. I do. So I give notice EVEN if one of those globals is cast. So far, it's meant that MY NAPs that I really really need get honored. In one very good game it meant I lost 1/2 of the potential provinces of my target because I gave notice publically. It let some of my other allies poach in a large way. But still, I'm alive in that game as the weakest player on the graphs because I've honored all my agreements.

So whatever the meta game rules are, be true to yourself.

[GrudgeBringer]

Thanks Maerlande,

I also have suffered from being TOO diplomatic...

However, I played my first turn of my first MP game with the idea of I would play the Paladin with Lawful Good (for you RPG Players), sounds like you may have adopted that also.

It has worked for me, I haven't won anything but I have made a lot of friends that trust me and it's kind of like playing football in your back yard....you hit each other but no one gets hurt. Personally, I like it like that.

[Squirrelloid]

Originally Posted by GrudgeBringer

However, I played my first turn of my first MP game with the idea of I would play the Paladin with Lawful Good (for you RPG Players), sounds like you may have adopted that also.

The funny thing is, based on the D+D alignment metric, you could argue everything from LG to *neutral evil* would honor all agreements they entered into given the existence of a meta-game. Self-interest is enough to motivate people to keep their commitments if they know with near-certainty they will likely be dealing with the same players again.

(Suppose confidence that your treaty partner will honor an agreement is both beneficial to you and conditional on your honoring past agreements with him. Thus breaking an agreement causes an egregious harm to your future agreements, and the benefits to doing so would have to be absolutely enormous to be justified. Given the number of future games you might play with a given person is unbounded, I'm not sure there's any in-game benefit large enough that would justify failing to follow through on your treaty agreements).

Basically, its repeated prisoner's dilemma, and even game theory tells us that the best strategy in that circumstance is to trust everyone the first time, and respond tit-for-tat to their actions.

Now, if someone wanted to play a chaotic alignment, it would be rather entertaining to watch, but would likely blow up in their face.