Nap-3

[Procyon Lotor]

Do you ever pretend to know something, because you think you know it, but you are not sure?

I think I know what a NAP-3 is. What do YOU think it is?

[legowarrior]

I'll give you three turns warning before I come after you?

[Adam J]

Good question. I find it confusing as to exactly when to start counting those three turns and when to count an attack. For example if I give notice I am cancelling my NAP while on turn 5... does that mean I can give attack orders on turn 7 or 8? I believe turn 7, since attack orders on turn 7 actually resolve on turn 8. Anyone disagree?

[mattyburn7]

It was explained to me like this.
Let's say it is turn 5

No NAP - You send attack orders that turn.
NAP1 - You give notice on 5, attack orders on 6.
NAP2 - You give notice on 5, attack orders on 7
Etc.

Of course sending scouts/spies through NAP territory is ok.

Not so sure about stealthy units that create unrest. I would think that's a no-no. Also I would think stealthy combat units are a no-no but not sure about that.

[Zywack]

I'm definitively no pro, but for one I lean toward Mattyburn's definition.

[bbz]

About when the nap-3 expires my view of it is the same as mattyburn7. For any case to keep the fight clean I send a message to my enemies when I declare the nap saying:
We can issue attack orders on turn X.

I personally consider having spies in your territory is a violation.(there is no way he is sedning those spies without a malicious thoughts). Another thing I consider a nap breaker is anonymous attacks(that is if you are pretty sure who they came from (say getting 3 commanders mind hunted when there is only 1 astral nation left)).
Also I consider direct overcast of a global spell that you have cast a break of the nap.(dispel of your global as well).
As well as evey thing that has a malicious effect on your Nation.
Also some spells that have negative effect or are sure to make the other nation win are considered by people nap-breakers(Astral corruption, Burden of time, Arcane nexus, Forge of the Ancients/Ulm, Utterdark).

I wouldn't consider that a nap-breaker if someone overrides a random global of yours casting another one(since the process is random) unless you are the one that have all the global slots used (but in that case you are crying to get ganked by every neighbour of yours).

It would be nice to let the guy that you are going to have nap-3 know what nap-3 for you is by sending him some sort of more detailed description of your understanding of it(but no one does that).

Also I've found that generally people don't care if you break your nap(they wouldn't just attack you for that if you are stronger than them) But the knowledge that you broke a Nap would give them the freedom to brek their own with you since you are not thrustworthy.Thus if you break one nap assume that you broke all the others.(that of course will earn you a bad name and people wont't trust you in the future).

[Procyon Lotor]

Mattyburn's definitions is the one I had in mind. I've been going around agreeing to these. As a pretender god, I feel that I have to pretend to know everything, otherwise I'll be exposed as a mere pretender. But I didn't want to get a weasel reputation due to a misunderstanding. I can breathe easier going forward.

I like the suggestion to declare the turn of expiration in your message terminating the NAP, to avoid charges of weaselry.

I'm not sure I agree with bbz that mere scouting is a violation of the NAP. It's a "non-aggression pact," and scouting isn't aggressive. Spies with other effects (like Arco sceptics, summons who cause disease, etc.) are more aggressive, and I think would violate the spirit of a NAP. Anonymous attacks are DEFINITELY agressive, and would violate the NAP.

[bbz]

Originally Posted by Procyon Lotor

I'm not sure I agree with bbz that mere scouting is a violation of the NAP. It's a "non-aggression pact," and scouting isn't aggressive. Spies with other effects (like Arco sceptics, summons who cause disease, etc.) are more aggressive, and I think would violate the spirit of a NAP. Anonymous attacks are DEFINITELY agressive, and would violate the NAP.

I didn't say that scouting is agressive, I said that If I find spies in my territories it is save to assume that they are there to be used and thus its breaking of the nap.

The thing about spies is that they can shut your whole economy if you didn't expect them. So I find them no different than someone trying to sneak in troops in your territories to attack all your provinces once the war has started.

[dojango]

spies are definitely a cassus belli and a legit pretext to break an NAP. Scouts are not. Direct overcasting of a global, sounds like there's room to disagree on it. I would say that it isn't a violation of the NAP, because it isn't an aggressive action aimed at the other party.

[bbz]

Originally Posted by dojango

spies are definitely a cassus belli and a legit pretext to break an NAP. Scouts are not. Direct overcasting of a global, sounds like there's room to disagree on it. I would say that it isn't a violation of the NAP, because it isn't an aggressive action aimed at the other party.

Would you say that if someone targets your global with a dispel that is violation of the NAP?

Direct overcast of the global is no different than dispel with the added benefit for the person that is casting it that he gets a global up.