Inviolate NAP, First Draft

[Edi]

Try to calm down, Chris.

All that I have seen in this thread is Dedas making two posts, one of which is poking fun at the thread in general and not in a malicious way (the bureaucracy post) and the other an expression of support for Ironwhawk's views. Nothing impolite, provocative or controversial there, so why the anger now?

Even for those of us who are never going to agree to the kind of things expressed in these drafts you and Lolomo have made, they make for interesting reading in that it gives an idea of just what your side means when they say something about NAPs and how they should work. People making comments is going to be unavoidable and so far there has been far less vitriol here than in the "Question About Diplomacy" thread.

[Agema]

You could probably simplify the NAP into four general terms.

1) LENGTH

A NAP until turn X means no offensive actions until turn X+1. A NAP with X-turns warning means no offensive actions until the Xth turn after the NAP cancellation is *received* (e.g. cancellation of 3-turn NAP received on turn 10, no attacks turns 10,11,12, even if cancellation notice sent turn 9). A NAP for X turns means no offensive actions until the Xth turn, with X starting the turn agreement concluded (e.g. proposal made turn 9, agreement received, no attacks 10,11,12.)

2) PLAYER ACTIONS

Any identifiable actions that directly causes loss of or damage to provinces/ population/ gold/ troops/ gems/ buildings is a breach. Stealthy units in the other nation causing unrest or dom loss is a breach.

3) RANDOM EVENTS

Random events that cause province loss (to indies or other player) are not breaches, but the original owner holds 5 turns rights. If the other player does not hand over possible gains (method negotiable), NAP breached.

4) GLOBALS

Directly overspelling or dispelling globals is not a breach. Casting certain powerful globals (negotiable) is a breach.

* * *

The key is the use of the word "directly". If you're overtly or surreptitiously funding someone else to do attacks, that's not a breach.

I think when LoloMo says that a NAP is not invalidated by the invocation of a mutual defence treaty, it makes sense. It just means you cancel the NAP and observe the requisite delay (and ideally inform your ally) before you join in. If you want to help your ally in the meantime, fund him in gold or gems, or use anonymous spells.

[licker]

I really don't understand the need for these kind of overblown NAPs.

Do you talk to your NAPies or not? If you aren't planning on sharing some basic information about where you might collide then what's the point of having a NAP in the first place?

Doing this completely in advance seems counterproductive to both sides as there is no room for maneuvering within keeping the spirit of a NAP. There should be some quid pro quo going on anyway shouldn't there? You want to put up a mightly global? Maybe you need to kick something to your friends so they don't decide its too much.

Otherwise you are essentially agreeing to have a race to some breakpoint and whomever gets there first 'wins'.

If that's the case then why bother with the rest of the game anyway?

[namad]

this INAP doesn't have to acknowledge the existance of possible other forms of treaties.... if you sign this agreement with everyone in the game there is no contradiction anywhere...

mutual defense pacts are ALWAYS a tricky subject... and a person can use them to attempt to lie without lying...


niefelheim signs a nap6 with ermor.... ten turns later he decides he'd like to instantly begin attacking ermor... so he looks around and notices that caelum is at war with ermor... niefelheim signs an alliance with caelum.... then neifelheim attacks ermor... niefelheim is now an ******* :-p

it's pretty clear that even if you have a defensive agreement that going to war would simply mean giving notice on the peace treaty that it is going to expire..... simply giving notice will worry the other nation and force them to draw resources away from other fronts to prepare for you... this is enough to satisfy the defensive agreement generally

also alliances and defensive agreements are fairly shakey in a game with one winner and no allied victories allowed...

[Jazzepi]

Originally Posted by Dedas

You said it Ironhawk!

In my opinion this game is all about conflicts and their brutal resolution; there can only be one winner after all. If you can't stand that fact you shouldn't be playing. And after all what is the big deal about losing? You can always play again.

++

Jazzepi

[Tifone]

Originally Posted by Jazzepi

++

Jazzepi

+++

OK, that's adding nothing to the discussion, I was just showing support ^_^

[Agema]

Originally Posted by licker

I really don't understand the need for these kind of overblown NAPs.

Do you talk to your NAPies or not? If you aren't planning on sharing some basic information about where you might collide then what's the point of having a NAP in the first place?

Firstly, if people want to make inviolable NAPs and/or with set rules, they can arrange it in advance during game setup. Anyone who doesn't like it can not join that game in the first place.

* * *

The iNAP listed here has a second advantage.

Defining what a NAP is quite important. The two people involved may not have thought about certain issues - for instance one might think a powerful global like Arcane Nexus breaks it and the other doesn't. One might think stuffing stealthy preachers into the enemy's territory is fair and the other doesn't. They're going to have a huge and unpleasant argument if it happens.

The NAP rules here create a basic template, which represents what most players think is okay. So when two players sign a NAP - in any game - they know what it means in detail without having to list all the individual conditions every time they arrange one.

However, there can still be room for manoeuver. Firstly, they can agree to alter certain conditions, such as agreeing casting Arcane Nexus is okay. After that, there can be room for further discussion. For instance, if you want to do something that technically breaches the NAP as agreed, you can ask them. For instance, maybe you want send stealthy preachers through their territory in order to annoy a third player. See what they say.

[licker]

You miss my point.

If you are actively engaging in diplomacy (on a daily basis I would imagine) then most of these conditions are irrelevant as you can and should be dealing with them as they arise.

These kinds of agreements seem to be of the 'fire and forget' kind of nature I do not subscribe to. They are too much work upfront for very little payoff eventually, but hey, knock yourselves out with them if you want to, its really no skin off my teeth.

[Xietor]

The Forge is another Global that could end the NAP. The Forge is sufficiently powerful to be in a class that the caster is saying, in effect, "I win" stop me if you can.

Arcane Nexus is clearly in that class, and the Forge likely is as well.

Any global that causes me direct damage also violates the NAP. Wrath of Gods. One of my guys get struck by lightning, I could(but may choose not to) consider the nap terminated.

A smart player who does not want to alienate a powerful ally would inform him in advance of his intent to cast the Forge, Wrath of Gods etc., and get his blessing. There may well be a price for that blessing, such as forging x number of items a turn.

I also never forget a treaty breaker. And my advice is to make sure you really think breaking the nap is worth the gain.
Good players are likely not going to be taken by surprise. And they are unlikely to leave key assets undefended even if they have treaties.

But if someone breaks an nap with me, that carries over to the next game and so on 4ever. It never goes away. They are always unworthy of trust. And that means you are limiting your diplomatic options by breaking naps as well. It can be a heavy price to pay for a small gain.

[Dragar]

It’s a hard line.. on the one hand it does seem a bit extreme, on the other some of the small items are seen differently by different players

In a current game I have an undefined Nap-X with another player. He has had a global for ages I would like to have cast, but I thought overcastting would be a NAP violation. He has just overcast one of mine, and never considered it to be anything to do with the NAP.

Because I read the NAP to be more restrictive than he did, I was penalised (probably, maybe I would have wasted a bunch of gems trying to overwrite his). A clear definition would have stopped that

While it looks exhaustive, if one or two sets of rules become standard, we'll all know exactly what a NAP means. It doesn't necessitate studying all the points of law each time, unless players want to use a lot of flexibility. Presumably almost all players would agree with about 90% of the OP rules as part of a NAP, and its just a few in contention? (mostly to do with globals and anonymous spells presumably