RNap II

chrispedersen · #1 August 29th, 2008, 10:37 AM

1. The party cancelling the agreement may not initiate hostilities until the end of the duration of the agreement.
2. The responding party may initiate at any time.
3. The following spells are so powerful, they may not be cast while an RNap is in effect, without agreement of the other party.

Burden of Time
Arcane Nexus
Strands
Wish for Armageddon
Forge of the Ancients
Utter Dark
Astral Corruption.

So for example, Ermor and Arcosephale are at peace, and sign an RNAP+3. On turn 12, Ermor being covetuous of Arcosephales land cancels the treaty.

Arcosephale is eligible to attack immediately.
Ermor, as the initiator must wait until turn 15 to program an offensive action.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Please do not hijack my thread. If you would never agree to one of these - I'm not interested. If you would freely break a nap anyway - I'm not interested.

On the other hand if you'd like to tweak the terms, or suggest alterations - I'm all ears.

Aezeal · #2 August 29th, 2008, 02:08 PM

I'd change the first term so that the one ending the nap can also attack right away or after 1 turn delay.. more is really strange from any RP perspective

Herode · #3 August 29th, 2008, 03:39 PM

Well, I just wonder who will be foolish enough to sign a RNAP ?

And why would someone be interested in this ?

Moreover, the list of banned spells suffers the same drawback than the one discussed in the NAP thread : Strands, Forge, Nexus are not offensive and should not be in the list. Obviously, I won't never sign any NAP nor RNAP under such conditions.

Aezeal · #4 August 29th, 2008, 05:51 PM

Herode... if you read his WHOLE post then you should know your posts isn't wanted here... now my feelings are exactly the same so I tried to adjust his proposal to a bit more realistic proposal.

(PS on the spells you are right too)

Ironhawk · #5 August 29th, 2008, 06:24 PM

Sounds pretty complicated

Aezeal · #6 August 29th, 2008, 07:48 PM

I think he basicly want to prevent pplz from preparing in advance to end a NAP and then being ready to hit hard.

IMHO it's not needed since.
a. you should keep an eye on allies
b. the whole 3 or 5 turn NAP thingie is intended to give you a few of those turns anyway.

IndyPendant · #7 August 29th, 2008, 07:54 PM

@chrisdepeterson:
Hmm, you may want to get rid of the tildes ('~') splitting your post then. When I first read it, I skipped the part after that automatically, thinking it was your signature. Then I saw Aezeal's response to Herode, and went "Huh? What's he talking about?" *Rereads post, including 'sig'.* "Ahah!"

I might very well have responded with "I would never sign such a NAP" myself, if I hadn't read the whole thread! ; )

Poopsi · #8 August 30th, 2008, 03:50 AM

I never play multiplayer, but I have to ask: who in his right mind would agree to such a thing? Or respect it, once vigent? The attack delay for the attacker is so harsh that it encourages oathbreaking

Herode · #9 August 30th, 2008, 05:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aezeal

Herode... if you read his WHOLE post then you should know your posts isn't wanted here... now my feelings are exactly the same so I tried to adjust his proposal to a bit more realistic proposal.

Aezeal, I'm not willing, nor interested, to obtain your permission. If my post doesn't fit your taste, just skip it and don't bother me with your mean thoughts.

llamabeast · #10 August 30th, 2008, 05:37 AM

Read Aezeal's post again Herode. He agrees with you, but was just pointing out that in the first post chris asked people not to comment on whether they would actually sign up to an RNAP.