Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 

0 turns of NAP is the same as an unannounced surprise attack
1 turn of NAP gives your opponent one full turn of activities in which to prepare

However, a further issue is that if notice of ending a NAP is done in a public forum, or through a forum PM, it is impossible to be sure when your opponent gets the notice, or how much of the turn he has already completed. So, I think, traditionally you start the first turn of the NAP countdown the next turn, for public notices.

ie, in the case in question (let us say), during turn 101 a public notice is given of ending a 3 turn NAP. 101 wouldn't count, as players may already have done their turns. so 102, 103, and 104 are the 3 turns of preparation that your opponents enjoy, and attacks may be launched on turn 104 as they will then "land" in turn 105.

If the notice of NAP ending had also been sent ingame turn 100 such that people received it w/ their turn 101 messages, then the schedule would be advanced one turn.

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 

So the best way to break a NAP is via in-game message.
Pardon my uninvited posting here but I'm amazed this game is still on.
If I remember the sign up began way back when we had the old forum!

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 

Apologies to Calahan (Utgard) - you are quite correct with your reasoning. I see where my mistake counting turns was made...(stupid scrawled notes overlain by kids crayon).

Ulm will retreat from the attacked Utgard front for a further three turns. Plenty of other things to do :)

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 

no, because there is no record of the message. Best is to do both: send ingame, and then in the turn make the declaration public, w/ the comment that the declaration had been sent ingame; even best is then to explicitly state the turn attacks can land.

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 

p1 - "ZOMG! You foul betrayers of treaties! You can't give orders to attack until turn 97!"

p2 - "Slander! You posted on the boards that you dissolved our NAP-3, and that was in turn 94. My armies arrived in your lands 3 turns later."

p1 - "p2 is a rotten ratfink and cannot be trusted!"

p2 - "By your way of counting, we'd need a negative 1-turn NAP to avoid sneak attacks."

p1 - "No, my way of counting is the right way. I want a rollback."

p2 - "ZOMG I can't believe you attacked me after the rollback!"

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 

i enjoy using the forum pm system because you can select to be notified when the message was read.... thereby.... no lying about if or when someone read something or not


some people don't use the forums though ingame is a surefire way to deal with naps with strangers... naps with friends well... you know how a friend likes to be dealt with

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 

Tsk tsk, seems Wokeye's got an interesting definition of withdrawal, judging from the continued sieges of at least one of Utgard's forts. I believe he also jumped the gun on our NAP by a turn, but that could at least be debated.

I suppose I'll be seeing what you've got this turn, Wraith. Hope it's something interesting, nothing else has been of late...

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 

Micah, now I have performance anxiety. I don't want to disappoint you, yet, in the face of your tartarian hordes I probably will :)

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 

I think I'm at 54 tart commanders this turn, plus another 100 or so as chaff. I'm somewhat disappointed with the performance of my abomination squads, I hadn't considered their imperfect morale before now, and having them rout was quite annoying. Guess I just need to figure out how to berserk them.

Re: The Artifacts Game - [ running ]
 

Do units still fire when they're berserking?