NAP
 

Due to a dispute I am having with rex_havok, I propose the question:

Re: NAP
 

Isn't the global replaced chosen at random?

Re: NAP
 

I mean if you cast the same spell, specifically targetting the global of whoever you had the NAP with.

Re: NAP
 

Ach! Pardon the DP, s'il vous plaît!

Re: NAP
 

Wouldn't that be up to the terms of the NAP? If it's a blanket statement, as is usual, I certainly can't see how I could consider dispelling my global (which is the case when one is replaced) not to be a violation. Of course viewpoints may vary, but I'd say it's very clearly an act of aggression when one player uses her resources to deprive another of his.

Re: NAP
 

Ok, I voted NO before I read the rest of the thread. You may need to start a new thread, with a more carefully worded question. It definetely is a violation if I STEAL your spell. If yours just happens to be the one that gets dispelled when the list is full, I'd say thats not a violation. Also, if the circumstance is you having ALL or MANY of the globals, you may have to give him so leaway...

Re: NAP
 

I wouldn't consider it as a violation of generic NAP. It is just an economic battle for dominance. Same as grabbing unique summons, artifacts etc... However if that global is something destructive that actually kills other sides troops, then I'm not sure...

Generally, I'm assuming that NAP just prevents open attacks while allowing both sides concentrate on the economic race. Of course, custom-tailored NAPs may include variety of other conditions...

Re: NAP
 

What do people think about stealth preaching in their territory? Does that violate a NAP? What about causing unrest via spies?

Re: NAP
 

I always try to fully state the terms of a NAP before I enter it. My 'standard'
clauses include:

Agreed upon borders.
No excessive temples on the border, i.e. enough to maintain your domain, but
not two rows deep. No blood sacrifice.
No stealth preaching, no unrest inciting, all sneaking troops set to 'retreat'.
No dispelling or replacing globals. Usually I try to even coordinate globals.
No stealing mercs (well, I do not use mercs anymore, but I used to)

As for the survey, I'd say that replacing the global is way up there as
violations go.

Re: NAP
 

@ big daddy
Perhaps I should have explained more of what was going on beforehand.
The global in question is Well of Misery, and the former owner of it also has Mother Oak. The new owner has no other globals.
I had assumed it would be obvious that I was discussing casting the same spell; why else would there even be a remote reason to call it agression? Oh well.
I was just hoping this thread would dissuade rex_havok from throwing the game away (giving all his VPs to the 3rd player) in a fit of anger.

Re: NAP
 

The question really is somewhat complex. If for instance some nation who was allied with ermor decided to quickly case Well of Misery, I could see why that wouldn't fly. NAP or not Ermor has the gems and a definite reason to cast WOM. Otherwise Ermor would feel abused by the you and the NAP. . .

Re: NAP
 

Well, the nation who replaced the first nations global is C'tis Desert Tombs, and the other is Caelum.
I didnt want to talk about the situation too much because I wanted to stay neutral. I have the feeling there are some people who would vote for or against me just because its me not because of the issue.

Re: NAP
 

I think you screwed up http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif Technically it is arguable about it being aggression, but clearly replacing someones global will upset them.

Good luck with your persuasion!

Re: NAP
 

Actually, this in no way can be considered a violation of an Non-Agression Pact UNLESS it was specified as part of the agreement. Truidy above was talking about an alliance between players, not a simple NAP. There is a huge difference between those two.

For example: Your Cyclops has lost his only eye and somebody else has the GoH up. You need it bad to cure your pretender. Why should a simple non-agression pact interfere with this in the slightest? You need it. Period. Go for it!

How about the Forge? If you need it, just cast it and hope for the best. Or maybe you can demand the other player make artifacts for you as part of an agreement for not dumping it.

What about dispelling? For example, you are Abysia and the Jontuns cast Illwinter. Of course you will dispel it as soon as you are able! Ask for pearls from other races and just do it... Dispel is actually more problematic since you do not know who did it.

Also, what about the gem income globals? If you need one, then a NAP cannot change that fact of need. If the other player is concerned about losing it, then maybe you can ask for part of the gem income to avoid the attempt to cast over it. Why should someone else reap the benefits and not you?

A NAP cannot possibly interfere with the needs of a player. Only in an alliance of some sort can this matter. But alliances (unless fully disclosed before the game begins like in a 2 vs 2) are not a real part of a true FFA game and usually just cause problems with everyone else in the game.

Most NaPs are simply an agreement to not attack without some notice. Usually it includes a border definition. Globals are not a necessary part of this at all. No way.

To each his own.

Re: NAP
 

Hey,

If I was C'tis and my eventual enemy was Caelum, I doubt that I would be able to accept them having what I considered MY global spell. . . While it might make them somewhat angry, they shouldn't be suprised. They're just using the NAP to cast an otherwise infeasible spell. You can't really expect C'tis to let Caelum have WOM, just because they cast it first. C'tis might consider Caelums casting of WOM unacceptable as part of the NAP, and it really should have been discussed BEFORE anything was cast. Again, Caelum shuould have known better. . .

Re: NAP
 

Perhaps a standard NAP should be drawn up and (maybe) stickied in the MP Forum for general use. In my opinion, Global enchantments should be considered on a NAP by NAP basis using some generic pre-arranged scheme. A sample of such a scheme:

1. A nation in an NAP may not use any Globals that would cause the death/destruction of another participants units/economy (e.g. Utterdark, Wrath of God, etc.) without prior permission.

2. Gems derived from globals shall be divided amongst the participants of the NAP excepting that the initial cost of the enchantment shall be redeemed by the caster prior to dividend.

3. All other globals should be considered "up for grabs" at all times unless specifically ear-marked for a particular nation as the result of a special clause in the pact.

Note that clause 2 is more appropriate for an Alliance rather than a non-agression pact. One must also consider Sun-Tzu's advice:

"We cannot enter into an alliance until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors" -- In practice, before agreeing to a NAP, nations should share information on their plans. Only the shared plans should be considered "protected" by the NAP--If C'tis stated during the NAP that it was planning to cast WOM and Caelum did not so state and subsequently agreed to the NAP, Caelum's casting of WOM could be considered a violation. If C'tis knew of Caelum's plan to cast WOM, it may not have agreed to the treaty on that basis. Of course "All warfare is based on deception" is also a good one, so in the stating of your plans, you might do well to indicate a plan which is deliberately designed to "lock out" your adversary. For example, a turn-15 NAP between Arco and Pyth with Arco laying claim on "Mother Oak by turn 35"--neither nation has a specific claim to the spell, but Arco's uncontested claim to it will lead to Pythium's plans being steered in a direction away from MO since, by the NAP, it is not allowed to cast it until turn 36. This allows Arco to plan for attacks against Pythium under the assumption that Pyth will keep it's word.

Re: NAP
 

Putting up globals or taking them down is in no way a violation of a non-aggression pact. If I put up Wrath of God or Burden of Time, that's going to kill a lot of people who work for the guy I have a NAP with. That's not a violation of the NAP because it's not targetted against them.

Similarly, if my NAP buddy decides to save his own worshippers by dispelling my enchantment, that's not a violation of the NAP either.

Both acts are entirely self-oriented and not "aggressive". You're well within your rights to be annoyed with an "ally" who puts up Darkness or Foul Air, but they didn't actually violate any treaties by doing so. You're welcome to be ticked off at an ally who steals your Lure of the Deep - but again they didn't violate treaties by doing that.

-Frank

Re: NAP
 

That is your opinion of a NAP. Thus the reason I stated that a standard NAP "form" should be decided upon rather than simply assuming that my NAP is the same as yours http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif I certainly would consider your casting of BoT to be a violation esp provided you were Ermor and I Man... If I cannot counter via Dispulsion, my only recourse is to destroy you, but you necessitated the destruction by casting a spell which hinders me and not yourself http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

This is why treaties are generally designed on a situational basis (as I suggested). Simply spamming "NAP" into your opponent's message screen and assuming you're both on the same page is disingenuous.

Re: NAP
 

Speaking of the Well of Misery, does it heal battle afflictions all over the world or something? My tartarians are mysteriously losing afflictions... not that im complaining http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: NAP
 

WoM increases all provinces income. It is not stated that it does anything like that. Are you sure you didn't "forget" that you built the Chalice?

Re: NAP
 

Panther I totally agreed with you when I started playing the game. However I now agree partially with Tuidjy in that the terms of the agreement must be specified in full when you are entering it. That way no one is suprized when something happens.

Personally I would like game enforced diplomacy. But that's pie in the sky thinking.

Re: NAP
 

There comes a time when all diplomacy must cease. If its always too soon for you, maybe you should look at your strategy. Also, traitors should definetly be slain at the earliest possible convenience.

Re: NAP
 

Game enforced diplomacy can be very good. I am very partial to the fixed ally idea, like in a 2v2. If you fully trust your partner, this can work extremely well.

But an FFA is a totally different issue. NAPs (and alliances too, of course) come and they go. They all must end at some point unless the two allied parties agree to end the game when all other players are eliminated (which usually means the snookered parties are pissed off).

I particularly resonated with Big Daddy's comment above that there comes a time when all diplomacy must cease. Like they often said in the Highlander movie series: "There can be only one."

I usually make and break at least half a dozen NAPs in any given FFA. But I always keep my word and warn 2 or 3 turns before attacking, which is the main point of an NAP. However, all NAPs must eventually end if the players are being honest with each other.

And the players who break their promises go into my little black book for future reference...

Re: NAP
 

I do not favor game-enforced diplomacy... It lends a kinda weiner-like flaccidity to the game. Part of strategy is knowing what you can and can't get away with. To put a system in place whereby breaking diplomatic treaties is not possible would be childish. If Jojo breaks his treaty and blows your prophet's head off, go whine to your momma about how "unfair" it was. There are situations in which a treaty, no matter how expertly worded, becomes worthless. It is easy to create such a document in a way to give yourself an unfair advantage. When the person who thought you were an ally realizes they've been duped, they aught to be able to retaliate without sending you a 52-page Letter of Grievance and a declaration of war. Surprise is a valid tactic, after all. There ain't no United Nations or Geneva Convention in Dom2...

Re: NAP
 

Not sure putting up and stickying standard treaties on this forum is such a hot idea. Since it might appear to lend some sort of official sanction to certain forms of diplomacy and not others. Possibly stifling the varities of treaties people enter into as well.

Re: NAP
 

I have not played any MP yet (still learning to walk in SP), so when I first saw 'NAP' I thought "but did you wake them up? If so they might be mad." http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif Anyway bad pun aside; I have played SEIV (and other games of similiar nature) and note that usually several grades of diplomacy. For example: Non-Agression Pacts, Mutual Trade Agreements, Mutual Defense Agreements, "You're my Slave and give me everything of yours" Agreement, etc...

Both Johan and Verjigorm have valid points about not stifling the variety of treaties. Or setting an official standard. But I do see some value in a definition list of some type that would give general guidelines while disclaiming that at anytime any and all points could be dropped during a game => posted on one of the fansite webpages (so it would not be official). At least this way you would not have to draft a laundry list each time as Tuidjy seems to do, but could quote a community standard starting point (i.e. NAP + Artifact Agreement + No Surprises) or (i.e. NAP + Global + Surprises) or ( ad infinitum ). Any thoughts on this???

Re: NAP
 

In my opionion NAPs are actually composed of two parts, one explicit, the other implicit:

Part 1) Rules: The actual rules of the NAP, which both players agree on. The default NAP stating only that players may not militarily attack each other.

Part 2) Courtesy: The process of staying away from (or informing before taking) actions which will irritate your NAP-partner. Taking globals, stealth preaching, supporting thier enemies, etc...

Of course if someone violates the rules of the NAP it is immediately terminated. But the situation is far more murky if the NAP-partner is just being discourteous and must be handled on a case-by-case basis. If I do feel that if a NAP-partner abuses the common courtesies in a seriously bad way that screws up my plans (or if I detect a pattern of interference on thier part) that I will void the NAP.