Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone?
 

How do you respond to a player who offers a NAP when you aren't interested? It seems that a surprising number of players just don't answer at all. I've noticed this in other MP games as well.

Do players really think that by not answering, they will fool the sender into thinking they have peaceful intentions?

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone?
 

I'm as likely to ignore it as anything else, simply because sometimes there's no point wasting time replying.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I tend to ignore it. To me its like any other pitch. Just because Im not interested, doesnt mean that Im automatically going to go the other direction. It often means Im just not interested in joining up with someone.

Altho sometimes, for me, ingoring is rather tactical. I dont like to be the one that starts a war. So if I would prefer a war, and get offered a NAP, then I dont answer back something like "prepare to die". By ignoring it I sometimes get the other guy to shout a "prepare to die".

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Ignoring the request may leave the nation with some doubt as to your intentions, whereas outright refusing it says to them "Hello, I have hostile intentions towards you."

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I would ignore usually as well.

Ignore sends a clear and consise message as far as I am concerned, sooner or later I will be at war with you so do not want a inconvenient NAP.

I have had a situation sometimes in MP where the player in question mathers me with alot of messages. They don't get that ignoreing there message was the answer.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Reason #34b why i dislike diplomacy: many people just don't answer.

Being the ridiculously passive Dom player that i am, i mostly wait for others to offer the NAPs, so it doesn't come up that often. I also do my level best to only make NAPs with players i've had successful NAPs with before, so that limits the options.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I'm the only one who picked option 3? You guys are no fun at all.

Keep in mind: as in Poker, it's to your advantage to be sometimes caught bluffing.

DOOM!

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Sometimes ignoring the message is the answer, sometimes its "I'm really busy and can barely play my turns and forgot about the message."
I generally try to make at least the first few messages in character, so I'll usually follow up an unanswered message with some kind of IC response to being ignored and a warning that I'll have no choice but to consider you hostile.

As for initial response, I'll sometimes stall by negotiating terms without actually agreeing to anything. Borders, length of treaty, even bring up cooperation against others.
Of course, I like to do some of this when I do want the treaty. Or I may be waiting for other negotiations. If I've got 2 potential targets, I may prefer to attack one, but if he offers a treaty, I don't want to reject it until I've got a deal with the other.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I know I'm a bit new and all, but most people I've had NAPs with break them. So I don't really get the point. Not anymore.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Asking a NAP from a neighbour is a bit like asking some girl to a date in one regard:

No answer is an answer, and also it tells you that the one not giving you any answer is either just impolite, plain jerk or doesn't care enough to answer.

You can stall with other ways, or give very polite denial. You know, actually communicate.

Of course, cultural variations exist. I've run into some with foreign (to me) dominions players, with people preferring not to give a "no, I won't" answer in any situation, claiming they actually can't. And afterwards proving with actions they actually could have, just didn't want to. Which, to me, is the way you treat a child, not another adult. But apparently is "polite norm" in some places. Had a quite long conversation about these cultural differences a while back.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I'm glad that a majority seems to be selecting option 2 as I did. Maybe I'm thin skinned, but ignoring a friendly message like that just seems to be unnecessarily rude most of the time.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

If R'lyeh asks Atlantis for a NAP, and controls the only body of water? Nah...
I couldn't think of a dignified response. The choice of letting them get stronger and dieing next...

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I can see how a NAP offer could be insulting from someone who is in the act of strangling your expansion options. It makes me wonder how much MP experience they have. Perhaps they haven't caught on that human players are smarter than AI ones?

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Well... its quite possible I would have taken it - I was penned in on all sides, and had already signed NAP pacts with two neighbors. I wasn't insulted, but a dignified response would have been troublesome. However, my other opponent had been taken out, and I had only a few options. Attack one of the two neighboring cold resistant nations. My only neighbor who wasn't cold resistant or R'lyeh was already being invaded by them.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I like pestering Meglobob until he replies.

My messenger was eaten by a grue! Again!

Jazzepi

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I often take ignoring my offer to a NAP as an act of war. Is that too harsh?

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Probably. But by a thin margin.
It's not unreasonable to consider it cause for war footing, or reason to pick one nation over another to attack.

But I don't think ignoring an offer to a NAP is an act of war. I consider an act of war something that requires retaliation, such as ghouls or assassins, and results in you suffering harm.

If ignoring nations was an act of war, why guess where America would be, these last few years.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Agree with Lazy P: I would take ignoring a request for NAP as a presumption that war *will* occur, but not the same as a declaration that we are at war. Just that we aren't not at war.

...which I think is my guess for that last bit as well.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

"If you arent my friend then you must be my enemy." Is that it?
Thats not really how I take it. I try to be selective of who I NAP with (hmm, interesting pun). Because I think of it as the first stage to an alliance. I dont want to accept all naps that are offered because eventually I will have to choose who to keep and who to break. And I HATE breaking naps. Id rather hold off on making one than to have to declare it going down at a later point.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

The problem is, if people do not reply you don't know if the person actually got the message, which can be annoying.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I'll keep that in mind next time I get a message I don't want to answer, Sir Dr D.

Can you suggest any canned replies I can use when I'm not really interested in replying, or rather, am too tired to carefully phrase a message that won't imply anything unintentionally.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Some people don't want to use the crappy ingame messages so they intend to send a PM or email response, but they never get around to it (these forums often get very unresponsive for me, for example).

If people consider it rude, well then I suppose I can consider them sending me a "NAP 3 turns yes/no?" message out of the blue equally rude. But I don't, because it's a freakin game, usually one of many having turns played in a day.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I would not take a lack of a reply for a NAP as declaration of war, or even eventual war. I must admit I have been occasionally guilty of making no response out of pure laziness or forgetfulness.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Not by any means.

What does bother is people who make NAPs to protect themselves, and then announce cancellation if they think they can get a province or two out of it. Something like that, and I won't agree to anything with you in any other game, likely as not. I also make wiping you out my main priority, even if the other guy is a bigger threat.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Someone ignores a message of a NAP and I consider open war the only option. Of course - if they aren't moving forces to attack me immediatly and another nation is I'll concentrate on the other nation first.

But I'll always immediatly move to war footing if someone turns down a NAP and I have no other threats. They aren't replying because they want a war - just not at this moment. So hence, it's to my advantage to start fighting with him ASAP unless I belive I'll be in a better position to attack him later. But make no mistake... we are at war http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

The other possiblity is that he just missed the message... but I'll never put my money on that.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I always try and do my NAP requests through the board private messaging system. That way I can check "receive read response", and know if they have read the message. If I see they have read it, but have not replied, then I am ready for war.

I also always send a follow-up message to the effect of "I assume that your silence means you are agressive towards me". That sometimes will get people off the fence, and make a reply.

I don't consider the in-game messaging for NAPs. Too hard to remember, with no way to search back 10 turns or whatever and see what was agreed to. I only use it to break NAPs http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I maintain a text file on my desktop with all my alliances and stuff listed.

Jazzepi

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

You can request a read receipt? I have never noticed that before. That will come in handy. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Option 2 - "I am not sure where I am taking my option right now, so I need to keep options open for a little longer. Lets start a dialog to see what makes sense."

BTW, SUM1WON is talking about me in Chinchilla.
Turn 34 Agreed to a NAP3
Turns 38,39 Abysia talked with me about wanting help against the much larger Pythium. I liked his offer.
Turn 40 Sent NAP cancellation
Turn 43 Will move on some provinces

This topic is appropriate to this posting because I thought this is how NAP's work. I did not just jump on Pythium, I gave notice. Abysia gave a better offer and has been a decent neighbor. If I am wrong, please say so.

Pythium, if killing me is a higher priority, good. Do so, and you can. I am much smaller. Holding grudges between games is your perogative, but not something I like to do. This is a wargame. We are supposed to fight.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Yes, I am. It is how NAPs work, but sending an NAP indicates that one is not interested in war. Although what you did wasn't in strict violation, it showed that NAP's with you really don't hold any value, so I have no reason to make any more with you. If you're willing to cancel the NAP at the drop of a hat, or at the pleading of one nation, which, though smaller, is currently winning, there is no reason for me to consider you to be a trustworthy enough neighbor to keep them under any conditions.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Well, it's probably best to see a 3-turn NAP as a guarantee of safety for at least three turns, not a long term indication of friendship. If you want more security you should demand a longer warning period I reckon.

I'm quite big on honour in this game (although RPing a dishonourable nation might be fun I think I might find it difficult), but would have no qualms on forming an NAP even if I expected war in the long run. If the other player reads more into the deal than was actually agreed, that's not really my fault. In fact that could be seen as diplomatic cunning, which should be encouraged.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I will usually accept nap offers, though if I have my eye on someone's area, i will not accept one greater than 3 turns.

If you ever get an nap from me greater than 3 turns, you know you are not in my immediate plans. I never ignore anyone as I consider it rude. When someone ignores a message from me, i treat it as a declaration of war.

Recent examples-

1. I offered Vanheim a 3 turn nap in the epic heroes game-response "not interested." Next turn:I launched an attack on vanheim and now own their capital. Here is a case where vanheim's interests would have been served by accepting my offer.

2. Big Game-I offered LA Man a 3 turn nap as they have a large army on my border. No reply. I am 99.9 percent certain they are going to attack me, but I am preoccupied fighting several other nations at the time. So not much I can do to retaliate. As expected, a couple of turns later after more troops are massed, he attacks.

So silence did not serve his interest. I knew the attack was coming.

I find communication is always better than silence. Even if I am going to kill someone off, I typically let them know why. And that it is not personal. Besides being a nice guy, it also has the strategic value that if an enemy is defeated, if he respects you he may not damage his own lands to hurt your later efforts. And I have had enemies give me their gold, gems, and items with their last breath, and wish me luck in the game.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Eh, perhaps I'm reading into it too much to take it to other games. On the other hand, there certainly is nothing odd about making that sort of action as costly as possible in game.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

So you think a 3-turn agreement should be considered a permanent truce?

A 3 turn NAP is an agreement against surprise attacks. Nothing more. If you want more cooperation, or longer deals, negotiate for it.

It's a war game. In the end only one pretender can become God. You will fight eventually. (Though us humans may give up on the game before the bitter end.)

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I've seen two kinds of NAPs offered.
10+3 (ten turns minimum, 3 turns warning)
3 (3 turns warning, min/max not specified)

And I've offered
'until late winter year 3'

I'd be quite pleased with dmentd's behavior, sum1won.

I prefer the 'until late winter' NAP best. I'll renegotiate, but it also gives some vagueness to my intentions, so nobody's certain exactly who I'll attack. And, in case of Veturi, gives Pangaea a chance to attack me first, and change my plans to compensate for that, rather than my intended target.

I will try to offer more responses, other than silence.
"Your messenger was treated to a feast, engaged in hours of diplomatic talk, but no consensus among the oligarchy(or oracles, or Angakuks) could be reached. Perhaps in the future."

I do agree, though, there's no problem in making sure your attackers have little to gain- a tendency to be an expensive or risky conquest with little reward is a good reputation to have. As long as you aren't being a sore loser, I suppose. Though I'm not certain precisely what a sore loser is... Well, no matter. I'm sure I'll form an opinion sooner or later. Don't read too much into this paragraph- its a thought in progress, not a final opinion.

I view NAPS as truces, at worst. At best, trade opportunities. Kind of how America's still at war with North Korea, and at peace (while selling fighter jet parts) to Iran, despite having warhawks beat their drums. Cultural, perhaps, but I'm used to not believing what my government's just done.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I actually kind of dislike the 3-turn NAP being so much the default.

I prefer to at least include some border negotiations, if there are still independents within reach of both. Trade, possible alliances against other powers, exchange of information, etc, etc

A diplomatic message consisting only of "NAP 3turn?" is a almost a declaration I'm not going to get anything else out of you.

At least tell me why I should promise you peace. What do you think I have to gain by it?

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Rather than have the reputation of someone who pillages and burns their lands to create a disincentive to attack, I would prefer:

1. To have the reputation of always honoring my deals, even if it costs me a chance to win the game,

and

2. To be known as a player that is extremely good at fighting battles and killing off my enemies in battle.


The 1st is a matter of trust. If you have the rep of sticking with your allies through thick and thin, hopefully more people will choose you as an ally in the future. You are dependable and they do not have to fear the knife in the back.

The second, if a powerful neighbor has 2 or 3 expansion options, but knows you are going to extract a heavy toll on his armies, and that a quick victory is extremely unlikely,
then he may look elsewhere even though geographically your lands are the next most logical choice.

Players that pillage and destroy their own lands, or have d3 dominion, are precisely the players I want to kill off 1st. If they are left alone, then they will have an even bigger area of lands to destroy in the future. So I would rather bite the bullet early and remove them from the game.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Of course not. I'm really not sure why people seem to think that I believe this (that a 3-turn NAP signifies more than 3 turns). It wasn't the time that I took issue with - it was simply that I realized what to expect from an NAP with that player- and that what I can expect does not serve my needs as well as most other things I could have chosen.
I created the opportunity because I relied on the NAP and the possiblity of retaliation to protect me. The NAP did not suffice, as the player did not appear to think I would be able to fight back within three turns. Therefore, I intend to show that I can, indeed, fight back. I also intend not to make the same opportunity with the same player again. I'm not sure why he considers this being a sore loser- that would seem to be more in the realm of smearing his name on the boards, etc. I didn't give out his name, or anything along those lines- simply how that NAP turned out to be useless for my purposes.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I apologize if i gave the mistaken impression. I really don't have any idea what went on in the game you're describing. I haven't been watching that one.

So, could you clarify... Do you intend not to have any NAP with that same player in the future, or simply have a more restrictive NAP?

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

Simply to be more careful about accepting NAPs in the future- and making sure they are somewhat more of an impediment to attack.

Specifically, when accepting NAPs from certain players, to make it very clear what that NAP means to both of us.

Re: Do you really think that you\'re fooling anyone
 

I tend to ignore bad NAP offers and just figure its on the table until I either attack or they attack. But, I tend to be the first one to offer a NAP, so it generally doesn't happen that often.

That being said, I keep my NAPs (or end them by their terms).

Honor, once lost, can never be regained.