What do NAPs mean to you?
 

Well, given the differences in opinions as to what you’re agreeing to when you sign the ubiquitous “3 turn NAP” I thought it might be useful to come up with a couple new terms with more rigorous definitions. Of course some people will still break them, but it’d be useful if we were all at least on the same page as to what we’re agreeing to since everybody seems to have their own ideas. Given the ambiguity that NAP currently has I’m not going to use it at all and instead define new terms which people may use if they feel they’re helpful. Note, there are no implied commitments other than what is literally spelled out – that’s the point of doing this.

X turn Attack Notification. You each agree that your nations are not actively at war, and agree to give X turns notice before giving any attack or assassination orders upon each others territories (including non-anonymous rituals). For a 3 turn AN this means that if a player gives notice on turn 20, neither may give attack orders until turn 22 (the first battles will be fought turn 23 – three turns after notice was given). Formal notification should be sent in-game to eliminate ambiguity as to when notice was received.

X turn Peace Agreement. You each agree not to take any overtly offensive actions against each other. This includes all Attack Notification constraints as well as hostile rituals targeting each other (including anonymous ones), inciting unrest, sending in bane venom charms, and aggressive dominion pushing (as well as anything else in this spirit). You each also agree not to send in any non-scouting stealth units (troops or thugs, though assassins or spies are ok) through each other’s territory without first getting permission. This agreement does not cover globals, so casting Utterdark, Astral Corruption, or anything which does not specifically target a single nation does not violate it. Snatching up independents, cutting off expansion paths, etc. does not violate this agreement, so you are agreeing to give notice of cancellation even if your counterpart is being a jerk.

Alliance. You each agree to advance each other’s interests for the duration of the alliance. This includes all PA commitments, as well as not taking actions which hurt your ally without consulting him (Utterdark, cutting off his expansion paths, etc.), and making an honest effort to help where you can at a reasonable cost to yourself (supplying needed magic items, trading gems 1:1, etc.). Alliances are commonly formed “until we defeat Abyssia” or something like that, but may also use a X turn notification format. Note, unless you’re playing in a game with recognized team victories the assumption is that you’ll one day have to fight your ally so it is very reasonable for your ally to give notice and attack you despite a long and beneficial alliance.


Well, what do you think? I think that covers the bulk of what people use without making it too complicated nor having to make extensive negotiations every time.

Re: What do NAPs mean to you?
 

I was a little surprised by someone's definition of a 3 turn NAP in Happy Days. I was notified after 3 turns that our NAP had expired, and asked if I wanted to renew it, they seemed eager so I went ahead and did just that.

It just caught me off guard that they were basically counting down the NAP's expiration from the day that it was made, instead of keeping it until it's decidedly broken.

Jazzepi

Re: What do NAPs mean to you?
 

I think that about a fourth of the people that I've made NAPS with break them whenever they feel like. During the actual agreed upon length. Alliances are broken non-stop as well.

Therefore, they mean, basically, nothing. But hey, in certain games that are RP or have pre-ordained diplomacy rules (be they yay or nay as to enforcement, but understood all the same), they add a lot. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

*shrug*

SAGE
 

Didn't we have at least one thread like that already?

Re: What do NAPs mean to you?
 

I don't really want to get into the issue of breaking agreements which has been discussed at length elsewhere, I just wanted to come up with more rigorous definitions than NAP - which is a near meaningless term given the variation of what people apparently think it means. Seems like as things stand most every point I elaborate on above some people think are covered under a NAP and some people don't, and I've seen several different takes on what "3 turns" constitute, and I think all the other thread did was confirm how ambiguous the term NAP is.

Re: What do NAPs mean to you?
 

I greatly prefer extensive negotiations, myself. The negotiations often give me time to gauge the strength of my opponent and whether it is a worthwhile cause. They also let me throw in a few helpful exceptions, such as utterdarkness.

But one of the clearest shorthand abbreviations for a NAP was a 10+3 NAP. The first was minimum length and the latter was warning. To even further lessen the possibility of confusion, you could go #M+#W. For instance, a nonagression pact that can be canceled at any time with three turns of warning would be notarized 0M+3W.

Re: What do NAPs mean to you?
 

What I find interesting is that some people don't have a respect for rules of asymmetric warfare: when you're the small victim, a lot more goes. Big guys must act honorable to keep face, equal opponents should respect each other, but when you're a lot smaller punching low is sometimes the only available option.

But then again, I'm from a small country. And the fact that in love and asymmetric warfare everything goes is learned in the cradle. Guess that's why I try to pick on someone I consider stronger than me as an opponent, feel it's more justified that way.

To me, "3 turns" is 3 turns of not attacking after cancelation, but if I'm the canceling party in superior position, I don't start crying foul if I get sucker-punched. Because I expect at least an attempt of it. Other thoughts regarding NAP are found in the earlier thread.

...and I really don't understand how casting Burden of Time or Astral Corruption without prior written consent could NOT mean instant cancellation of any deals whatsoever... You hurt me, I hurt you.

Re: What do NAPs mean to you?
 

Oh, by all means negotiate as much as you like. I find myself that I'm constantly requested to form NAPs (with no further definition), which is a bit silly if nobody even agrees what that term means. Those of you who don't currently use NAPs because you find them meaningless or because you like to negotiate all pact details aren't really who this thread is aimed at. Heck, maybe nobody else will find this useful and I'll just use this for my own negotiations with a link to this thread.

Re: What do NAPs mean to you?
 

See, that's my point, the unspoken assumptions differ so much. What about casting Arcane Nexus, or Forge of the Ancients? What about something more mild? It's kind of surprised me in the past that people who I've had a NAP with (but no alliance) acted considerably betrayed when I acted against their interest. To me a Peace Agreement means I'm not going to attack you, but I certainly might try to undermine you if its in my interest and I expect the same in return.

Re: What do NAPs mean to you?
 

Well, there's the difference between "good for only me" and "lowering your income and killing all your troops" globals, wouldn't you think? Well, I'd consider doing harm a clear violation and harming my interest a reason to begin canceling the NAP. But usually I also inform what's my beef and there have been many times when swift words have been taken back when each one's motives have been found.

Re: What do NAPs mean to you?
 

Well I can see your point, but the way I see it is like this.

Astral Corruption/Utterdark/Burden of Time/etc. - (for the sake of argument) screws everybody but the caster roughly equally.

Arcane Nexus/Forge of the Ancients/etc. - Benefits the caster and nobody else

In either case the only change in advantage is between you and the caster. It doesn't matter if the caster is directly benefiting or screwing everybody else up, the effect is the same. Casting something like Purgatory though, if you're Ermor would be a completely different thing.

Re: What do NAPs mean to you?
 

Heh, but I'm the benevolent GOD and you're hurting MY people and lands that are MINE.

Your logic may be valid, but humans are not logical people.

Diplomacy
 

An NAP is just that, a Non-Aggression Pact. The problem is that many players use NAPs as a crutch while they move all their other forces to the otherside of the world since they have an agreement.

Not only is this unrealistic, but it can be foolhardy for many players in them. The best thing to do to ensure that you do not get attacked is to constantly talk to all players. Too many games I have been in consist of: "Let's sign a NAP." Then you don't hear from the guy until, "Hey, I'm ending the NAP in X turns." All too often, that means they are attacking in X turns.

The key to not getting kicked in the pants by someone violating a NAP is to prepare yourself for your partner violating the NAP. If he sees you are thoroughly prepared, he is not going to attack you.

Additionally, some players make a NAP, then take anything you do as threatening. One game a guy took a high dominion. We had a NAP and his dominion was encroaching on a lot of my territories. I built temples and the guy started complaining about my temples, etc. Just because you NAP me, doesn't mean I am going to let you dominion kill me, and any action I take to prevent that does not mean that I am going after you, only protecting myself...

Also, if you get a global off that I can dispel and is in my interest to dispel I am going to do it. I do not consider that a violation of any NAP, but some would scream to such an extent that you would think it was.

Re: Diplomacy
 

To me its an alliance. They might not have meant it that way when they made it but I try to treat it that way and Ive rarely been disappointed.

Re: Diplomacy
 

What do NAPs mean to me? Well, I'll mention an alternative treaty I've used maybe twice.

I occasionally make a border treaty instead of a full-fledged NAP or peace treaty. It does not exclude later war, but it does prevent unwanted early conflicts.

I say that you have such and such territory, I have such and such. To move into that territory is a declaration of war. After setting up one of these, I often have a year of peace before something happens. When I make such a border treaty, I don't expect a warning before someone invades, but I do expect a declaration of war to arrive when they attack me.

I don't consider the inevitable invasion dishonorable unless this border treaty is paired with a non-aggression treaty. It exists simply to ease the early expansion game. I suppose if they broke this treaty quickly, i would be annoyed. But I generally set up this border treaty so both our nations have a strategically comfortable border. To delay conflict, not prevent it. For instance, if certain provinces are on the wrong sides of chokepoints or are uncomfortably close to another players' capital.

Most often, though, I do go with Non-agression pacts. I also always assume that both sides have different ideas of what the NAP is, and either iron out the differences or maintain caution.

Re: Diplomacy
 

A NAP is just to say an other player that you have no interest in attacking him, and that you are strong enough to crush him even when he is prepared. (Or that he could crush you if he wanted so, and you just hope that he agrees and you can live on http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif)

I personally do not backstab on NAPs, but if people do this i consider it their right (but i will note the player, and never trust him again). I think that casting Anonymour Rituals on nations you have a nap with can make a lot sense, and while the grace period is running down, even not so anonymous artillery might be used.

Re: Diplomacy
 

I'm amazed at how many people consider a 3 turn NAP to be an unbreakable pact. A 3 turn NAP is just that... a 3 turn warning that you are on the way to war. I've had 3 turn NAPs last for dozens of turns, and some that only lasted 8 or 10. I don't ever take it amiss when someone cancels an NAP, as long as they do it honorably and wait the full 3 turns. And I don't expect them to hate and mistrust me in other games from then on if I cancel one... we only agreed to 3 turns.

A 10 turn NAP, or a pact, is different. I expect to be on a much more friendly basis when under one of those.

Re: Diplomacy
 

I think it is wrong to never trust a player again once an agreement is broken (inside the same game is fair though) because you don't know the situation they are in. If they are in a no win situation, I think it is better that they keep their options open, rather than limit their options to their own detriment.

Re: Diplomacy
 

I am used to the old style Y+X NAPs. I have never violated one, and I will not
engage in any diplomacy with anyone who, to my knowledge, has. Before I agree, I
always try to make sure that the other person understands NAPs the way I do.

I also make it clear that any action that ends up hurting one unit of mine on my
territory, or attacks my income is a violation of the treaty. This includes spies,
stealth preachers, or even scouts/assassins not set on immediate retreat. Although
in the last case, I will not necessarily attack. I also warn the person first if
his domain is encroaching on mine, and he keeps building temples.

In my experience, most people do comply with the X turn notice requirement.