A novice question about MP.
 

I posted this in a thread in the MP forum, but it may have been kind of off-topic, and nobody felt like answering/addressing it. Perhaps it will get more traction here.

So, what is the point?

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

Most people here consider than NAPs should always be honoured, and will not break them. However, all these discussions recently have shown that there is some variation in how binding people assume these pacts to be. But I would say on the whole if you have an NAP with someone you are pretty safe from them. Or rather, they're not likely to attack you without giving you the stated warning period.

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

I have played loads of MP, lost count of the games, 20?, 30? and no one has ever broken a NAP with me and I have never broken a NAP with someone else.

Only on one occasion have I had a problem with a NAP, the other player accused me of breaking it but I had never signed one in the first place. I did string him along with false promises but always intended to attack and made sure I never said NAP 3 signed or anything similar. He was convinced I had though. Sometimes misunderstandings occur but in 90% of cases a NAP is honoured by both sides in my experience.

NAP's are very important, in order to go on the offensive you after be sure your borders with other nations are secure, otherwise everyone would be too scared to attack in case they then got jumped on.

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

One interesting use of NAP is that if you offer someone one and they refuse, or more usually don't answer, it's usually a sign they're planning an attack.

Most people at least hesitate to break them, so where you don't want to be in the early game is the last neighbor to get one with a dangerous enemy.

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

Out of probably over a hundred NAPs I have signed though playing MP games, I have never once had one betrayed, and only maybe 10% canceled with notice.

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

I would say it is very bad practice to break a NAP, except as provided in the terms of the NAP (such as with a 3-turn termination warning). Otherwise, a player will acquire a bad reputation and not be trusted in future games.

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

Thank you all for your responses. I'm glad that NAP's are taken pretty seriously. That is quite reassuring.

I am in my first two MP games, and I'm certainly using NAP's and utilize heavy diplomacy. I also enjoy diplomacy as much (if not more than) as any other aspect of the game.

As I understood it, NAP's reduce the chaos of the game, reduce border you have to defend, allowing you to increase force concentrations on your opponent. Furthermore, since the total is greater than the sum of the parts, there is also a force multiplier effect. (1 army with 100 troops and 9 mages is more than 3 times stronger than 3 armies with 33 troops and 3 mages). (Or at least allow you to divide your force into as large chunks as you feel is necessary). If you are proactive in diplomacy, they also let you pick an opponent you would likely do better against (one who has few counters against whatever strategy you employ at that point in the game).

I also agree about the part where listening to people's responses, or lack thereof, is extremely helpful in determining their attitude, philosophy, goals in the near future, etc.

I was just concerned that a betray heavy environment tends to negate the effect and purpose of NAP's, and also favors the betraying players.

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

One thing I've learned from competetive online games (MMOs and Strategy games in particular) is to treat everyone around you as a potential enemy, and expect to be betrayed. Don't be afraid to network and use diplomacy, but always have a backup plan in case someone tries to stab you in the back. So, if you do agree to a NAP, don't leave yourself entirely open to unexpected aggression from the person you've entered a pact with. If they uphold the NAP, all the better for you both - but if they don't uphold it, atleast you won't be caught with your pants down.




Always be wary of the teeth behind the smiles.

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

One thing I've learned in dom3 MP is that people who NAP up with all but one of their neighbours as quickly as possible usually do really well.

People are extremely reluctant to break NAPs and if they're 3 or 5 turn notifcation, they're rather reluctant to give notice too. So basically you end up with someone pounding on their enemies while aided by effective allies who give them safe borders and get hardly any of the spoils. Contrary to what you might expect, people are often too peaceful and passive in dom3.

I think sending everyone NAP requests at the start of the game is basically a sound strategy. Attack the one you don't get a NAP with.

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

To play Devil's Advocate in this thread:

A NAP is only as good as the wars your neighbor is involved in. NAP = "I'm at war with someone else, and don't want to have to worry about you". As the people in this thread have stated, NAPs are most heavily utilized in the early game while everyone figures out which direction they wish to go. After that, a person sending you a NAP is up to no good: "We just formed a border, I'm exhausted from war, don't attack me so I can build up an army to attack you".


Notice some of the trickery people here have used NAPs for; implying NAPs to string people along, using them to see what people's intentions are, some people set expiration dates on NAPs, the other player often forgets, and the former will be free and clear to launch a surprise attack.


These people's words say "We never break NAPs, you shouldn't either". But if you read between the lines they say "We abuse them to the fullest". That is the secret art of NAPing. That's why when you see one past around turn 5, be suspicious. Accept it, but don't think it means "let's really be friends". At that point in the game, the NAP is more for the benefit of the sending player.


I've _bent_ a NAP, on my very first MP game, by sending notification of termination a couple of turns before the set expiration of a long term peace (peace term + NAP makes unclear math sometimes. I've learned either don't mix them or be VERY clear on how they work together). I sent it early because I wanted a piece of action before it was all over. I won't do that again because if I had waited then the other nation would have taken all the losses and I could have just rolled in to take all their new land. In fact, when I sent the notification the receiving player got so mad they disengaged the original attacker, and set all their armies on my border, and I took all the losses. Then the originally attacking player took all my land too. But it was a newbie game. I learned.

The moral of all this lesson, don't break NAPs. Know all their hidden rules, honor them completely, and thus abuse them to the fullest.

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

Yup yup, I got mad because other player didn't promise anything but you did break our NAP. So I wanted that other player to take all my lands and then crush you. And it worked out, like a last laugh. Good that you learned your lesson though.

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

you bastard. oh well. it was still good fun. mucho lulz.

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

You're right. A NAP is not an alliance or even a collaboration. It just means the players do not want war *for now*. There can only be 1 winner, unless it is a team game, and so, war is inevitable (unless the players otherwise get defeated by other nations).

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

I wouldn't go anywhere near as far as saying " when you see one past around turn 5, be suspicious." I never offer NAPs to nations I haven't even found yet. Rarely if we don't share a border or expect to shortly share one. Nor have I gotten many offers from distant nations.

So a NAP offer later in the game means: "Hey, looks like we're going to be neighbors. Are you willing to be peaceful or do you want to fight?"

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

I'm confused. He broke the NAP by ignoring the expiry period and attacking immediately?

Or you got mad because you had a NAP, but he sent the notice of termination and then attacked after the expiry period was over? That's not "breaking a NAP", it's "canceling a NAP".

Re: A novice question about MP.
 

Our peace ended at turn 24, and I sent the notice on turn 19. So even once the NAP was fulfilled, the peace term would have two more months left. I suppose I could say I've never broken a NAP then, just a peace treaty. But why have a NAP and a peace treaty?