Reverse Nap
 

I'd like to introduce a new term into Dominions Lexicon.
Its based on reverse dutch auctions, and known in american parlance as either reverse dutch or reverse chinese. However, to keep jingoism out of it, I'd like to just call it a reverse nap.

Here is the definition:

Both sides enter into a NAP with an agreed upon term, such as NAP +3 - which would normally be that there is peace for three turns AFTER the turn of notification.

So, a Reverse NAP is this:

The side that is *notified* may take any actions it deems fit, immediately, upon notification.

The side deciding to end the NAP, must wait the agreed upon time.

This makes it a disadvantage to break the NAP, and hence a little bit stronger than a traditional NAP.

Whatdya think?

Re: Reverse Nap
 

As honorable as I am http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif , I'd find it hard to sit there and get pounded on for three turns and do nothing. I doubt I'd ever enter into one

Re: Reverse Nap
 

I think it's still just a piece of paper.

Jazzepi

Re: Reverse Nap
 

I think it would be more reasonable to have it that, for those 3 turns, the party who gave notice cannot initiate hostilities.

If the other party chooses to take hostile action earlier, then it's a state of war, and both can do whatever they please.

I like it, it takes some of the power away from the NAP canceler, who is usually timing it specifically to his optimal advantage.

Re: Reverse Nap
 

I think "Reverse NAP" is a misleading name. I was expecting something like a mutual aggression treaty whereby two parties both agree to attack each other for three turns and then cease hostilities.

I also think it would be difficult to enforce. What does it mean to say that A can attack B and B can't act against A? Does B have to stale for three turns? Can B raise PD? Can B shuffle troops around? Can B build troops in border provinces? Can B retake provinces that A takes?

That said, I sort of like the idea of penalizing the NAP canceller. A Non-Aggression Pact has no more teeth than the World Court, but politics and diplomacy are a legitimate part of Dominions. It might be simpler to simply include penalty clauses in the NAP: "The cancelling party must wait three turns before attacking, and must also pay a fine of 2000 pounds of gold to the other party immediately upon cancelling of the NAP." It doesn't need a new name, though, it's just another variation on NAPs.

Hmmm, Dominions as a UN metaphore. Only dictators, unlike pretenders, cost lots of upkeep regardless of the size of the national army.

-Max

Re: Reverse Nap
 

if im being attacked for three turns im not gonna care what is in the agreement. 3 turns can be alot of damage and id rather be dishonorable than lose

except if the game rules force me to follow agreements of course

Re: Reverse Nap
 

I'd laugh at the guy trying to get me to pay 2000gp as I invaded his lands.

Re: Reverse Nap
 

I've personally come to find the Dominions-Style-NAP tiresome and unthematic.

I think I'll avoid NAPs entirely in any future games. After all, if I can't fight off all my neighbors simultaneously, do I really deserve to ascend? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Reverse Nap
 

Well yeah, he might or might not actually PAY you the 2000 gp, which is why it reminds me of the World Court. I don't play MP so I'm not in touch with how many people repudiate NAPs at their convenience and how many hold them sacred.

-Max

Re: Reverse Nap
 

Well, some people play strategy games in a heavily diplomatic fashion.

Of course, actual diplomacy is really really really unthematic - except in the case of complete submission.

"I own you *****!"

"Yes, yes, you do! Please don't kill me! Let me serve you as the one true god!"

".... Fine, I will spare your miserable life, but you will do as I tell you, my pet."

"Anything! Just don't feast on my sweet delicious brains....."



Considering how people like to gangbang the leaders, I think it would be interesting to see more people thematically devote their pretender and nation to servitude rather than to perish in flames. Would they sometimes betray their benefactor? Yes, sometimes, but there would a be a dynamic there..... And I think it would work best with a bit of RP flavor added. You know, if your pretender was a Virtue, and MA Ermor's PoD was kicking your *** - and you begged for mercy..... Well, it's against your nature. So when Arcoscephale shows up with their Oracle and offers you a better place in their own ascension, well who wouldn't betray the PoD?

Of course, good and evil are so mutable, who's to say what is realistically thematic, other than never ending war?

Re: Reverse Nap
 

I tried this style of play for several games and it was fun to a point. In one of the games I got dogpiled by 4 nations, and in another game I got dogpiled by 10 of the 15 players who had formed an alliance in the game.

Finally I went back to diplomacy but very limited. Lately I have been finding myself back at the heavy diplomacy position.

I may give no diplomacy a go again, but I need to get a lot better at fighting off multiple enemies.

My advice: Give it a go if you don't take the game too seriously, because it is fun, but expect to lose http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

Re: Reverse Nap
 

I always do. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Reverse Nap
 

I'm with cleveland here, no diplomacy for the win. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif
I'm currently playing in Pasha's RAND game and the free for all spirit of it feels like therapy after all the tiresome diplo you have to do in regular games.

Re: Reverse Nap
 

I have yet to try a MP game (I will surely, in a newbie game, possibly EA, possibly vanilla http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif when I come back to holidays in a couple of weeks) but what I really hope for an MP game I will play, is "diplomacy" and "honour" to be something I can decide for myself. I laughed hard the time one person opened a thread (some time ago) to moan with the community because another player has broken a NAP in their game. Who would you cry to in a real war? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif
I think pacts seen as holy and unbreakable are boring and kill the fun of this game's diplomacy, where every alliance is one of convenience, and there is not a little box with a V inside to tell me whose provinces I can't attack.
I really like games (i think all of you here read matryx's AAP at somethingawful) where someone can take 80 gems from me as a peace tribute, and then attack me anyway 1 turn later. Or use the astral perls I gave him to dispell another player's global, to summon a bunch of Abominations and shot at my borders.
And of course, to do it myself too http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

I can't imagine many players willingly entering a reverse NAP..

The simplest way to avoid the declarer ending a traditional Nap X is to instead have it of fixed duration, rather than ongoing.

The diplomacy does get really tiresome, in this and many other games. The thing is, if you don't and everyone else does, you're toast more often than not. And it is the best way to stop early leaders running away with the game. I just wish diplomacy wasn't quite so widespread.

It would be great to play a no diplomacy game (which everyone honoured). No trading, no peace, no giving out info on others.. you'd just possibly need to exclude a couple of races to make it work

There are two camps on this matter. Those of us who keep our word, no matter what. And those that don't.
The former would like to know who the latter are. The latter would prefer (for obvious reasons) to remain anonymous.
At least in my case, it isn't a case of moaning about being attacked. Life happens, get over it.

But, knowing once I know a person keeps his word etc - then it affords a great deal more options. For example, I have freely given away artifacts. Exchanged territories. Loaned the use of a magic site.

Obviously, as I proposed the RNap - I would enter into it freely.

Re: Reverse Nap
 

It would be very unlikely that I would enter into an agreement like this. Its better to bind someone closer to you with beneficial trade agreements and war pacts or alliances. This seems like an unneccessary half-measure b/w a regular NAP and an alliance.

And as others have noted, I also prefer time-limited diplomatic agreements because they relieve the often tiresome nature of the standard NAP-3 fever which seems to permeate Dominions.