RNap II
 

1. The party cancelling the agreement may not initiate hostilities until the end of the duration of the agreement.
2. The responding party may initiate at any time.
3. The following spells are so powerful, they may not be cast while an RNap is in effect, without agreement of the other party.

Burden of Time
Arcane Nexus
Strands
Wish for Armageddon
Forge of the Ancients
Utter Dark
Astral Corruption.


So for example, Ermor and Arcosephale are at peace, and sign an RNAP+3. On turn 12, Ermor being covetuous of Arcosephales land cancels the treaty.

Arcosephale is eligible to attack immediately.
Ermor, as the initiator must wait until turn 15 to program an offensive action.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Please do not hijack my thread. If you would never agree to one of these - I'm not interested. If you would freely break a nap anyway - I'm not interested.

On the other hand if you'd like to tweak the terms, or suggest alterations - I'm all ears.

Re: RNap II
 

I'd change the first term so that the one ending the nap can also attack right away or after 1 turn delay.. more is really strange from any RP perspective

Re: RNap II
 

Well, I just wonder who will be foolish enough to sign a RNAP ? :D
And why would someone be interested in this ?

Moreover, the list of banned spells suffers the same drawback than the one discussed in the NAP thread : Strands, Forge, Nexus are not offensive and should not be in the list. Obviously, I won't never sign any NAP nor RNAP under such conditions.

Re: RNap II
 

Herode... if you read his WHOLE post then you should know your posts isn't wanted here... now my feelings are exactly the same so I tried to adjust his proposal to a bit more realistic proposal.

(PS on the spells you are right too)

Re: RNap II
 

Sounds pretty complicated

Re: RNap II
 

I think he basicly want to prevent pplz from preparing in advance to end a NAP and then being ready to hit hard.

IMHO it's not needed since.
a. you should keep an eye on allies
b. the whole 3 or 5 turn NAP thingie is intended to give you a few of those turns anyway.

Re: RNap II
 

@chrisdepeterson:
Hmm, you may want to get rid of the tildes ('~') splitting your post then. When I first read it, I skipped the part after that automatically, thinking it was your signature. Then I saw Aezeal's response to Herode, and went "Huh? What's he talking about?" *Rereads post, including 'sig'.* "Ahah!"

I might very well have responded with "I would never sign such a NAP" myself, if I hadn't read the whole thread! ; )

Re: RNap II
 

I never play multiplayer, but I have to ask: who in his right mind would agree to such a thing? Or respect it, once vigent? The attack delay for the attacker is so harsh that it encourages oathbreaking

Re: RNap II
 

Aezeal, I'm not willing, nor interested, to obtain your permission. If my post doesn't fit your taste, just skip it and don't bother me with your mean thoughts.

Re: RNap II
 

Read Aezeal's post again Herode. He agrees with you, but was just pointing out that in the first post chris asked people not to comment on whether they would actually sign up to an RNAP.

Re: RNap II
 

OK that was not so nice.. I'm an especially mean person but here I tried to be nice.You are the one with the mean post, ignoring the OP specific request not to post what you did (basicly his request was exactly the thing you say to me "just skip it and don't bother me with your mean thoughts."

/me slaps Herode on the head so his IQ drops even lower

PS since I AM an especially mean person your remark as such didn't offend me, just the sillyness of it.

Re: RNap II
 

I think he just misread your post Aezeal.

Re: RNap II
 

Considering the things he wrote down he should've double checked it.

Well let's not waste more of my precious mean words on this :D

Re: RNap II
 

Chris sorry this discussion seems to have killed your thread, but considering all the reactions here and when you brought it up in the past I don't think it will a generally accepted way to agree on NAP's.

Don't let it stop you to try and get pplz to agree on a NAP like this in game though.

Re: RNap II
 

So, if I read the example right, Arcosephale can attack immediately, but even once he has done so, Ermor can only fight defensively until turn 15? Cannot even try to retake lost provinces?
That's a huge penalty. And a strong motivation to get the other party to break the NAP, which could be fun. And of complaints and whinging on the threads, which is not.

Or did you mean only initiate, so that once Arco attacks, Ermor is free to attack at will? Which isn't so bad. Gives a fairly small disadvantage to the party breaking the deal, which is good.

Re: RNap II
 

Thejeff, what you say is just a regular NAP right - once someone breaks it all agreements are off...

Re: RNap II
 

I like this idea much more. Nice option indeed.
In this case Arco has more flexible position which is really a small and fair advantage.
No. NAP isn't supposed to be broken (immediate attack) if both people play fair. And if someone plays unfair NAPs have no sense at all.

Re: RNap II
 

Giving the party deciding to break the agreement a small penalty is indeed the point of the RNAP.

Re: RNap II
 

If he's got dominion over some of your land Strands is offensive!