Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

“Inviolate NAP” (Non Aggression Pact)

Due to the recent flurry of posts regarding NAPs, I have decided to post a version of NAP that I would like to use in the future in the games that I play, against players of similar minds. I believe this is a very “standard” form of NAP that many of the frequent players in this community will agree with. Newer players may also find this thread useful. You can use this thread to post your own version of your NAP, and redirect anybody you make a NAP with to your appropriate post, so that you don’t have to write down all the appropriate terms and conditions each time you make a NAP.

This NAP is an Inviolate NAP, in that I treat it as an “Out of Character” NAP, and NOT an “In Character” or “Roleplaying NAP”. It is an agreement between PLAYERS, and not between NATIONS. The standard terms and conditions of this NAP along with some situational clarifications are listed below. This NAP is quite definitive and strict, but is also very flexible and allows much scheming and plotting.

This NAP restricts both parties from making any Military attacks or IDENTIFIABLE spell attacks on each other. In addition, the following global spells in the current DOM3 version 3.20 form are restricted: Burden of Time, Wish for Armageddon, Utterdark, Astral Corruption, and Arcane Nexus.

The NAP can only be “terminated” after the other party has been given notice. The termination notice has to be given in the same way that it was signed, that is, if it was signed through the Shrapnel forums, or through email, or through an ingame message, the termination notice has to be given through the same channel. There are two forms of this Inviolate NAP: NAP-X, and NAP till turn X.

NAP-X: You can not order an attack until the Xth turn from notification of termination. The actual battles will be fought on turn X+1. For forum and email notifications, the current turn is counted as the first turn if the notification is sent 24 hours before the current turn hosts. If the notification is sent less than 24 hours before the current turn hosts, the next turn is counted as turn 1. For ingame notifications, the turn the message is received is counted as the first turn. **** Option R: With this option, the recipient of the notice of termination may attack immediately without waiting for X turns. For example, you can specify NAP-3 Option R. This will give the terminated party the possibility of a first strike. This option is inspired by chrispedersen’s thread here: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=40413


NAP till turn X: You can not order an attack until turn X. The actual battles will be fought on turn X+1.



Some common questions and clarification regarding this type of NAP, in the absence of any specific agreements to the contrary:

1. He has traded equipment/given gold/given gems to my enemy. Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
2. He has overcast my global! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
3. He has dispelled my global! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
4. He has contributed gems to a nation that used those gems to overcast my global! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
5. He is one victory point away from winning! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement and can I attack him without proper termination of the NAP? No.
6. He has built temples and stationed a thousand preachers in his provinces all along our border! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
7. His dominion will completely snuff out my dominion next turn causing me to be eliminated from the game! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement and can I attack him without proper termination of the NAP? No.
8. He has provoked all the other nations in the game to attack me! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
9. He has blocked all my available province expansion routes! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
10. He has violated the terms and conditions I have attached to the signing of the NAP! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES!
11. He has hired someone to cast damaging spells against me! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
12. He has cast an ANONYMOUS damaging/assassination/unrest causing spell against me! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
13. He has cast a global that damages/harms/kills my units/provinces/income that are under his dominion! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
14. He has cast a global that damages/harms/kills my units/provinces/population/income that are under my own dominion! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES!
15. I have caught his stealthy preachers in my provinces! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES.
16. I have caught his stealthy units with the bane venom charm in my provinces! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES!
17. He is attacking me without proper termination of the NAP because I’m attacking a nation he has a mutual defense treaty with! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES! This NAP has priority over any other agreements with any other nations, whether it was agreed to before or after the signing of this NAP.
18. He is going to win next turn for whatever reason! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement and can I attack him without proper termination of the NAP? No.
19. He has contributed gems to fund a global that harms me (for example, Thetis Blessing)! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
20. I’m a water nation and he has cast Thetis’ Blessing! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES!
21. He has summoned all the Elemental Kings/Queens and has forged all the Artifacts! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
22. He has cast Forge of the Ancients! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No, unless it was specifically mentioned as a condition to this NAP.
23. He has received a random event that gave him control of one of my provinces! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No, as long as he returns that province, don’t build any forts/temples/laboratories/PD. You may militarily reclaim that province by killing any of the troops there without violating the NAP.
24. His Tartarian with 6 artifacts that was banished to kokytos suddenly reappeared and took control of my province! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No, as long as he returns that province, don’t build any forts/temples/laboratories/PD. You may militarily reclaim that province by killing/enslaving/charming that tartarian without violating the NAP. Of course you may also both choose to agree to an alternative resolution of the situation.
25. He has taken control of a province that used to be mine! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No, as long as that province has not been under your control for the past 5 consecutive turns.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

I applaud your efforts, but I'd never agree to that...

So be it, more power to you for being as clear as you can.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

I would never agree to that either, but I guess the point is for each player to say "yes" or "no" to the different sticking points. In particular I like #17 where this NAP takes precedence over all other agreements. Because you know if everyone uses your template all of the agreements will take precedence over all other agreements. ;)

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

That statement is not applicable because this NAP is an agreement between two parties only, so one Inviolate NAP can not be affected by another Inviolate NAP.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

That makes it even more hilarious. Thank you.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Would you please care to clarify that?

And allow me to post #17 in its entirety:

17. He is attacking me without proper termination of the NAP because I’m attacking a nation he has a mutual defense treaty with! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES! This NAP has priority over any other agreements with any other nations, whether it was agreed to before or after the signing of this NAP.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

I'm sure the response to this will be "strawman argument" this and "putting words in my mouth" that, but hey let's have some fun.

So basically #17 says that this particular NAP supercedes all other agreements that have come before or after it. So if people started using the template and two mutually exclusive agreements both contained #17, a player could put himself in a position where he is forced to break one of the two agreements, both of which supercede the other, and of course hilarity would ensue. I think the only honorable way out of that is to go AI.

And then your response was just to reiterate that this NAP supercedes the other one, so that situation wouldn't occur. Well what's the point of #17 if agreements are only between two people and would never be affected by another? Of course it's going to happen, and furthermore it's going to be extremely entertaining! It just struck me as funny that I pointed out how this would not work out logically, and your response was completely contradictory and illogical. Sweet irony.

Anyway, totally not a knock on you or your efforts. I think having a NAP template for people to look and reflect upon is a good idea. But that one in particular made me laugh. Anyway, thread derailed with my sincerest apologies. Carry on.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

I'm sorry if I sound a bit obtuse here, but would you care to specify exactly which part of the Inviolate NAP would conflict with another Inviolate NAP? Can you give one specific example where this would happen? Perhaps you have a specific situation in mind that I had totally disregarded.

That rule was meant to prevent the crafting of a NAP with another party specifically to circumvent an existing Inviolate NAP, in the vein of "Oh by the way, I have a mutual defense treaty with Kailasa that I forgot to tell you about, so I'm attacking you now".

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Ok, you're Lanka and you enter a NAP with Niefelheim. Then you enter a mutual defense treaty with Ermor. Niefelheim has no treaty with Ermor, so he attacks. You are required to come to Ermor's aid and attack Niefelheim, but you are forbidden from attacking Niefelheim due to the other treaty.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

When you enter into a mutual defense treaty with Ermor, you have to specify that you have a NAP with Niefelheim, and that you can terminate the NAP with Niefelheim, but you can only attack Niefelheim after certain turns have passed. That is quite a common occurence in my diplomatic agreements, and that has been a standard way of handling it.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

You definitely need to spell that out in your first post then. I guess 17a should say something like: He has made an agreement with another nation without informing me, is this a violation of the NAP? Yes (apparently)

Again, something I would never agree to but good for people to look at and reflect upon.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

The Inviolate NAP is a NAP between PLAYERS in good faith. The spirit of NAP is quite apparent from the example situations in the first post. It would be quite difficult for me to spell out every single situation, and would take a book to write it out.

If the NAP can be superceded by any NAP with another nation afterwards, no NAP would have any value in this context. For example I have a NAP with Niefelheim. But I want to be dastardly and attack Niefelheim now. Can I just then forge an alliance with say Ermor and tell Niefelheim "Oh by the way, I've just made an alliance with Ermor, and he is going to attack you now, so that's why I just dropped an army onto your capital"?

But it is good that you brought it up, so that it can be clarified. Unfortunately, I can't edit the first post, but this is a good and constructive discussion.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Don't you think that it would be simpler to post ALL agreements in that particular game forum.

I have a Mutual Defense Pact with Nation A turn 9

I have a 10 Turn Nap with Nation C on turn 14

Nation C attacks nation A on turn 18.

I give Nation C a notice that I have the Mutual Defense Pact with Nation A that I made previous to the NAP. Unless Nation C ceases the attack on Nation A immediately, then the pact I made on turn 9 would with Nation A supercedes all other agreements and I will attack Nation C.

AND....its all in the game forum for reference and there can be no arguments.

Convuluted, Maybe....effective, Absoulutely


Just my 2 cents worth but if you take all the secrecy out then there is no argument.

Of course, secrecy can be whats fun about this game....and in that case all this doesn't matter anyway!!!!!!

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Your theoretical situation is not the same as mine though. In yours, the player is intentionally trying to screw over Niefelheim with sneaky diplomacy. In my example, they playing honorably and it just turns out that Niefelheim and Ermor put them in an impossible situation through no fault of your own.

I'm not saying you have to do anything, but there is a severe loophole in #17 that you have filled with an undocumented assumption. I came to a completely different conclusion than you did concerning the facts, so if the goal of the NAP template is to be inviolate and comprehensive it fails in that regard. Besides, what's the difference between 25 and 26 talking points? ;)

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Haha, I don't make that many NAPs. But posting on the forums is definitely not the answer, as secrecy is important. The standard practise in my experience is that NAPs of any kind have precedence over any mutual defense treaties.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Right, haha. If there is a second draft, I may change that clause to read that the NAP has priority over Mutual Defense Treaties.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

I suggest you call this an INap.
I applaud the effort. Its similar to what I have proposed on NapII's and Rnaps... but much more specific. I disagree on a few points, but if you don't mind I'd like to use yours as a template to define mine.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

So...you take offense that Sector 24 laughed at one of your many 'rules' (#17), but your first words written are "ha ha"?

It just shows that like everything else in this world AND the world of D3 there are many takes and sides to an issue.

IF you want people to NOT take advantage of loopholes (as THEY see it) then you need to make it public so it is somewhat enforceable.

IF you want secrecy, then don't whine when someone makes 5 agreements and HAS to honor one over the other (usually in his own self intrest) and states what the terms where/are in HIS opinion.

You have a full page of rules that you want players to abide by and what looks like sign an oath to obey.

For the most part I agree with you but there are several that seem to make no sense to me.

Not becaue they are bad, stupid, or wrong....But because they conflict with each other and saying that one agreement made because its a certain type (NAP) supercedes all others no matter WHEN it is made and (now this is what I mean ) in MY mind ridiculous.

You did a lot of work and I think if you where to prepare a game that you had to state that you would abide by those rules before joining, then I would think it would be GREAT.

But to propose that this be universal is just like secrecy...no one REALLY knows what was agreed to.:D

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Yup you can definitely use this as your template. Regarding the name of INAP, let's see if it takes. I personally like the name Inviolate NAP, as it is quite descriptive, but the community will shorten it as it sees fit.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

I don't take offense at all to Sector 24's comments on the NAP rules. These are just the rules I have found to be fair in general, and that I would use in the future so that I don't have to spell out every detail whenever I make a NAP. If others would like to use it, I'm happy. If they would like to modify it, go ahead. If they want to have their own NAPs very vague so that they can have an advantage, they are quite free to do so. If your policy is to make a bunch of NAPs and follow only the ones that are advantageous to you, that is of course your style of playing. But if you agree with the points on this particular style of NAP, then it would make it a lot easier to just say " I agree to Inviolate NAP-3", and that would carry a certain meaning.

Again, I am not imposing at all any rule on anybody. If they find these set of rules useful, then good, and just specify it. If the name Inviolate NAP carries a negative connotation to anyone, then just say Lolomo's NAP-3. Or just say Lolomo's NAP-3 but let's make it non-inviolate :p

If someone proposes a different kind of NAP to me, I'll sign it based on its merits, though it may take a while to iron out all the details.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Well, as usual in a election year sometimes people want the same thing but just can't agree how to get there.

Your Idea is sound and as an Honorable player I would like in a perfect world to see a template.

I just could not ever agree that one kind of treaty (call it what you like) superceded another kind of agreement no matter WHEN they where made.

That is the one point that I personally could not ever agree on.

If I made an agreement with YOU first and wanted to make another agreement with another player and then tell you that our agreement only works if something else DOESN'T happen.

I would expect you to never trust me agian...

I guess that is what I want...a template that works for all agreements and none are MORE important than others..yiu just have to decide which ones work with which player and then NOT get yourself into a fix by making too many to start with.:re:

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

You can always say, "Let's agree to an Inviolate NAP-3, with the provision that #17 does not apply".

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Let me clarify that we are not discussing "punishment" or "consequences" or the merits and demerits of "NAP breaking", or making a list of NAP breakers. This is just a template for like minded players who wish to have some clarity for NAPs. Anyone can use the template and modify it however they wish. This is a very standard set of "guidelines" that "non-roleplaying" players have been using. Different players may have slightly different views, but much of the spirit of the this NAP is already being followed. I myself have adhered to this code, and I actually impose stricter rules on myself in my agreements.

Most problems occur when you make say NAP-20. So the experienced players mostly make NAP-3 only, sometimes NAP-6. There is no need to violate NAPs when you can attack in just 3 short turns.

Even if you have "conflicting" NAPs, if you only have NAP-3 or even NAP-6, why can't both mutual defense treaty and NAP be served by waiting 3 turns to attack?

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Indeed, which is why I find most of these discussions to be nearly pointless. Rule lawyering sucks, and yet, it seems that's what people actually want...

Well so be it, but I don't quite see the need for the insane level of detail being proposed, *if* you simply bother to talk to your partners regularly enough.

Again, how often are people actually back stabbed as opposed to notified that the agreed upon NAP needs revision? Or do you not see a distinction?

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Can anyone recommend a good lawyer?
I was considering taking up multiplayer here on the forums.

Thanks in advance. :)

(Just having a little fun LoloMo. :D It is actually an interesting discussion. )

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

A distinction between what? If both parties agree to the revision, then of course there's no problem. What if one party disagrees? Then I propose that this template heads off most of the perceived problems before they arise.

The insane amount of detail is just a collection of actual situations that I have encountered which have been resolved in that way with both parties agreeing. And if you are infering this is a NAP template for lazy players who can't find the time to talk everyday with their NAP partners... you are right! :p

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

I dunno, I like to separate real life from game. You know, I really like all you guys, really really, even through the game debates and the wind and the rain... but I would not like having personal argumentswith ya! a match is a match, I'd take it with more ease ;)

P.S @ Ballbarian: I'm a good law student, I can recommend you several great lawyers or help you myself... LET'S SUE EVERY NAP BREAKER FOR MILLION DOLLARS!!! XD

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Surely that depends on whatever rules regarding diplomacy has been set by the host rather than anything else?

Other than that, it's a pretty good effort but I think there's a little too much specifics to make it useful generally. What might be better is to come up with a basic definition of a Non-Aggression Pact, i.e. the 'core rules' of a NAP. This would seem to do the trick:
As far as globals go, I wouldn't list specific spells. If you were playing in a game where you could claim an allied victory then you may well want your team mate to cast certain globals if it allowed your team to claim victory. On top of that, there may also be occasions when the casting of certain detrimental globals would affect you less than other players, or otherwise leave you in a stronger position.
To that end, I'd simplify it to a clause regarding hostile spells. Since you already have one however it may simply be enough to state that globals are covered by the "identifiable spell attack" clause if they harm your nation in some way. This covers you against the more nasty globals, while still leaving room to take it on a game by game basis when deciding on specific spells either player would consider an act of aggression.
The timing and notice periods are a bit lengthy and complex. What I'd suggest is giving a simple statement of clauses (NAP +X means it expires after a notice period of Y for example). Rather than worry about out of game timing, I'd alter the section to state that any notice should be provided both in the form the NAP was signed and confirmed by an in-game message. You then don't need to worry about missing the notice (which I assume is your objective) since if the player has played that turn then they should have received the message. What you might want to think about is a clause to cover staled players in the case that they miss a turn covered by the notice period.
Clarifications seem to mostly re-tread the bulk of the NAP as is. Since you've pretty much included any aggressive spell type in the definition then questions regarding spells killing your units etc should be self evident. Rather than list possible trades with opponents and the like, if you find it used enough then it might be worth adding an optional clause that may be invoked, however it's possibly best to treat these areas on a case by case basis.
What you might want to include is something stating how disagreements should be handled rather than a specific Q&A since this would extend over possibly unforseen circumstances as well as those you list. I'd suggest something along the lines of both players having X turns to resolve the dispute from it being made known to both players before the NAP is considered dissolved.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

I would never agree to this NAP. It's far too restrictive.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

And too detailed. Who would read 3-plus pages of legalese to play a damn game? Jesus...

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Dominions 3: The Awakening of Bureaucracy

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

By the way, though my response may have seemed negative, I do really appreciate what you're trying to do here Lolo, which is move us /away/ from stupid NAP disputes that plague some games.

So thank you for that :]

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Ok - but these kind of comments do nothing to add to the conversation for those of us that would and do.

In actuality, once convention is set, people will just say "he wants an I-nap +5. Cool. Terms are known, and with a sticky can be referred back to.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Most of the community probably defines standard NAP differently when it comes to that small points.

I think most people will agree that 6 is violation [but not always, depends on geography, nations]. 12 is also [when you can prove it]. Dispeling or overwriting your globals may be considered a NAP violation and most people will give other side the right to start war without a notice [but as always, it depends on people].

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

It all seems pretty standard to me. I follow most of these rules already when I sign NAPs. Except 17 is a little muddy (but it is also a situation I have never run into).

As far as dispelling or overwriting one of my globals. If it is overwritten, so be it. Global are cast to be overwritten at some point. If he dispels it though, that is an act of aggression. Of course, it would difficult to be certain that he was the one that dispelled it, unless he tells me.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

NAP-X Alternate
(using Lolo I-Nap template).

1. This thread is intended to standardize what constitutes a NAP-X option R, so the terms are understood by all parties and so all conventions don't have to be rewritten each time an agreement is made.

Additionally, this is an attempt to codify what is acceptable behavior under the terms of a NAP.

2. NAP-X Option R is an agreement between players, not between nations.

3. Definition of Nation: All provinces uncontestedly owned by a pretenders units.

Establishment of owned: A province is owned when a province has had military units in it for one or more turns entirely exclusively by the owning player.

Should two parties both enter a province in the same turn, then ownership is not established, regardless of the outcome, as units were not in exclusive control for an entire turn.

Duration of Interest:
Should a nation have established ownership of a province, said ownership persists, up to 1 turn for each turn of ownership up to three.

For Example:
Arco and Ermor have signed a NAP-3 Opt R.

On turn Two, Arcosephale invades the Holy Lands, and successfully conquers the province.

On turn 3, with no other action, ownership is established.

On turn 5, with 2 turns of ownership (3 & 4), a barbarian horde invades and conquers the territory. Arco's ownership of the province persists for two turns, eg., 6 and 7. Ermor may take no action during these turns.

However, should arco fail to act during these turns, Ermor is free to conquer the province on turn 8.

4. This NAP restricts both parties from making any Military attacks or IDENTIFIABLE spell attacks on each other.

5. Additionally, neither party may introduce stealthy units into areas of the others nation, without prior notification and permission.

However, if the subject country is the shortest transit time to other countries, permission will not be denied.

6. In addition, the following global spells in the current DOM3 version 3.20 form are restricted:

Burden of Time, Arcane Nexus, Strands, Wish for Armageddon,
Forge of the Ancients, Utter Dark, Astral Corruption.
Fill in other globals here: ___________________________________

7. Dominion:

Because Dominion spread is *not* under the control of players dominion incursion in itself is not considered a violation of a NAP.

However, establishing temples, preachers, prophets etc with the intent to project dominion into a signators territory *is* an act of agression and the following protocols are observed.

Neither side may establish a temple in a province adjacent to a signators province without a castle, nor may he station more than one preaching unit (prophet and God excepted) UNLESS said province is under foreign domination.

So, for example: Arco & Ermor are Napped. Ermor may not establish temples in a border province in order to establish dominion (and kill population) UNLESS ermor's territory is already under foreign dominition.

AKA: its ok to defend your dominion, it isn't ok to project it.

8. Termination: The NAP can only be “terminated” after the other party has been given notice. The termination notice has to be given in the same way that it was signed, that is, if it was signed through the Shrapnel forums, or through email, or through an ingame message, the termination notice has to be given through the same channel. There are two forms of this Inviolate NAP: NAP-X, and NAP till turn X.

NAP-X: You can not order an attack until the Xth turn from notification of termination. The actual battles will be fought on turn X+1. For forum and email notifications, the current turn is counted as the first turn if the notification is sent 24 hours before the current turn hosts. If the notification is sent less than 24 hours before the current turn hosts, the next turn is counted as turn 1. For ingame notifications, the turn the message is received is counted as the first turn.

**** Option R: With this option, the recipient of the notice of termination may attack immediately without waiting for X turns. For example, you can specify NAP-3 Option R. This will give the terminated party the possibility of a first strike. This option is inspired by chrispedersen’s thread here: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=40413

NAP till turn X: You can not order an attack until turn X. The actual battles will be fought on turn X+1.

Some common questions and clarification regarding this type of NAP, in the absence of any specific agreements to the contrary:

9-10: Left Blank.

11. He has traded equipment/given gold/given gems to my enemy. Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
12. He has overcast my global! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? Yes.
13. He has dispelled my global! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? Yes.
14. He has contributed gems to a nation that used those gems to overcast my global! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
15. He is one victory point away from winning! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement and can I attack him without proper termination of the NAP? No.

However, feel free to include a Closeness to Victory exception.
For example: If either party is ____ VP's from victory, the agreement becomes null and void.

16. He has built temples and stationed a thousand preachers in his provinces all along our border! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? Yes
17. His dominion will completely snuff out my dominion next turn causing me to be eliminated from the game! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement and can I attack him without proper termination of the NAP?

Not unless the provisions of section 7 have been violated.

18. He has provoked all the other nations in the game to attack me! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
19. He has blocked all my available province expansion routes! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
20. He has violated the terms and conditions I have attached to the signing of the NAP! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES!
21. He has hired someone to cast damaging spells against me! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
22. He has cast an ANONYMOUS damaging/assassination/unrest causing spell against me! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement?

It is against the spirit of the agreement. However, as authorship of these events cannot be determined, no right to terminate the agreement is established.

However, should the offending player acknowledge such, then the termination provisions are established.
13. He has cast a global that damages/harms/kills my units/provinces/income that are under his dominion! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? See the list of prohibited Globals above.
14. He has cast a global that damages/harms/kills my units/provinces/population/income that are under my own dominion! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement?
See the list of Prohibited Globals above.
15. I have caught his stealthy preachers in my provinces! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES.
16. I have caught his stealthy units with the bane venom charm in my provinces! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES!
17. He is attacking me without proper termination of the NAP because I’m attacking a nation he has a mutual defense treaty with! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? YES!
18. He is going to win next turn for whatever reason! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement and can I attack him without proper termination of the NAP? No. Not unless the victory exception (see termination) is agreed to at inception.
19. He has contributed gems to fund a global that harms me (for example, Thetis Blessing)! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
20. He has cast Forge of the Ancients! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? I’m a water nation and he has cast Thetis’ Blessing! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No. See list of Global Exceptions.
21. He has summoned all the Elemental Kings/Queens and has forged all the Artifacts! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No.
22. He has received a random event that gave him control of one of my provinces! No. However building PD, troops, or castles, OR stationing troops there *is* a violation of the agreeement while your ownership persists.
23. His Tartarian with 6 artifacts that was banished to kokytos suddenly reappeared and took control of my province! Is this a violation of the NAP agreement? No, see #22.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

I stopped reading after rule 4 just cause I saw how many rules there were. I would never agree to something like this just on principle. Who wants to go back and read a list of rules about what you can and cannot do? This is a GAME after all, folks! If you try and write out and proscribe everything that can and can not be done then it will become as dry and boring as real life.

Honestly guys, just use your heads on what is and isnt good play. And at the same time, accept that everyone is unique and there will occassionally be conflicts. Its as simple as that.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

You said it Ironhawk!

In my opinion this game is all about conflicts and their brutal resolution; there can only be one winner after all. If you can't stand that fact you shouldn't be playing. And after all what is the big deal about losing? You can always play again.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

You know Dedas..

I've heard your comments - and your insults - all on all thre threads. And I've been polite up to now. I understand your point of view.

Using your language..

If you can't stand that other people have different points of view than you do... then quit reading. If you have nothing positive to contribute - then you probably shouldn't be reading this thread.

Which is a lot more polite than what I'd really *like* to say.
This thread has nothing to do with 'having only one winner'. None of us have made a big deal out of losing.

We get that you don't get it.

We get that you are hostile to the idea.

Now, can you just man up - and exercise a little bit of toleration and let others do what they want to do without finding it necessary to insert your .02?

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Now look here!

If I have insulted anyone for real I apologize. That was not my wish.

As for voicing my opinion I can only say that this is a forum - get used to it.

But I will respect your wish and leave this thread, as continuing will only lead into a pointless flame war.

Oh, and this is no parting shot. If you have anything more to say to me I will be around as usual.

Cheers! :)

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Try to calm down, Chris.

All that I have seen in this thread is Dedas making two posts, one of which is poking fun at the thread in general and not in a malicious way (the bureaucracy post) and the other an expression of support for Ironwhawk's views. Nothing impolite, provocative or controversial there, so why the anger now?

Even for those of us who are never going to agree to the kind of things expressed in these drafts you and Lolomo have made, they make for interesting reading in that it gives an idea of just what your side means when they say something about NAPs and how they should work. People making comments is going to be unavoidable and so far there has been far less vitriol here than in the "Question About Diplomacy" thread.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

You could probably simplify the NAP into four general terms.

1) LENGTH

A NAP until turn X means no offensive actions until turn X+1. A NAP with X-turns warning means no offensive actions until the Xth turn after the NAP cancellation is *received* (e.g. cancellation of 3-turn NAP received on turn 10, no attacks turns 10,11,12, even if cancellation notice sent turn 9). A NAP for X turns means no offensive actions until the Xth turn, with X starting the turn agreement concluded (e.g. proposal made turn 9, agreement received, no attacks 10,11,12.)

2) PLAYER ACTIONS

Any identifiable actions that directly causes loss of or damage to provinces/ population/ gold/ troops/ gems/ buildings is a breach. Stealthy units in the other nation causing unrest or dom loss is a breach.

3) RANDOM EVENTS

Random events that cause province loss (to indies or other player) are not breaches, but the original owner holds 5 turns rights. If the other player does not hand over possible gains (method negotiable), NAP breached.

4) GLOBALS

Directly overspelling or dispelling globals is not a breach. Casting certain powerful globals (negotiable) is a breach.

* * *

The key is the use of the word "directly". If you're overtly or surreptitiously funding someone else to do attacks, that's not a breach.

I think when LoloMo says that a NAP is not invalidated by the invocation of a mutual defence treaty, it makes sense. It just means you cancel the NAP and observe the requisite delay (and ideally inform your ally) before you join in. If you want to help your ally in the meantime, fund him in gold or gems, or use anonymous spells.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

I really don't understand the need for these kind of overblown NAPs.

Do you talk to your NAPies or not? If you aren't planning on sharing some basic information about where you might collide then what's the point of having a NAP in the first place?

Doing this completely in advance seems counterproductive to both sides as there is no room for maneuvering within keeping the spirit of a NAP. There should be some quid pro quo going on anyway shouldn't there? You want to put up a mightly global? Maybe you need to kick something to your friends so they don't decide its too much.

Otherwise you are essentially agreeing to have a race to some breakpoint and whomever gets there first 'wins'.

If that's the case then why bother with the rest of the game anyway?

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

this INAP doesn't have to acknowledge the existance of possible other forms of treaties.... if you sign this agreement with everyone in the game there is no contradiction anywhere...

mutual defense pacts are ALWAYS a tricky subject... and a person can use them to attempt to lie without lying...


niefelheim signs a nap6 with ermor.... ten turns later he decides he'd like to instantly begin attacking ermor... so he looks around and notices that caelum is at war with ermor... niefelheim signs an alliance with caelum.... then neifelheim attacks ermor... niefelheim is now an ******* :-p

it's pretty clear that even if you have a defensive agreement that going to war would simply mean giving notice on the peace treaty that it is going to expire..... simply giving notice will worry the other nation and force them to draw resources away from other fronts to prepare for you... this is enough to satisfy the defensive agreement generally

also alliances and defensive agreements are fairly shakey in a game with one winner and no allied victories allowed...

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

++

Jazzepi

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

+++

OK, that's adding nothing to the discussion, I was just showing support ^_^

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

Firstly, if people want to make inviolable NAPs and/or with set rules, they can arrange it in advance during game setup. Anyone who doesn't like it can not join that game in the first place.

* * *

The iNAP listed here has a second advantage.

Defining what a NAP is quite important. The two people involved may not have thought about certain issues - for instance one might think a powerful global like Arcane Nexus breaks it and the other doesn't. One might think stuffing stealthy preachers into the enemy's territory is fair and the other doesn't. They're going to have a huge and unpleasant argument if it happens.

The NAP rules here create a basic template, which represents what most players think is okay. So when two players sign a NAP - in any game - they know what it means in detail without having to list all the individual conditions every time they arrange one.

However, there can still be room for manoeuver. Firstly, they can agree to alter certain conditions, such as agreeing casting Arcane Nexus is okay. After that, there can be room for further discussion. For instance, if you want to do something that technically breaches the NAP as agreed, you can ask them. For instance, maybe you want send stealthy preachers through their territory in order to annoy a third player. See what they say.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

You miss my point.

If you are actively engaging in diplomacy (on a daily basis I would imagine) then most of these conditions are irrelevant as you can and should be dealing with them as they arise.

These kinds of agreements seem to be of the 'fire and forget' kind of nature I do not subscribe to. They are too much work upfront for very little payoff eventually, but hey, knock yourselves out with them if you want to, its really no skin off my teeth.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

The Forge is another Global that could end the NAP. The Forge is sufficiently powerful to be in a class that the caster is saying, in effect, "I win" stop me if you can.

Arcane Nexus is clearly in that class, and the Forge likely is as well.

Any global that causes me direct damage also violates the NAP. Wrath of Gods. One of my guys get struck by lightning, I could(but may choose not to) consider the nap terminated.

A smart player who does not want to alienate a powerful ally would inform him in advance of his intent to cast the Forge, Wrath of Gods etc., and get his blessing. There may well be a price for that blessing, such as forging x number of items a turn.

I also never forget a treaty breaker. And my advice is to make sure you really think breaking the nap is worth the gain.
Good players are likely not going to be taken by surprise. And they are unlikely to leave key assets undefended even if they have treaties.

But if someone breaks an nap with me, that carries over to the next game and so on 4ever. It never goes away. They are always unworthy of trust. And that means you are limiting your diplomatic options by breaking naps as well. It can be a heavy price to pay for a small gain.

Re: Inviolate NAP, First Draft
 

It’s a hard line.. on the one hand it does seem a bit extreme, on the other some of the small items are seen differently by different players

In a current game I have an undefined Nap-X with another player. He has had a global for ages I would like to have cast, but I thought overcastting would be a NAP violation. He has just overcast one of mine, and never considered it to be anything to do with the NAP.

Because I read the NAP to be more restrictive than he did, I was penalised (probably, maybe I would have wasted a bunch of gems trying to overwrite his). A clear definition would have stopped that

While it looks exhaustive, if one or two sets of rules become standard, we'll all know exactly what a NAP means. It doesn't necessitate studying all the points of law each time, unless players want to use a lot of flexibility. Presumably almost all players would agree with about 90% of the OP rules as part of a NAP, and its just a few in contention? (mostly to do with globals and anonymous spells presumably