Nap-3
 

Do you ever pretend to know something, because you think you know it, but you are not sure?

I think I know what a NAP-3 is. What do YOU think it is?

Re: Nap-3
 

I'll give you three turns warning before I come after you?

Re: Nap-3
 

Good question. I find it confusing as to exactly when to start counting those three turns and when to count an attack. For example if I give notice I am cancelling my NAP while on turn 5... does that mean I can give attack orders on turn 7 or 8? I believe turn 7, since attack orders on turn 7 actually resolve on turn 8. Anyone disagree?

Re: Nap-3
 

It was explained to me like this.
Let's say it is turn 5

No NAP - You send attack orders that turn.
NAP1 - You give notice on 5, attack orders on 6.
NAP2 - You give notice on 5, attack orders on 7
Etc.

Of course sending scouts/spies through NAP territory is ok.

Not so sure about stealthy units that create unrest. I would think that's a no-no. Also I would think stealthy combat units are a no-no but not sure about that.

Re: Nap-3
 

I'm definitively no pro, but for one I lean toward Mattyburn's definition.

Re: Nap-3
 

About when the nap-3 expires my view of it is the same as mattyburn7. For any case to keep the fight clean I send a message to my enemies when I declare the nap saying:
We can issue attack orders on turn X.

I personally consider having spies in your territory is a violation.(there is no way he is sedning those spies without a malicious thoughts). Another thing I consider a nap breaker is anonymous attacks(that is if you are pretty sure who they came from (say getting 3 commanders mind hunted when there is only 1 astral nation left)).
Also I consider direct overcast of a global spell that you have cast a break of the nap.(dispel of your global as well).
As well as evey thing that has a malicious effect on your Nation.
Also some spells that have negative effect or are sure to make the other nation win are considered by people nap-breakers(Astral corruption, Burden of time, Arcane nexus, Forge of the Ancients/Ulm, Utterdark).

I wouldn't consider that a nap-breaker if someone overrides a random global of yours casting another one(since the process is random) unless you are the one that have all the global slots used (but in that case you are crying to get ganked by every neighbour of yours).

It would be nice to let the guy that you are going to have nap-3 know what nap-3 for you is by sending him some sort of more detailed description of your understanding of it(but no one does that).

Also I've found that generally people don't care if you break your nap(they wouldn't just attack you for that if you are stronger than them) But the knowledge that you broke a Nap would give them the freedom to brek their own with you since you are not thrustworthy.Thus if you break one nap assume that you broke all the others.(that of course will earn you a bad name and people wont't trust you in the future).

Re: Nap-3
 

Mattyburn's definitions is the one I had in mind. I've been going around agreeing to these. As a pretender god, I feel that I have to pretend to know everything, otherwise I'll be exposed as a mere pretender. But I didn't want to get a weasel reputation due to a misunderstanding. I can breathe easier going forward.

I like the suggestion to declare the turn of expiration in your message terminating the NAP, to avoid charges of weaselry.

I'm not sure I agree with bbz that mere scouting is a violation of the NAP. It's a "non-aggression pact," and scouting isn't aggressive. Spies with other effects (like Arco sceptics, summons who cause disease, etc.) are more aggressive, and I think would violate the spirit of a NAP. Anonymous attacks are DEFINITELY agressive, and would violate the NAP.

Re: Nap-3
 

I didn't say that scouting is agressive, I said that If I find spies in my territories it is save to assume that they are there to be used and thus its breaking of the nap.

The thing about spies is that they can shut your whole economy if you didn't expect them. So I find them no different than someone trying to sneak in troops in your territories to attack all your provinces once the war has started.

Re: Nap-3
 

spies are definitely a cassus belli and a legit pretext to break an NAP. Scouts are not. Direct overcasting of a global, sounds like there's room to disagree on it. I would say that it isn't a violation of the NAP, because it isn't an aggressive action aimed at the other party.

Re: Nap-3
 

Would you say that if someone targets your global with a dispel that is violation of the NAP?

Direct overcast of the global is no different than dispel with the added benefit for the person that is casting it that he gets a global up.

Re: Nap-3
 

My apologies, bbz. I was using spies and scouts interchangeably. I am a n00b.

What the hell is a spy?

Re: Nap-3
 

There are units that are stealthy that can cause unrest, lower dominion, spread disease, etc. (or equippable items to do the same) i'm guessing spy meaning a nefarious scout. Welcome to the most complex and intense strategy game ever made.. :smirk:
ssj

Re: Nap-3
 

No by spy I meant a unit with the ability spy that can instil uprising(you have it as an option when spy is in enemy territory)(which causes unrest) Having 3-4 of those causing unrest at some of your high population provinces durring war can copletely destroy you. Start a new game with MA Marignon if you want to check them out. Other examples of units with the spy ability are consorts of MA T'ein Ch'i and bards of MA Man. But I usually call all of them spies:D

@ sansanjuan: but yea in genearl all those other nefarious scouts that you mentioned would generally mean Nap breaking.

Re: Nap-3
 

Well, like I say, there can be disagreement over it. If you wanted to use it as a cassus belli and a de facto break of the NAP without triggering the 3 turn warning, go for it. After all, the best time to end an NAP-3 is when you can do it without giving notice.

Re: Nap-3
 

Spies break no treaty if they dont use their instill uprising skills.
They give better reports than the scouts and they have better stealth skills.
I think its nonesense that you must use a scout that has a big chance of being caught and loosing the investment.
Skeptics and assasins have no reason to be used tough. They have no scouting improvement over a common scout.

Re: Nap-3
 

I think calling a scout an investment is pushing it - they're usually pretty cheap, and the ones that aren't tend to have ridiculous levels of stealth.

Re: Nap-3
 

Think about it.
What you can easily say is: those helheim thugs are in your territories to scout them, I just didn't want to burden your economy with paying the upkeep of units that you won't use(scouts).
Can those thugs harm you a lot by being strategically placed in your territory? Yes. Are they there with an intetion to harm you? Yes sooner or later.
What about scouts then. Can they harm you? Not really unless you forget to put 1PD in some of your territories.


Also you can always say something of the lines of: I didn't overcast your global to harm you I wanted to increase my gem income.
But are you harming the guy you have nap with? Yes you are destroying his global. Is this aggression towards him? Yes.

Re: Nap-3
 

didn't read the whole thread. But currently I'm considering naps broken if somebody uses aggressive language against me. No Aggression Pact. Means no aggression.

Look at me funny and you are going down boy!

(People take naps way to seriously, esp in non-enforced diplo games).

And scouts can hurt you. Anything that gives away information about the state of your lands hurts you. Be formless.

Re: Nap-3
 

haha:D

True, so can other people playing the game, the more advantages they get the worse it is for you - thus aggression. We should all consider switching to single player!!

Re: Nap-3
 

Peace and love. In all MP games I am going to disband all my armies and create Utopias in the lands I currently hold. All other Pretenders will see my nation and model it and we will all live together in Harmony...

Re: Nap-3
 

Or just stop putting to much faith into NAPs. :D

Re: Nap-3
 

Well, I for one give plenty of notice.

Re: Nap-3
 

Personally (although I NEVER play it this way, cause it isn't widely accepted) I'd like to have the NAP 3 to mean that I give you three turns warning that I will break the truce (following Mattyburn's explanation in the beginning of the thread) but that my opponent is free to strike at me ASAP. After all, I'm the one wants to break the NAP, and much like breaking a contract, the party breaking the NAP must pay for the consequences. Now as soon as my opponent strikes me, or 3 turns are up (which ever comes first) war begins.

Again, this is not the consensus in this forum, and I don't play that way, but I think it makes breaking NAPS a slightly riskier play, and makes it harder to double cross other people. Than again, I'm a nice guy.

Re: Nap-3
 

How you can look at it is: Every month after you agreed to a NAP-3 you sign it over and over again unless stated otherwise and that means that there won't be any aggressive actions for 3 months. And when you decide to stop signing that treaty. The 3 month period starts expiring for real.

Re: Nap-3
 

I am a noob, and I am glad this question was asked.

I was under the impression that NAP-3 meant: Non Aggression Pact- lasting for 3 turns. After that 3 turn period, NAP is over- attack at will.

To me it seems silly to give a 3 turn notice before smashing an opponent. I thought this game was about war!

Apparently, I would find more suitable diplomatic relationships in a 'free-for-all' or 'machiavellian' style game. Not that I am one to back off of my agreements, but more because that is how I expect other players to be, and enjoy finding out if they really are, or are not.

P.S. I am thoroughly impressed by the fact that somebody made a MOD based off of the old-school Avalon Hill 'Diplomacy' game. That's just so cool! :cool:

Re: Nap-3
 

I see it as a contract myself, and if you break contract, just like in the real world, you have to pay the penalty. Like I said, it isn't a widely accepted definition (yet), but I think it makes sense. Why should the defensive player have to pay the same penalty as the aggressor.

Re: Nap-3
 

No but the "aggressor" doesn't break any contracts, he just doesn't want to sign the new ones for 3 more months. I don't see anything wrong in that (otherwise if you think about it there is no point to specify a number if it is the way you see it since it is unlimited in length o.O so no point in the number 3). The contract is "broken" by the guy that attacks with no warning, and he pays the price by staining his name as unreliable.

So all the other people that are "reliable" can attack him whenever (and still remain "reliable"). (If someone breaks his nap-3 with anyone, I personally don't feel obliged to follow up my Nap with that person anymore, so I can attack him anytime I want, since he has shown that his aggreements can not be trusted) And not only in one game in all the games that I play with that person.

Re: Nap-3
 

@ legowarrior

Your idea of how NAP agreements are cancelled has been suggested before.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=40012

Unfortunately (in regards to the merit of the idea) it was suggested by the all time master Court Jester and all round laughing stock of the community, and was wildly regarded as one of the stupidest ideas ever seen on these forums (which was a real achievement considering the regularity he came up with such rubbish).

It was mainly consider bad because it's easily possible in just 3 turns (typical length of NAPs) to have conquered every enemy province, and have every fort under siege. So while this idea might work in other games, in Dominions it is just simply out of the question. As if anyone is dumb enough to just sit there and let someone conquer all of their lands, and kill all their troops just to honour an agreement, then they really need their head examined.

And you can try to say that's the price of cancelling a NAP, but when applied to practice it would mean it is virtually impossible to cancel a NAP with an major nation without instantly condemning yourself to defeat. And that scenario is seriously terrible for all sorts of obvious reasons. Not least becuase enough turlting (and terrible strategic play) goes on anyway, without applying such hand-tieing binds. (as such this idea just won't work in Dominions)

Re: Nap-3
 

I'm pretty sure you just didn't read the post very well. Obviously 3 turns is enough time to destroy someone, and I'm not suggesting that. Here, allow me to draw your eye to the appropriate spot.

This is the important part "Now as soon as my opponent strikes me, or 3 turns are up (which ever comes first) war begins. "

So, here would be a scenario.

My opponent cancels the NAP 3.
Turn 1 (Turn the message is received) I can order my attacks against my opponent on this turn. If I don't, we both sit on our thumbs, but let us assume that I do attack.
Turn 2 (Opponent has been attacked) My opponent can now retaliate,
and order attacks against me, the NAP is over.
Turn 2 (Opponent hasn't been attacked) My opponent must honor the NAP this turn.
Turn 3 (Opponent has been attacked) My opponent can now retaliate,
and order attacks against me, the NAP is over.
Turn 3 (Opponent hasn't been attacked) My opponent must honor the NAP this turn.
Turn 4 (Doesn't matter) Both sides can go to war.

So, in my suggestion for NAP, I don't just wait 3 turns to be gunned down like a moron if I cancel the NAP. Instead, when I cancel the NAP, I wait 3 turns OR until after I get attacked myself.
This means that the NAP allows your opponent the option of first strike, nothing more.

Re: Nap-3
 

Having the first strike is a pretty big advantage. It's also worth noting that the very act of giving notice on a NAP is already a penalty to the attacker since they presumably are ready to fight and could otherwise get the advantage of surprise. Speaking for myself, I'd never agree to something that gave someone a free shot at me. ;)

Re: Nap-3
 

Than never sign up for a NAP. Simple.

Re: Nap-3
 

My apologies legowarrior, you are indeed right that I didn't read your post correctly. As at first glance it sounded the same as the idea I linked to (which I remember well), but upon re-reading what you wrote I can see your wording has a very important difference.

Re: Nap-3
 

It's all good. I don't even use my own definition of NAPs in game, since it's not a commonly used way to play it.

Re: Nap-3
 

Actually, I really like Vanguard's idea (the Non-Aggression Pact that lasts 3 turns.) Maybe call it a 3-NAP. As mentioned in this thread, the NAP-3 really hamstrings you as an attacker, as you lose the advantage of prior preparation. With the 3-NAP (or 5-NAP, 10-NAP, whatever), you have a period of safety, but the lurking possibility of war. The X-NAP would force you to renegotiate extensions at the end of the agreement, which could be very interesting. For example, perhaps my more powerful neighbor wants to renew/extend the expiring X-NAP, but given his apparent ability to crush me, he demands a certain well-situated border province. While you could have this conversation in a NAP-3 (I'll declare war in three turns if you don't cede the province) I'm not sure that conversation is in the spirit of the agreement.

Re: Nap-3
 

In regards to NAPs, they typically follow the length and duration that matty has outlined (but you can certainly create an NAP following what Vanguard has proposed, but you'd need to outline that specifically). NAPs however are just one diplomatic tool at your disposal, and in most games where diplomacy isn't rigidly enforced, you have quite alot of leeway in your dealings (esp. in regards to interstate relations). Maintaining an NAP is always well and good (particularly if you keep a reputation for honoring them), but players often tend to be overly blinded by them into extending them to a point where it is detrimental to their own position. A reverse prisoner's dilemma, if you will. This has happened to me in my first MP games, to the point where I played completely reactively (even in no diplo games). I'm moving myself into a more proactive mindset, but that's the pitfall of relying on NAPs overly much.

As for what an NAP means in terms of limitations, well. I personally feel it's limited to direct (and blatant indirect) aggression. There is only one winner at the end of the game, so sending in spies and scouts into enemy territory to scout is perfectly acceptable. It's also perfectly acceptable to instill uprisings, up until you're caught. Similarly, it is possible to use Hurricanes against an NAP'd nation if there are four nations who can cast it, and have reason to do so against said nation; in which case plausible deniability can come into play (i.e., who really sent the hurricane, and how do they know which provinces to target?]). If the enemy nation has hidden thugs in all your provinces in preparation for an alpha strike (for the expiration of an NAP), that too is acceptable so long as they aren't discovered. I also feel the same way about diplomacy with other nations regarding NAP partner (that is, it is perfectly valid to share intelligence, raise suspicions, and to form coalitions against an NAP partner, or to aid their enemies through trades, etc., provided you yourself do not undertake direct aggressive actions against NAP'd nation). Ultimately, NAPs are signed to further the purpose of a nation: in that case, it is to prevent aggressive attacks or moves against your nation from a neighbor, and to buy time from that front as you build up your own base of power.

Signers of NAPs do so under the knowledge that the NAP is not permanent, and will be cancelled eventually (and both nations will come into conflict, if they survive).

Now I personally don't go to these lengths (and indeed, hold my actions to a very high standard of non-aggression), but that is in my opinion the fundamental limits of an NAP. You can certainly define the NAP in more detailed format to cover these bases, of course, and to delineate what is considered aggressive behavior confined by an NAP (blood sacrifices on the border, for example, can definitely be considered such an action, whilst hidden thugs preparing to alpha strike aren't, because the first has malicious intent, is blatant, and is clearly aggressive action undertaken during the NAP, whilst the latter is also malicious, but is nominally stealthy and is maneuvering to prepare for an aggressive strike after the NAP expires).

Re: Nap-3
 

I'm really glad this post came up. I had a lot of these questions (Particularly regarding stealthy combat troops, spies and ritual spells) and it appears that different players consider non-direction aggression differently.

Probably most important thing is if you aren't sure, then clarify it ahead of time. Especially if you are playing someone with stealthy troops who could plant a big surprise.

I don't want to go to far off-topic but one other area of contention I've seen is with rollbacks. My personal philosophy is that sometimes in war bad luck happens and just missing a turn or having the Game engine do some bizarre/broken or anything else that may suggest a rollback is just that. A random act that was bad luck. In other words I would say never a rollback(perhaps the chess player in me. Touch it, you move it. Hand lets go and it stays there). I do understand and respect the frustration when you've worked hard in a long game only to be undone not by a human opponent but the misfiring of bits and bytes. Also I've heard some vets say: Never do a rollback as it can screw the game up.

So what I'm really suggesting in my ramblings is that perhaps at the start of a new game a policy is set so there is no question should the situation arise. Either no rollbacks, or a rollback under these conditions. That way if the situation does arise there is no question either way.

time to go back to work. ugh.!

Re: Nap-3
 

good job to all the cool players in this thread giving some clarification

Re: Nap-3
 

I'm glad I raised my hand and asked the question! I almost didn't, since many folks who have posted on this thread are people that I had previously made NAP-3 agreements with. Hehe, err, sorry! I just wanted to be friendly!

The first step to gaining knowledge is to acknowledge your ignorance.

Re: Nap-3
 

That is a huge fault of mine. I hate to ask questions.

Honestly I was unsure about the whole stealthy spy, assassin, combat unit thing so I just decided to do scouts only to be safe. Live and Learn! and as you mentioned. Ask Questions!

Re: Nap-3
 

Theoretically, it's all fine (provided you aren't discovered).

Realistically, it varies from player to player, and you'll want to hammer these things out beforehand. If you forget to explicitly state it (i.e. no sending in stealth units during the NAP/its expiration clause), then always assume that the other player will likely do so (and patrol religiously on your border to prevent infiltration). If you haven't stated it before, then an NAP is generally pretty wide open to anything that isn't openly/directly aggressive towards you (i.e. overcasting a global of yours, discovering spies and remotes that they're sending at you, blood sacrificing on your border).

Re: Nap-3
 

It's the ambiguity of it all that tickles me. We can see how genuine diplomatic crises could erupt and be taken advantage of. Say I have a NAP-3 with a neighbor, but I've come to a point where I really want to destroy him. Say I discover a scout belonging to that neighbor in my territory. I send a message to my neighbor expressing my disgust at his stinking betrayal, declare the NAP voided by this misconduct, and march to war immediately. Is that quite a bit over-aggressive? Sure. Am I now an oathbreaking scumbag? That's a bit fuzzy. He was in my territory, after all. It may not be the greatest casus belli, but it might be enough to get me to war with my reputation somewhat intact.

Re: Nap-3
 

Personally, Scouts are what they are. Unless I see an Assassin or a spy and the other guy doesn't have a good excuse (like passing through to the other side) I let it go. I throw out scouts all the time myself. Information is key.

Re: Nap-3
 

Scouts, no.

Assassins and Spies? Go nuts.

Re: Nap-3
 

The problem is that most spies are better at stealth than scouts, so hiring them can net you more information. Not ever spy is there to cause unrest.

Re: Nap-3
 

Ah, but that's the beauty of diplomacy you see. It doesn't matter how something was intended, only how you interpret and perceive it. ;)

Re: Nap-3
 

Exactly!