If I cancel an NAP with someone, or indeed if someone cancels one with me, I always find it helps, and indeed good manners to agree a timetable with them. For example.
Game turn 20 - Atlantis cancels its 3-turn NAP with Oceania. This is turn 1 of the required NAP notice.
Game turn 21 - This is turn 2 of the required NAP notice.
Game turn 22 - This is turn 3 of the required NAP notice. Hostile orders can be given.
Game turn 23 - The required 3 turns notice was correctly given and complied with, and any combat that took place did not violate the NAP.
Other players though can view things differently, and see it as.
Game turn 20 - Atlantis cancels its 3-turn NAP with Oceania.
Game turn 21 - This is turn 1 of the required NAP notice.
Game turn 22 - This is turn 2 of the required NAP notice.
Game turn 23 - This is turn 3 of the required NAP notice.
Game turn 24 - The NAP is cancelled, The required 3-turns notice was correctly given and complied with, and hostile orders can be given.
Game turn 25 - Any combat that took place did not violate the NAP
So you can see why it is good practice to agree a timetable, as there is a 2 turn difference in the above examples, and both could be regarded as a valid procedure for cancelling an NAP (as well as several other variations on the above examples). So it's always best if possible for the players to agree a schedule before the fighting starts, as that avoids a lot of needless problems and/or bad feelings.
And as Torin said, it's also polite and good practice to make sure that if you are cancelling an NAP with forum PM's or email, that you do it very soon after a new turn comes out, and not leave it until the last minute. Since it's unfair to suddenly spring a NAP cancellation on a player at the 11th hour, especially as Torin says, if they have already submitted their turn.
Edit:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaminoff
Ah, now I can hijack this thread to ask about all sorts of diplomatic things.
So, what is the common understanding about what a NAP entails? In particular, is one allowed to transit stealthy units through the NAP counterparty's territory? It seems like reasonable options might be
1 - no stealthy units may enter at all
2 - only single scouts
3 - only stealthers that do not have bad effects (eg Heretics which reduce dominion, unrest inciters)
4 - all stealthers OK
It seems unlikely that 4 would be OK, or at least, if anyone were to do that, they would be convicted of sophistry in a court of public opinion if they claimed they were not breaking the NAP.
But 3 is interesting. If any stealthers are allowed, then a stealth nation can move large stealth armies all over someone's territory before declaring war.
So it seems like how this is commonly understood would have a significant effect on how spiffy stealth nations can be.
- Alex
|
You will find this very much varies from player to player, and the only way to be sure which one is in effect for your NAP's is to specifically bring up the issue before agreeing to it.
I personally always operate under #3 from your above list, and know a lot of other players follow this as well. But I've also had games where players I've had NAP's with have gone mental on me just for having a scout on our border. So always better to check first if you are unsure of the players (and their playing style, habits etc) you are signing your NAP's with.
You may also want to do likewise for certain global spell. Since again there is a difference of opinion as to which globals are considered to instantly violate all NAP's.
Arcane Nexus, Utterdark and Burden of Time are on most peoples list. But some also consider things like Forge of the Ancients, Gift of Nature's Bounty, and even Well of Misery to be NAP breaking. Again, everyone has their own opinions on these things, and always wise to iron such differences out before signing NAP's (although this can get very tedious very quickly)