Reverse Nap

[chrispedersen]

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?

[DonCorazon]

As honorable as I am , 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

[Jazzepi]

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

Jazzepi

[JimMorrison]

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.

[MaxWilson]

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

[DakaSha]

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

[cleveland]

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?

[MaxWilson]

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

[JimMorrison]

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?

[Foodstamp]

cleveland said:
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?

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 .