Mistletoe - an LA game for busy people (in progress)

[BesucherXia]

I am the person Bananadine refers to.

This game is a simultaneous-turn based, means the result is always generated after all players have submitted their orders instead of immediatly resolved. Thus what we read from the messege list is the result of last turn, and the turn you give attack order is also the turn you "officially start war".

The spirit of NAP-N pact is to delay attack by N turns and thus called “none-aggression”. Assuming we have a NAP1 pact, and that does not mean one can attack another at any time given noting him before the new turn is generated, which means no war is delayed at all.

Sorry for my English since its not my native language. I believe you can inquire other verterans in the main forum if it's still not clear.

[LDiCesare]

I tend to believe that th turn of war declaration doesn't count as one of the turn delays. The NAP1 example is quite compelling.

[Hoplosternum]

Originally Posted by LDiCesare

I tend to believe that th turn of war declaration doesn't count as one of the turn delays. The NAP1 example is quite compelling.

I agree.

There are still other possibilities for confusion re overland spells and globsld.

Plus if I announce the end to the pact can my opponent attack at once or is he bound by the pact for those turns too? If he is not and he does attack me am I then still restricted on later turns - or does he by attacking end his protection early?

[LDiCesare]

Originally Posted by Hoplosternum

There are still other possibilities for confusion re overland spells and globsld.

Plus if I announce the end to the pact can my opponent attack at once or is he bound by the pact for those turns too? If he is not and he does attack me am I then still restricted on later turns - or does he by attacking end his protection early?

My view is that spells which can be identified are breaking of the NAP. Spells are usually anonymous but if you're obviously the only one to be able to cast it...
As for globals, Burden of Time is akin to a declaration of war on everyone (well, except LA Ermor). Many other globals I wouldn't consider a breach, although the admiral and other such spells enter the category of 'attack spells'.

Both parties are bound by the delay. Your opponent's attacking you immediately because you announced the end of the NAP is a breach of the NAP.

Then again, there's no rule that says NAPs must be respected. It's "just" going to earn you a very bad reputation around here.

[Bananadine]

Originally Posted by BesucherXia

This game is a simultaneous-turn based, means the result is always generated after all players have submitted their orders instead of immediatly resolved. Thus what we read from the messege list is the result of last turn, and the turn you give attack order is also the turn you "officially start war".

A good point. It's easy to think of the orders you give as happening immediately after all battles you see, but who is to say that the battles don't happen earlier than when you get to see them. Really, the game doesn't say much about whether they happen right after you give attack orders, or right before you give the next turn's orders.

Originally Posted by BesucherXia

The spirit of NAP-N pact is to delay attack by N turns and thus called “none-aggression”. Assuming we have a NAP1 pact, and that does not mean one can attack another at any time given noting him before the new turn is generated, which means no war is delayed at all.

Also a good point, but this doesn't render my style of NAP1 completely meaningless. Without an NAP, somebody could attack you at any time, and you would never know it beforehand. With an NAP1 using my interpretation, somebody could still attack you at any time; there would be no delay, as you say. But they would be required to tell you what they were doing, at the beginning of the turn, so that you would have that turn in which to quickly respond.

Anyway I am currently thinking both interpretations are reasonable--which increases the danger of misunderstanding. What's important to me is not that we use the "correct" one, but that the people with whom I make agreements understand which one I am referring to without a big hassle. So maybe when I make games in the future (as I will probably continue to do since I have slightly unusual tastes) I will arbitrarily pick one of the NAP definitions but let the players override me if they like--just so long as we agree on one, with minimal pain, before the game starts.

As for the many subtleties involving sneaky spells and sneaky Sidhe armies and whatnot--well those are complex, diplomatically significant issues, whereas this question of what the 3 in NAP3 actually means is just a silly naming problem. If somebody fudges the terms of a pact by causing a hurricane in my rich farmland, I will consider it part of the game. (I don't mean it's entirely "okay", but still, it's part of the game.) But if I suddenly learn that I disagree with somebody about what the 3 means, well that's not part of the game, that's a silly misunderstanding getting in the way of the game. I am only concerned here with the reduction of silly misunderstandings.

[LDiCesare]

But they would be required to tell you what they were doing, at the beginning of the turn, so that you would have that turn in which to quickly respond.

So for instance if they send the message in-game before they write the orders, is this valid? In such a case, the attacker DOES tell at the beginning of the turn, before the attack order is even given, but the target has no time to react.

I think the problem is that there are both turns and in-between-turns. If you limit yourself to in-game diplomacy (which, by the way, is the only one that is sure to reach your target), then the NAP1 you propose is equivalent to zilch. If you allow for out-of-game diplomacy, then it looks ok. Except if you're running on quickhost, send the message 1 min before posting your turn and yours is the last turn, quickhost starts and the defending player would be definitely right to be pissed off. On the other hand, if he has time to react before posting orders, for instance you wait for him to answer your message before sending yout orders, then I think it would be ok.