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

[Executor]

I agree about spells being NAP breakers.
Casting any spell against someone is a hostile act. If that weren't so you could cast spells against anyone and still say it isn't a hostile act. ( although nobody is stupid enough to believe that )
For example VOTD, you kill someones pretender and that isn't a NAP violation? Unlikely
And what about send horror. Mictlan would be in a position to take someone out before the war even starts.

[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.

[Kojusoki]

To be honest I used to play according to the Bananadines rules.
But now, I realize, that it doesnt have to be the best option, becouse of the problem WHEN the other side is being informed about the ending of the NAP. I see, the Bananadines definition is ok only when we use ONLY the ingame message system

Otherwise, even with NAP2, we can "earn" one extra turn

[Bananadine]

A new era has begun for Mankind. Crust has fallen into Kokytos apparently so I have put in slayers_ai as our new Man. Please update your magickal indices of world rulers accordingly.

[slayers_ai]

err...where's the map?

never mind...i found it...

[djo]

The nation of Ermor deplores the cowardly and hypocritical sneak attack by Pangaea on our lands. Without so much as a declaration of war, Pangaea's forces stormed over the borders of a nation that has never attacked another. In a shameful piece of propaganda, the Pangaeans called themselves a "living nation" while simultaneously fielding undead of their own in battle. Hypocrites, one and all!

We invite Pangaea's neighbors to demonstrate to that rotting nation what a sneak attack is like. We will have to satisfy ourselves with a more conventional, and more honorable fight. Mark well how a civilized nation acts: we hereby declare war on Pangaea. And having done so, we now feel free to attack, knowing that no right-minded nation could find fault in our actions.

the Eternal Senate of Ermor
(in continuous session since the fall of Ermor, and not intending to recess anytime soon)

[AdmiralZhao]

Pangea did lay claim to all the world's forests a couple of months back.

In any case, it will soon be the Eternal Senate of Ermor in Exile, as the invincible armies of Pangea will be laying siege to Ermor next turn.

[AdmiralZhao]

As promised, Pangea has laid siege to the Ermorian capital and torn down its walls. In a desperate, last ditch gamble, Ermor threw its remaining armies at the besiegers. In the resulting battle, the armies of Pangea stood firm and destroyed the elite corps and corpses of Ermor's army. Six hundred Knights of the Sepulchre, undead calvary, and legionnaires were destroyed. The one sad note of the battle was that we killed none of the enemy's leaders. However, we did cut off some of their lines of retreat, and so we hope to have destroyed several leaders after the battle.

Pangea renews its call for all living nations of the world to join us in wiping out Ermor. The undead are weak, and ripe for the crushing.

[djo]

Pangaea is not paying close attention if they think they need the help of all living nations to wipe out Ermor...

And playing Ermor looked so easy in SP!