What do NAPs mean to you?

[Baalz]

Well, given the differences in opinions as to what you’re agreeing to when you sign the ubiquitous “3 turn NAP” I thought it might be useful to come up with a couple new terms with more rigorous definitions. Of course some people will still break them, but it’d be useful if we were all at least on the same page as to what we’re agreeing to since everybody seems to have their own ideas. Given the ambiguity that NAP currently has I’m not going to use it at all and instead define new terms which people may use if they feel they’re helpful. Note, there are no implied commitments other than what is literally spelled out – that’s the point of doing this.

X turn Attack Notification. You each agree that your nations are not actively at war, and agree to give X turns notice before giving any attack or assassination orders upon each others territories (including non-anonymous rituals). For a 3 turn AN this means that if a player gives notice on turn 20, neither may give attack orders until turn 22 (the first battles will be fought turn 23 – three turns after notice was given). Formal notification should be sent in-game to eliminate ambiguity as to when notice was received.

X turn Peace Agreement. You each agree not to take any overtly offensive actions against each other. This includes all Attack Notification constraints as well as hostile rituals targeting each other (including anonymous ones), inciting unrest, sending in bane venom charms, and aggressive dominion pushing (as well as anything else in this spirit). You each also agree not to send in any non-scouting stealth units (troops or thugs, though assassins or spies are ok) through each other’s territory without first getting permission. This agreement does not cover globals, so casting Utterdark, Astral Corruption, or anything which does not specifically target a single nation does not violate it. Snatching up independents, cutting off expansion paths, etc. does not violate this agreement, so you are agreeing to give notice of cancellation even if your counterpart is being a jerk.

Alliance. You each agree to advance each other’s interests for the duration of the alliance. This includes all PA commitments, as well as not taking actions which hurt your ally without consulting him (Utterdark, cutting off his expansion paths, etc.), and making an honest effort to help where you can at a reasonable cost to yourself (supplying needed magic items, trading gems 1:1, etc.). Alliances are commonly formed “until we defeat Abyssia” or something like that, but may also use a X turn notification format. Note, unless you’re playing in a game with recognized team victories the assumption is that you’ll one day have to fight your ally so it is very reasonable for your ally to give notice and attack you despite a long and beneficial alliance.


Well, what do you think? I think that covers the bulk of what people use without making it too complicated nor having to make extensive negotiations every time.

[Jazzepi]

I was a little surprised by someone's definition of a 3 turn NAP in Happy Days. I was notified after 3 turns that our NAP had expired, and asked if I wanted to renew it, they seemed eager so I went ahead and did just that.

It just caught me off guard that they were basically counting down the NAP's expiration from the day that it was made, instead of keeping it until it's decidedly broken.

Jazzepi

[tromper]

I think that about a fourth of the people that I've made NAPS with break them whenever they feel like. During the actual agreed upon length. Alliances are broken non-stop as well.

Therefore, they mean, basically, nothing. But hey, in certain games that are RP or have pre-ordained diplomacy rules (be they yay or nay as to enforcement, but understood all the same), they add a lot.

*shrug*

[lch]

Didn't we have at least one thread like that already?

[Baalz]

I don't really want to get into the issue of breaking agreements which has been discussed at length elsewhere, I just wanted to come up with more rigorous definitions than NAP - which is a near meaningless term given the variation of what people apparently think it means. Seems like as things stand most every point I elaborate on above some people think are covered under a NAP and some people don't, and I've seen several different takes on what "3 turns" constitute, and I think all the other thread did was confirm how ambiguous the term NAP is.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I greatly prefer extensive negotiations, myself. The negotiations often give me time to gauge the strength of my opponent and whether it is a worthwhile cause. They also let me throw in a few helpful exceptions, such as utterdarkness.

But one of the clearest shorthand abbreviations for a NAP was a 10+3 NAP. The first was minimum length and the latter was warning. To even further lessen the possibility of confusion, you could go #M+#W. For instance, a nonagression pact that can be canceled at any time with three turns of warning would be notarized 0M+3W.

[atul]

What I find interesting is that some people don't have a respect for rules of asymmetric warfare: when you're the small victim, a lot more goes. Big guys must act honorable to keep face, equal opponents should respect each other, but when you're a lot smaller punching low is sometimes the only available option.

But then again, I'm from a small country. And the fact that in love and asymmetric warfare everything goes is learned in the cradle. Guess that's why I try to pick on someone I consider stronger than me as an opponent, feel it's more justified that way.

To me, "3 turns" is 3 turns of not attacking after cancelation, but if I'm the canceling party in superior position, I don't start crying foul if I get sucker-punched. Because I expect at least an attempt of it. Other thoughts regarding NAP are found in the earlier thread.

...and I really don't understand how casting Burden of Time or Astral Corruption without prior written consent could NOT mean instant cancellation of any deals whatsoever... You hurt me, I hurt you.

[Baalz]

Oh, by all means negotiate as much as you like. I find myself that I'm constantly requested to form NAPs (with no further definition), which is a bit silly if nobody even agrees what that term means. Those of you who don't currently use NAPs because you find them meaningless or because you like to negotiate all pact details aren't really who this thread is aimed at. Heck, maybe nobody else will find this useful and I'll just use this for my own negotiations with a link to this thread.

[Baalz]

atul said:
...and I really don't understand how casting Burden of Time or Astral Corruption without prior written consent could NOT mean instant cancellation of any deals whatsoever... You hurt me, I hurt you.

See, that's my point, the unspoken assumptions differ so much. What about casting Arcane Nexus, or Forge of the Ancients? What about something more mild? It's kind of surprised me in the past that people who I've had a NAP with (but no alliance) acted considerably betrayed when I acted against their interest. To me a Peace Agreement means I'm not going to attack you, but I certainly might try to undermine you if its in my interest and I expect the same in return.

[atul]

Well, there's the difference between "good for only me" and "lowering your income and killing all your troops" globals, wouldn't you think? Well, I'd consider doing harm a clear violation and harming my interest a reason to begin canceling the NAP. But usually I also inform what's my beef and there have been many times when swift words have been taken back when each one's motives have been found.