Reverse Nap

DonCorazon · #1 August 8th, 2008, 07:13 PM

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 · #2 August 8th, 2008, 07:59 PM

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

Jazzepi

JimMorrison · #3 August 8th, 2008, 08:05 PM

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 · #4 August 8th, 2008, 08:23 PM

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 · #5 August 8th, 2008, 08:30 PM

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

DonCorazon · #6 August 8th, 2008, 08:42 PM

I'd laugh at the guy trying to get me to pay 2000gp as I invaded his lands.