MP: EA Oceans of Land - (Noob game) [running]

[GrudgeBringer]

I think the forum binding rule is a good thing..I am all for it.

I think if a person wants a shorter nap, that it be left up to the player's doing the nap. We don't want someone NOT making a nap because they think 3 or 5 turns are to binding.

I have no problem with the 10 turn rule (we had that in David and Goliath and it worked very well) But I think you have to make a stipulation that you can NOT take a province in those 10 turns that border another nations Capitol. If you don't have that provision, I may take 2 provinces bordering your Capital and stock them with troops, on turn 11 I attack your cap and besiege it. You are done for the most part.

If you take it by accident (can't always see whats next to it), you must back out leaving NO PD in it...if it has not been taken back by turn 10...its yours.

Friday is fine for the start wth me.

[Doo]

Can we have renaming ON please?

[Yskonyn]

Great idea Grudge, I will update the first post accordingly!

Doo, renaming has already been enabled on Llama. So yes, you can have it.

To clarify a bit more in the 'buffer' I was talking about a few posts back (and as explained in the first post of this thread):
The 'buffer' I was talking about was the amound of turns you cannot commence hostile action against the other player after you have broken an alliance.
So if you want to cease having an alliance with player X, you notify him or her, then the 3 turns start where you cannot attack player X so he has some time to prepare and settle for the broken alliance.

This has nothing to do with NAPs. You make and brake NAP's just like Gudge suggested. You agree with the other player how you want your NAP and if its then registered on the forums its binding, if not you're on your own.
How many turns you want the NAP to hold is entirely up to the two players to decide amongst themselves.

First post is ammended accordingly. Feel free to post any questions.

I am all for the first 10 turns no hostilities pact myself as well. Including Grudge's tips to prevent the abuse rdonj was talking about.

[Yskonyn]

Ok people a few things:

First, I've misunderstuud the common NAP practise and to prevent us new players ending up in discussions over this in other games, the NAP rules are a bit different than what I have outlined before.
I thought if two players would agree on a NAP-5, for example, this was a non-agression pact for 5 turns. After this you either renew or you cease to have it.
It turns out that the most common use is different:
If two players agree on a NAP-5 those two players have a NAP until either of them cancel it, but then those 5 turns start where you are NOT allowed to attack still. Only after the 5 turns have passed you can commence hostilities.
For a NAP-3 this would be three turns and so on.
My appoligies for the confusion. The first post is ammended.

We have about half of the players now who like the idea of the 10 turn no hostilities pact at the start of the game, but I need you all to cast a vote please so we can decide if we add it to the game or not. Most votes wins.

Finally, I will be out of the country from now on, so Grudge is the man to turn to.
He ammends any rules might there be any changes needed and otherwise the game starts like we have decided upon now. The latest version of the first post in this thread should always be leading. (Except we are waiting for the 10 turn no attacks upon start at the moment).

Good luck with your preperations and I will see you all on friday!

[Doo]

10 turn no hostilities: Yes

[Trumanator]

Far be it from me to tell you guys how to run your game, but imo a ten turn no-rush rule is warping the game experience and simply putting off the need to learn how to defend against a rush. Since you lack experienced players, presumably any early rushes that do happen will be fairly straightforward and should be perfectly counterable. There really aren't many rushes that can happen inside ten turns anyway, and your settings have left out many of the nations capable of them, so I feel that the rule might not be necessary.

It is of course your game, and feel perfectly free to ignore me at your own discretion.

[Dark Kitty]

I'm also in favor of no hostilities during ten turns.

[earcaraxe]

I oppose the 10-turn no-hostlities rule. My reasons are:

1) won't help you significantly (or at all) if you are on the receiving side of rushing.
2) takes out excitement from the first 10 turns.
3) its an extra rule with very minimal effect (and it will make our game even more special).

and in my opinion these outweight the benefits.

...

I think the same (3rd point) about "overmaking" the rules of NAPs, for instance: making it mandatory to announce on forum or making it "binding", etc.. to sum up: making it an "official" term with given rules.

A NAP-breaker will be "punished" - given publicity - by community (for example with loss of popularity which i consider important in a game with diplomacy), just like it happens with breakers of given words in life. Of course, one can get away with it with skill and under some circumstances (just like in life), but this natural reaction adds price to agreement-breaking. My opinion - which is based on my experience ofc - is that its rare enough case for one to break his word to consider alliances and NAPs unstable (and im not living in some utopia).

To sum up: i think the argument (about NAPs) is about this: is it worth to improve reliability of NAPs (and other in-game agreements) by adding new rules?

[Squirrelloid]

Just a quick note on offensive global enchantments and NAPs.

Something like Utterdark and BoT will almost always be seen as a violation of a NAP and justification for immediate reprisal, but something like Wrath of God may not be, and something like The Wild Hunt or the admiral guy almost certainly won't be. It is of course best to talk with your treaty partners before casting a global which will negatively impact them, but if your ally does drop something kind of inconvenient, you might consider your allies intentions in casting it and his ability to target it.

(Wrath of God is strongest in caster's dominion, so if his dominion doesn't impinge on your lands, its not as threatening to you. Wild Hunt cannot be steered at all, and effects random commanders, so he isn't trying to specifically attack you. it may be worthwhile in such cases to formally announce ending the NAP instead of considering it broken, or it may be worthwhile to press your ally for an accomodation regarding it - such as a fee every time the global targets you.)

[GrudgeBringer]

Earcaraxe, I understand your point and sometimes you can OVER CORRECT for anything.

However, The binding part of the nap. You have never been in a game that an argument goes on in the game forum for 3 days and gets VERY bitter because someone has broken or misunderstood a Nap in the amount of turns or the provisions etc. It spoils the game for the rest of the people and sometimes brings in other comments that start bad blood.

So, most of us have found that the 'easiest' way to stop those kind of arguments is to put the Nap provisions (if any) and the amount of time in the forum for all to see...IF you want it to be 'binding'.

Just because it is in the forum doesn't mean someone WON'T break it, it just means that the Nap breaker is exposed for who he is, and some of the people will either put 'Sanctions' Financial or otherwise, hit him with spells like hurricane, monster boar, or outright take the side of the other Nation and break off ties and attack.

Depends on your outlook, but for the most part it goes to how you view that person when playing with him agian. I mean, even if you think it is ok to break a nap, you will still keep an eye out for him in another game. I guess that is all it does.

As far as the 10 turn rule goes, it is a 2 sided coin. Example, my first MP game I got the bad luck to be placed close to Argatha. I played Marverni and had Baal's guide in my lap and eager to go. On turn four, while my army was trying to get my expansion going and was away....Argatha stumbled upon my capitol and I was for the most part out of the game (I managed to last 12 turns). It was a miserable experience for a first game and I learned absouletly nothing except to perhaps be too cautious.

I have played in 2 10 turn Nap at start games, and both I think went well. While I agree with my friend Trumanator, I also think that it gives a new guy at least a chance to get going and maybe defend himself a little and see what it is all about.

Early rushers are early rushers, and they will just have more time to prepare. Turtles will still turtle and give them more time to prepare. And new guys will stumble around some and give them more time to find there balance.

So I guess it took a dissertation to say I agree with Yko's thinking. IF the majority wants it, we will have it, I can take care of myself either way so I have no axe to grind.

BTW, it is not MANDATORY that you put the Naps in the forum, just no whining if you get stabbed in the back if you have a private Nap. I myself usually have both kinds.