.com.unity Forums
  The Official e-Store of Shrapnel Games

This Month's Specials

Raging Tiger- Save $9.00
winSPMBT: Main Battle Tank- Save $5.00

   







Go Back   .com.unity Forums > Illwinter Game Design > Dominions 3: The Awakening

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 13th, 2012, 09:42 PM

bbz bbz is offline
First Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 624
Thanks: 34
Thanked 23 Times in 18 Posts
bbz is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Nap-3

Quote:
Originally Posted by legowarrior View Post
Personally (although I NEVER play it this way, cause it isn't widely accepted) I'd like to have the NAP 3 to mean that I give you three turns warning that I will break the truce (following Mattyburn's explanation in the beginning of the thread) but that my opponent is free to strike at me ASAP. After all, I'm the one wants to break the NAP, and much like breaking a contract, the party breaking the NAP must pay for the consequences. Now as soon as my opponent strikes me, or 3 turns are up (which ever comes first) war begins.

Again, this is not the consensus in this forum, and I don't play that way, but I think it makes breaking NAPS a slightly riskier play, and makes it harder to double cross other people. Than again, I'm a nice guy.
How you can look at it is: Every month after you agreed to a NAP-3 you sign it over and over again unless stated otherwise and that means that there won't be any aggressive actions for 3 months. And when you decide to stop signing that treaty. The 3 month period starts expiring for real.
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old April 13th, 2012, 10:26 PM
Vanguard X's Avatar

Vanguard X Vanguard X is offline
Private
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Coming soon to a battlefield near you
Posts: 48
Thanks: 4
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Vanguard X is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Nap-3

I am a noob, and I am glad this question was asked.

I was under the impression that NAP-3 meant: Non Aggression Pact- lasting for 3 turns. After that 3 turn period, NAP is over- attack at will.

To me it seems silly to give a 3 turn notice before smashing an opponent. I thought this game was about war!

Apparently, I would find more suitable diplomatic relationships in a 'free-for-all' or 'machiavellian' style game. Not that I am one to back off of my agreements, but more because that is how I expect other players to be, and enjoy finding out if they really are, or are not.

P.S. I am thoroughly impressed by the fact that somebody made a MOD based off of the old-school Avalon Hill 'Diplomacy' game. That's just so cool!
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old April 14th, 2012, 08:27 AM

legowarrior legowarrior is offline
Second Lieutenant
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 412
Thanks: 19
Thanked 18 Times in 5 Posts
legowarrior is on a distinguished road
Default Re: Nap-3

Quote:
Originally Posted by bbz View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by legowarrior View Post
Personally (although I NEVER play it this way, cause it isn't widely accepted) I'd like to have the NAP 3 to mean that I give you three turns warning that I will break the truce (following Mattyburn's explanation in the beginning of the thread) but that my opponent is free to strike at me ASAP. After all, I'm the one wants to break the NAP, and much like breaking a contract, the party breaking the NAP must pay for the consequences. Now as soon as my opponent strikes me, or 3 turns are up (which ever comes first) war begins.

Again, this is not the consensus in this forum, and I don't play that way, but I think it makes breaking NAPS a slightly riskier play, and makes it harder to double cross other people. Than again, I'm a nice guy.
How you can look at it is: Every month after you agreed to a NAP-3 you sign it over and over again unless stated otherwise and that means that there won't be any aggressive actions for 3 months. And when you decide to stop signing that treaty. The 3 month period starts expiring for real.
I see it as a contract myself, and if you break contract, just like in the real world, you have to pay the penalty. Like I said, it isn't a widely accepted definition (yet), but I think it makes sense. Why should the defensive player have to pay the same penalty as the aggressor.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.