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

[Executor]

Have no fear, Marginon is near.
At least I don't have to worry bout that.

[Kojusoki]

Oh, come on... R'lyeh is not so bad...

[Bananadine]

I had a little trouble in my other game about the exact terms of an NAP, so I thought I'd spell out here what I mean by NAP before I make another one, to prevent confusion (and to let other players point out that I am breaking the common definition, if that's what I'm doing). In the future I will put in a little blurb about this in the opening post of the thread for any new game I make.

I consider an NAP3 to mean that the two nations involved will be at peace indefinitely, until one of them explicitly cancels the pact at (or very near to) the start of a turn. Then, the next three turns, including the one starting with the cancellation announcement, will be turns of peace--meaning that no battles between these two nations would be shown in their Messages. And that's all.

Particularly, this means that it would be allowed to give attack orders against the other nation involved in the pact on the third turn of peace after the cancellation--the fact that attack orders are given wouldn't make it a turn of war, by my definition. Only actual battle can do that, and the battle doesn't happen until the start of the next turn. Is this how people normally think of it? It's what makes sense to me, anyway. But that's the thing that created a misunderstanding in my other game--I was in a pact with a dude who thought that giving attack orders wasn't allowed in a turn of peace.

I don't mean to start a big debate or anything--I just hate having that kind of big, simple misunderstanding get in the way of the game.

[AdmiralZhao]

That's how I think of it too. To avoid confusion, it is polite to add "My armies will arrive on turn X and crush you".

[Bananadine]

True, but that clarifies the issue only when the pact is on its way to being cancelled, not before it's made.

[BesucherXia]

I am the person Bananadine refers to.

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".

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.

Sorry for my English since its not my native language. I believe you can inquire other verterans in the main forum if it's still not clear.

[LDiCesare]

I tend to believe that th turn of war declaration doesn't count as one of the turn delays. The NAP1 example is quite compelling.

[Hoplosternum]

Originally Posted by LDiCesare

I tend to believe that th turn of war declaration doesn't count as one of the turn delays. The NAP1 example is quite compelling.

I agree.

There are still other possibilities for confusion re overland spells and globsld.

Plus if I announce the end to the pact can my opponent attack at once or is he bound by the pact for those turns too? If he is not and he does attack me am I then still restricted on later turns - or does he by attacking end his protection early?

[LDiCesare]

Originally Posted by Hoplosternum

There are still other possibilities for confusion re overland spells and globsld.

Plus if I announce the end to the pact can my opponent attack at once or is he bound by the pact for those turns too? If he is not and he does attack me am I then still restricted on later turns - or does he by attacking end his protection early?

My view is that spells which can be identified are breaking of the NAP. Spells are usually anonymous but if you're obviously the only one to be able to cast it...
As for globals, Burden of Time is akin to a declaration of war on everyone (well, except LA Ermor). Many other globals I wouldn't consider a breach, although the admiral and other such spells enter the category of 'attack spells'.

Both parties are bound by the delay. Your opponent's attacking you immediately because you announced the end of the NAP is a breach of the NAP.

Then again, there's no rule that says NAPs must be respected. It's "just" going to earn you a very bad reputation around here.

[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.