|
|
|
|
 |
|
March 26th, 2008, 02:46 AM
|
|
Private
|
|
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 24
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
|
|
Re: A novice question about MP.
Yup yup, I got mad because other player didn't promise anything but you did break our NAP. So I wanted that other player to take all my lands and then crush you. And it worked out, like a last laugh. Good that you learned your lesson though.
|
March 26th, 2008, 02:57 AM
|
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,133
Thanks: 25
Thanked 59 Times in 36 Posts
|
|
Re: A novice question about MP.
you bastard. oh well. it was still good fun. mucho lulz.
|
March 26th, 2008, 08:20 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Portland, ME (USA)
Posts: 3,241
Thanks: 31
Thanked 65 Times in 18 Posts
|
|
Re: A novice question about MP.
You're right. A NAP is not an alliance or even a collaboration. It just means the players do not want war *for now*. There can only be 1 winner, unless it is a team game, and so, war is inevitable (unless the players otherwise get defeated by other nations).
|
March 26th, 2008, 08:31 AM
|
|
General
|
|
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 3,327
Thanks: 4
Thanked 133 Times in 117 Posts
|
|
Re: A novice question about MP.
I wouldn't go anywhere near as far as saying " when you see one past around turn 5, be suspicious." I never offer NAPs to nations I haven't even found yet. Rarely if we don't share a border or expect to shortly share one. Nor have I gotten many offers from distant nations.
So a NAP offer later in the game means: "Hey, looks like we're going to be neighbors. Are you willing to be peaceful or do you want to fight?"
|
March 26th, 2008, 08:46 AM
|
 |
General
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Japan
Posts: 3,691
Thanks: 269
Thanked 397 Times in 200 Posts
|
|
Re: A novice question about MP.
Quote:
JZ said:
Yup yup, I got mad because other player didn't promise anything but you did break our NAP. So I wanted that other player to take all my lands and then crush you. And it worked out, like a last laugh. Good that you learned your lesson though.
|
I'm confused. He broke the NAP by ignoring the expiry period and attacking immediately?
Or you got mad because you had a NAP, but he sent the notice of termination and then attacked after the expiry period was over? That's not "breaking a NAP", it's "canceling a NAP".
__________________
Whether he submitted the post, or whether he did not, made no difference. The Thought Police would get him just the same. He had committed— would still have committed, even if he had never set pen to paper— the essential crime that contained all others in itself. Thoughtcrime, they called it. Thoughtcrime was not a thing that could be concealed forever.
http://z7.invisionfree.com/Dom3mods/index.php?
|
March 26th, 2008, 09:48 AM
|
|
BANNED USER
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 1,133
Thanks: 25
Thanked 59 Times in 36 Posts
|
|
Re: A novice question about MP.
Quote:
vfb said:
Quote:
JZ said:
Yup yup, I got mad because other player didn't promise anything but you did break our NAP. So I wanted that other player to take all my lands and then crush you. And it worked out, like a last laugh. Good that you learned your lesson though.
|
I'm confused. He broke the NAP by ignoring the expiry period and attacking immediately?
Or you got mad because you had a NAP, but he sent the notice of termination and then attacked after the expiry period was over? That's not "breaking a NAP", it's "canceling a NAP".
|
Our peace ended at turn 24, and I sent the notice on turn 19. So even once the NAP was fulfilled, the peace term would have two more months left. I suppose I could say I've never broken a NAP then, just a peace treaty. But why have a NAP and a peace treaty? |
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
