RNap II - Page 2

Aezeal · #11 August 30th, 2008, 07:30 AM

OK that was not so nice.. I'm an especially mean person but here I tried to be nice.You are the one with the mean post, ignoring the OP specific request not to post what you did (basicly his request was exactly the thing you say to me "just skip it and don't bother me with your mean thoughts."

/me slaps Herode on the head so his IQ drops even lower

PS since I AM an especially mean person your remark as such didn't offend me, just the sillyness of it.

llamabeast · #12 August 30th, 2008, 09:45 AM

I think he just misread your post Aezeal.

Aezeal · #13 August 30th, 2008, 10:08 AM

Considering the things he wrote down he should've double checked it.

Well let's not waste more of my precious mean words on this

Aezeal · #14 August 31st, 2008, 08:55 AM

Chris sorry this discussion seems to have killed your thread, but considering all the reactions here and when you brought it up in the past I don't think it will a generally accepted way to agree on NAP's.

Don't let it stop you to try and get pplz to agree on a NAP like this in game though.

thejeff · #15 September 2nd, 2008, 09:18 AM

So, if I read the example right, Arcosephale can attack immediately, but even once he has done so, Ermor can only fight defensively until turn 15? Cannot even try to retake lost provinces?
That's a huge penalty. And a strong motivation to get the other party to break the NAP, which could be fun. And of complaints and whinging on the threads, which is not.

Or did you mean only initiate, so that once Arco attacks, Ermor is free to attack at will? Which isn't so bad. Gives a fairly small disadvantage to the party breaking the deal, which is good.

Aezeal · #16 September 2nd, 2008, 09:20 AM

Thejeff, what you say is just a regular NAP right - once someone breaks it all agreements are off...

ano · #17 September 2nd, 2008, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Or did you mean only initiate, so that once Arco attacks, Ermor is free to attack at will? Which isn't so bad. Gives a fairly small disadvantage to the party breaking the deal, which is good.

I like this idea much more. Nice option indeed.
In this case Arco has more flexible position which is really a small and fair advantage.

Quote:

Thejeff, what you say is just a regular NAP right - once someone breaks it all agreements are off...

No. NAP isn't supposed to be broken (immediate attack) if both people play fair. And if someone plays unfair NAPs have no sense at all.

chrispedersen · #18 September 5th, 2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ano

Quote:

Or did you mean only initiate, so that once Arco attacks, Ermor is free to attack at will? Which isn't so bad. Gives a fairly small disadvantage to the party breaking the deal, which is good.

I like this idea much more. Nice option indeed.
In this case Arco has more flexible position which is really a small and fair advantage.

Quote:

Thejeff, what you say is just a regular NAP right - once someone breaks it all agreements are off...

No. NAP isn't supposed to be broken (immediate attack) if both people play fair. And if someone plays unfair NAPs have no sense at all.

Giving the party deciding to break the agreement a small penalty is indeed the point of the RNAP.

Loren · #19 September 5th, 2008, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Herode

Well, I just wonder who will be foolish enough to sign a RNAP ?

And why would someone be interested in this ?

Moreover, the list of banned spells suffers the same drawback than the one discussed in the NAP thread : Strands, Forge, Nexus are not offensive and should not be in the list. Obviously, I won't never sign any NAP nor RNAP under such conditions.

If he's got dominion over some of your land Strands is offensive!