MP EA Oceans of Land - (Noob game) [running] - Page 9

GrudgeBringer · #81 March 29th, 2010, 12:00 AM

Well (lol) as you can see there are a LOT of different interpretations of a nap and how people will react to them....Science Pro has a good point about CTing in vs stealth armies already in your territory.

Just do what you feel is right and people will take it as they will I guess. I will take it different than alot of people but I also treat naps different than a lot of people.

Swan · #82 March 29th, 2010, 04:07 AM

Just saying i'm ok starting fryday

Yskonyn · #83 March 29th, 2010, 04:39 AM

This question probably shows my noob status: But aren't the only units able to move into territory of other players the stealth units?
As far as I know you can't designate an ally or a NAP in game so the game knows what is friendly territory, can you? It's only between players via a message or out of game comms. I thought moving an army into another players territory will always start a battle if there is a defending force present?

Am I missing something here?
(Good morning, by the way!

)

Doo · #84 March 29th, 2010, 04:58 AM

I'll agree to starting Friday then as well.

As for "I thought moving an army into another players territory will always start a battle if there is a defending force present?" yes this is true.

As way of further explanation: CTing vs stealthing in. To start a battle in a distant province on the turn a nap ends you could either spend the remaining turns of the nap to slowly move a stealth army to the province and unstealth once the nap ends, or on the last turn you can use the Cloud Trapeze (http://dom3.servegame.com/wiki/Cloud_Trapeze) spell to "teleport" there. One way contravenes the nap, the other way doesn't.

Yskonyn · #85 March 29th, 2010, 05:23 AM

Like Grudge said; NAP's are a very complicated thing and we'd have a hard time to make specific rules up for it outlining what will be deemed fair and what not. As seen from the discussion a few posts back people have different sentiments about it and what one does find appropriate, the other doesn't.
So I guess we will have to freewheel a bit here, but remember what Grudge told you; people will remember.

I do, however, want to outline a few basic points as I already did in the first post. But I feel it's incomplete or not correct as it is now.
What is the common 'buffer' used in games after a break of any pact/alliance and before the fighting can start? 3 turns? It's now listed as only 1, which I made up myself.
I seem to gather from your discussions here that a 3 turn buffer is more common?

GrudgeBringer · #86 March 29th, 2010, 06:03 AM

Any amount of turns is OK, some like 3 and others like 5. I have even seen a 10 turn no attack rule for the first 10 turns (I think David and Golith was like that) because it was a noob game and they wanted everyone to expand freely, to give them a chance to get their feet on the ground.

I played in that game and I like that rule for new guys.

But I would let nations set there own time frame.

Yskonyn · #87 March 29th, 2010, 06:16 AM

Ok I hereby confirm the buffer is set to 3 turns. So when you declare an alliance is void you cannot attack the victim for three turns.
On the matter of NAP's we need to keep it simple; IF the NAP is registered here on the forum it is binding. If you have secret agreements (ones not made public here on the forum) they can be broken at your own risk.

Secondly, how do you guys feel about a player vs player hostilies-ban for 10 turns? This mean people can build up their empire for 10 turns where you are allowed to expand and attack independents, but are not allowed to attack other players?

Also the first turn will commence on friday. So everyone has enough time to think about pretender and his/her strategy with the nation played and I can go abroad without having to worry about my first turns being played out like I want. Many thanks for the consideration.

The first post is updated accordingly.

Oh and one question I missed earlier: Yes, independents are set on 5.

rdonj · #88 March 29th, 2010, 06:23 AM

We also had a no attack for 10 turns rule in NvV2, which was thoroughly abused by the vets to destroy one of the players' potential economies.

As far as NAPs go, most tend to require 3 turns before hostilities can commence. But I've signed an NAP 10 before (never again), and shorter ones occur as well. Generally these are based on the needs of the individual nations. For the record, as some of you seem to be thinking of NAPs as quasi-alliances, I don't think that most players think of them like this. Whatever the case for this particular game, you should go into most games with the expectation that, at some point, the guy you have an NAP with may try something funny even if you are still under the NAP. Usually you will not get attacked under the flag of an NAP with no warning, but there are players who will ignore this even in binding diplo games.

Yskonyn · #89 March 29th, 2010, 06:32 AM

That's why I only listed the 3 turn limit rule for Alliances. Maybe we should up that to 5, to indicate its significance in relation to NAP's.
See the first post for the current 'rules'. NAP's are only binding if they're made known publicly here in this thread. Any secret agreements are at your own risk.
I've seen NAP's been signed with a specific turn count right from the start; say player A and B agree upon a NAP-5. This means, afaik, that for 5 turns they will not attack or otherwise harm eachother (including economic harm). After 5 turns it ends and it should be renewed by both players to keep it intact. Now, if this agreement was registered on the forum it is binding. If it is not, they're on their own when one decides to backstab the other.

Of course there is no game system in place to limit players from doing stuff to other players even when we say here those agreements are binding. But there is no way to counter this anyway. Like Grudge said, people will remember.

SciencePro · #90 March 29th, 2010, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yskonyn

On the matter of NAP's we need to keep it simple; IF the NAP is registered here on the forum it is binding. If you have secret agreements (ones not made public here on the forum) they can be broken at your own risk.

That is a good policy i think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yskonyn

Secondly, how do you guys feel about a player vs player hostilies-ban for 10 turns? This mean people can build up their empire for 10 turns where you are allowed to expand and attack independents, but are not allowed to attack other players?

that's fine by me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yskonyn

The first post is updated accordingly.

Thanks!