How do you define a NAP?

kasnavada · #1 April 4th, 2008, 11:59 AM

I more or less stick to agema's definition, and I also consider massing large amount of troops (100, 300+ depending on the map) near a border a possible breach of NAP.

thejeff · #2 April 4th, 2008, 12:14 PM

I also generally specify that only scout are allowed to sneak through, though I'll usually grant permission if requested.

Using the NAP period to fill my lands with spies, assassins and/or stealthy troops to incite/kill/attack deep within my kingdom on the turn the NAP expires is something I wish to avoid. Obviously, if I don't find them I can't claim the deal is broken, but if I do...

Tuidjy · #3 April 4th, 2008, 07:59 PM

I require that I am imformed if something 'stompy' is crossing my lands without
being set on 'retreat'. I also will complain about a wall of temples being
built on my border, or about blood sacrifice. As a matter of fact, I am
about to cancel a NAP because of that. (not break it, although I was tempted)

But in a game where I have inherited a low dominion from the previous player,
building temples on a border where your dominion is already one province deep
into my lands is clearly a provocation.

Ylvali · #4 April 4th, 2008, 11:27 PM

In one of my games there is "NAP until player X is dead" interesting variant I think.

Xietor · #5 April 5th, 2008, 02:07 AM

When i give someone a nap, they can rest assured that no spell, whether it can be traced to me or not, is being cast on them by me. I broadly define non aggression pact as doing nothing hostile towards that race.

I like to think my pretender can ascend even without my "getting my hands dirty." Get your hands dirty enough, you get a bad rep and one day players may not make a nap with you, and you may find yourself the 1 vs. the 2 that starts every game.

Foodstamp · #6 April 5th, 2008, 02:10 AM

Quote:

Ylvali said:
In one of my games there is "NAP until player X is dead" interesting variant I think.

I have fun playing MP for a bit. Then the various NAPs like this turn me off the game again for a little while.

Eventually I forgot how incestuous MP games are and a I am a glutton for punishment once again

.

moderation · #7 April 5th, 2008, 02:37 AM

Incestuous? I suppose that is a pretty good description.

Foodstamp · #8 April 5th, 2008, 02:44 AM

No joke one EA game we had gotten down to about a dozen players and 8-10 of them were in an alliance. Not NAP, but alliance. I was R'lyeh and the other guy not in the alliance was Niefelheim.

One of them declared war on me and the next turn pretty much all my provinces was hit by rituals from everybody on the map.

Eventually I think the game was left unfinished because they would not attack one another. It just staled until it was taken down. Funny stuff.