Nap-3

[legowarrior]

Than never sign up for a NAP. Simple.

[Calahan]

Originally Posted by legowarrior

I'm pretty sure you just didn't read the post very well. Obviously 3 turns is enough time to destroy someone, and I'm not suggesting that.

My apologies legowarrior, you are indeed right that I didn't read your post correctly. As at first glance it sounded the same as the idea I linked to (which I remember well), but upon re-reading what you wrote I can see your wording has a very important difference.

[legowarrior]

It's all good. I don't even use my own definition of NAPs in game, since it's not a commonly used way to play it.

[Procyon Lotor]

Actually, I really like Vanguard's idea (the Non-Aggression Pact that lasts 3 turns.) Maybe call it a 3-NAP. As mentioned in this thread, the NAP-3 really hamstrings you as an attacker, as you lose the advantage of prior preparation. With the 3-NAP (or 5-NAP, 10-NAP, whatever), you have a period of safety, but the lurking possibility of war. The X-NAP would force you to renegotiate extensions at the end of the agreement, which could be very interesting. For example, perhaps my more powerful neighbor wants to renew/extend the expiring X-NAP, but given his apparent ability to crush me, he demands a certain well-situated border province. While you could have this conversation in a NAP-3 (I'll declare war in three turns if you don't cede the province) I'm not sure that conversation is in the spirit of the agreement.

[Legendary League]

In regards to NAPs, they typically follow the length and duration that matty has outlined (but you can certainly create an NAP following what Vanguard has proposed, but you'd need to outline that specifically). NAPs however are just one diplomatic tool at your disposal, and in most games where diplomacy isn't rigidly enforced, you have quite alot of leeway in your dealings (esp. in regards to interstate relations). Maintaining an NAP is always well and good (particularly if you keep a reputation for honoring them), but players often tend to be overly blinded by them into extending them to a point where it is detrimental to their own position. A reverse prisoner's dilemma, if you will. This has happened to me in my first MP games, to the point where I played completely reactively (even in no diplo games). I'm moving myself into a more proactive mindset, but that's the pitfall of relying on NAPs overly much.

As for what an NAP means in terms of limitations, well. I personally feel it's limited to direct (and blatant indirect) aggression. There is only one winner at the end of the game, so sending in spies and scouts into enemy territory to scout is perfectly acceptable. It's also perfectly acceptable to instill uprisings, up until you're caught. Similarly, it is possible to use Hurricanes against an NAP'd nation if there are four nations who can cast it, and have reason to do so against said nation; in which case plausible deniability can come into play (i.e., who really sent the hurricane, and how do they know which provinces to target?]). If the enemy nation has hidden thugs in all your provinces in preparation for an alpha strike (for the expiration of an NAP), that too is acceptable so long as they aren't discovered. I also feel the same way about diplomacy with other nations regarding NAP partner (that is, it is perfectly valid to share intelligence, raise suspicions, and to form coalitions against an NAP partner, or to aid their enemies through trades, etc., provided you yourself do not undertake direct aggressive actions against NAP'd nation). Ultimately, NAPs are signed to further the purpose of a nation: in that case, it is to prevent aggressive attacks or moves against your nation from a neighbor, and to buy time from that front as you build up your own base of power.

Signers of NAPs do so under the knowledge that the NAP is not permanent, and will be cancelled eventually (and both nations will come into conflict, if they survive).

Now I personally don't go to these lengths (and indeed, hold my actions to a very high standard of non-aggression), but that is in my opinion the fundamental limits of an NAP. You can certainly define the NAP in more detailed format to cover these bases, of course, and to delineate what is considered aggressive behavior confined by an NAP (blood sacrifices on the border, for example, can definitely be considered such an action, whilst hidden thugs preparing to alpha strike aren't, because the first has malicious intent, is blatant, and is clearly aggressive action undertaken during the NAP, whilst the latter is also malicious, but is nominally stealthy and is maneuvering to prepare for an aggressive strike after the NAP expires).

[mattyburn7]

I'm really glad this post came up. I had a lot of these questions (Particularly regarding stealthy combat troops, spies and ritual spells) and it appears that different players consider non-direction aggression differently.

Probably most important thing is if you aren't sure, then clarify it ahead of time. Especially if you are playing someone with stealthy troops who could plant a big surprise.

I don't want to go to far off-topic but one other area of contention I've seen is with rollbacks. My personal philosophy is that sometimes in war bad luck happens and just missing a turn or having the Game engine do some bizarre/broken or anything else that may suggest a rollback is just that. A random act that was bad luck. In other words I would say never a rollback(perhaps the chess player in me. Touch it, you move it. Hand lets go and it stays there). I do understand and respect the frustration when you've worked hard in a long game only to be undone not by a human opponent but the misfiring of bits and bytes. Also I've heard some vets say: Never do a rollback as it can screw the game up.

So what I'm really suggesting in my ramblings is that perhaps at the start of a new game a policy is set so there is no question should the situation arise. Either no rollbacks, or a rollback under these conditions. That way if the situation does arise there is no question either way.

time to go back to work. ugh.!

[Admiral_Aorta]

good job to all the cool players in this thread giving some clarification

[Procyon Lotor]

I'm glad I raised my hand and asked the question! I almost didn't, since many folks who have posted on this thread are people that I had previously made NAP-3 agreements with. Hehe, err, sorry! I just wanted to be friendly!

The first step to gaining knowledge is to acknowledge your ignorance.

[mattyburn7]

That is a huge fault of mine. I hate to ask questions.

Honestly I was unsure about the whole stealthy spy, assassin, combat unit thing so I just decided to do scouts only to be safe. Live and Learn! and as you mentioned. Ask Questions!

[Legendary League]

Originally Posted by mattyburn7

That is a huge fault of mine. I hate to ask questions.

Honestly I was unsure about the whole stealthy spy, assassin, combat unit thing so I just decided to do scouts only to be safe. Live and Learn! and as you mentioned. Ask Questions!

Theoretically, it's all fine (provided you aren't discovered).

Realistically, it varies from player to player, and you'll want to hammer these things out beforehand. If you forget to explicitly state it (i.e. no sending in stealth units during the NAP/its expiration clause), then always assume that the other player will likely do so (and patrol religiously on your border to prevent infiltration). If you haven't stated it before, then an NAP is generally pretty wide open to anything that isn't openly/directly aggressive towards you (i.e. overcasting a global of yours, discovering spies and remotes that they're sending at you, blood sacrificing on your border).