Nap-3

[Soyweiser]

Or just stop putting to much faith into NAPs.

[legowarrior]

Well, I for one give plenty of notice.

[legowarrior]

Personally (although I NEVER play it this way, cause it isn't widely accepted) I'd like to have the NAP 3 to mean that I give you three turns warning that I will break the truce (following Mattyburn's explanation in the beginning of the thread) but that my opponent is free to strike at me ASAP. After all, I'm the one wants to break the NAP, and much like breaking a contract, the party breaking the NAP must pay for the consequences. Now as soon as my opponent strikes me, or 3 turns are up (which ever comes first) war begins.

Again, this is not the consensus in this forum, and I don't play that way, but I think it makes breaking NAPS a slightly riskier play, and makes it harder to double cross other people. Than again, I'm a nice guy.

[bbz]

Originally Posted by legowarrior

Personally (although I NEVER play it this way, cause it isn't widely accepted) I'd like to have the NAP 3 to mean that I give you three turns warning that I will break the truce (following Mattyburn's explanation in the beginning of the thread) but that my opponent is free to strike at me ASAP. After all, I'm the one wants to break the NAP, and much like breaking a contract, the party breaking the NAP must pay for the consequences. Now as soon as my opponent strikes me, or 3 turns are up (which ever comes first) war begins.

Again, this is not the consensus in this forum, and I don't play that way, but I think it makes breaking NAPS a slightly riskier play, and makes it harder to double cross other people. Than again, I'm a nice guy.

How you can look at it is: Every month after you agreed to a NAP-3 you sign it over and over again unless stated otherwise and that means that there won't be any aggressive actions for 3 months. And when you decide to stop signing that treaty. The 3 month period starts expiring for real.

[Vanguard X]

I am a noob, and I am glad this question was asked.

I was under the impression that NAP-3 meant: Non Aggression Pact- lasting for 3 turns. After that 3 turn period, NAP is over- attack at will.

To me it seems silly to give a 3 turn notice before smashing an opponent. I thought this game was about war!

Apparently, I would find more suitable diplomatic relationships in a 'free-for-all' or 'machiavellian' style game. Not that I am one to back off of my agreements, but more because that is how I expect other players to be, and enjoy finding out if they really are, or are not.

P.S. I am thoroughly impressed by the fact that somebody made a MOD based off of the old-school Avalon Hill 'Diplomacy' game. That's just so cool!

[legowarrior]

Originally Posted by bbz

How you can look at it is: Every month after you agreed to a NAP-3 you sign it over and over again unless stated otherwise and that means that there won't be any aggressive actions for 3 months. And when you decide to stop signing that treaty. The 3 month period starts expiring for real.

I see it as a contract myself, and if you break contract, just like in the real world, you have to pay the penalty. Like I said, it isn't a widely accepted definition (yet), but I think it makes sense. Why should the defensive player have to pay the same penalty as the aggressor.

[bbz]

No but the "aggressor" doesn't break any contracts, he just doesn't want to sign the new ones for 3 more months. I don't see anything wrong in that (otherwise if you think about it there is no point to specify a number if it is the way you see it since it is unlimited in length o.O so no point in the number 3). The contract is "broken" by the guy that attacks with no warning, and he pays the price by staining his name as unreliable.

So all the other people that are "reliable" can attack him whenever (and still remain "reliable"). (If someone breaks his nap-3 with anyone, I personally don't feel obliged to follow up my Nap with that person anymore, so I can attack him anytime I want, since he has shown that his aggreements can not be trusted) And not only in one game in all the games that I play with that person.

[Calahan]

@ legowarrior

Your idea of how NAP agreements are cancelled has been suggested before.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=40012

Unfortunately (in regards to the merit of the idea) it was suggested by the all time master Court Jester and all round laughing stock of the community, and was wildly regarded as one of the stupidest ideas ever seen on these forums (which was a real achievement considering the regularity he came up with such rubbish).

It was mainly consider bad because it's easily possible in just 3 turns (typical length of NAPs) to have conquered every enemy province, and have every fort under siege. So while this idea might work in other games, in Dominions it is just simply out of the question. As if anyone is dumb enough to just sit there and let someone conquer all of their lands, and kill all their troops just to honour an agreement, then they really need their head examined.

And you can try to say that's the price of cancelling a NAP, but when applied to practice it would mean it is virtually impossible to cancel a NAP with an major nation without instantly condemning yourself to defeat. And that scenario is seriously terrible for all sorts of obvious reasons. Not least becuase enough turlting (and terrible strategic play) goes on anyway, without applying such hand-tieing binds. (as such this idea just won't work in Dominions)

[legowarrior]

Originally Posted by Calahan

@ legowarrior

Your idea of how NAP agreements are cancelled has been suggested before.

http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=40012

Unfortunately (in regards to the merit of the idea) it was suggested by the all time master Court Jester and all round laughing stock of the community, and was wildly regarded as one of the stupidest ideas ever seen on these forums (which was a real achievement considering the regularity he came up with such rubbish).

It was mainly consider bad because it's easily possible in just 3 turns (typical length of NAPs) to have conquered every enemy province, and have every fort under siege. So while this idea might work in other games, in Dominions it is just simply out of the question. As if anyone is dumb enough to just sit there and let someone conquer all of their lands, and kill all their troops just to honour an agreement, then they really need their head examined.

And you can try to say that's the price of cancelling a NAP, but when applied to practice it would mean it is virtually impossible to cancel a NAP with an major nation without instantly condemning yourself to defeat. And that scenario is seriously terrible for all sorts of obvious reasons. Not least becuase enough turlting (and terrible strategic play) goes on anyway, without applying such hand-tieing binds. (as such this idea just won't work in Dominions)

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. Here, allow me to draw your eye to the appropriate spot.

This is the important part "Now as soon as my opponent strikes me, or 3 turns are up (which ever comes first) war begins. "

So, here would be a scenario.

My opponent cancels the NAP 3.
Turn 1 (Turn the message is received) I can order my attacks against my opponent on this turn. If I don't, we both sit on our thumbs, but let us assume that I do attack.
Turn 2 (Opponent has been attacked) My opponent can now retaliate,
and order attacks against me, the NAP is over.
Turn 2 (Opponent hasn't been attacked) My opponent must honor the NAP this turn.
Turn 3 (Opponent has been attacked) My opponent can now retaliate,
and order attacks against me, the NAP is over.
Turn 3 (Opponent hasn't been attacked) My opponent must honor the NAP this turn.
Turn 4 (Doesn't matter) Both sides can go to war.

So, in my suggestion for NAP, I don't just wait 3 turns to be gunned down like a moron if I cancel the NAP. Instead, when I cancel the NAP, I wait 3 turns OR until after I get attacked myself.
This means that the NAP allows your opponent the option of first strike, nothing more.

[Valerius]

Having the first strike is a pretty big advantage. It's also worth noting that the very act of giving notice on a NAP is already a penalty to the attacker since they presumably are ready to fight and could otherwise get the advantage of surprise. Speaking for myself, I'd never agree to something that gave someone a free shot at me.