The Nap thread. Thread - Dominions 4: Thrones of Ascension

Right what does a nap mean? To me it means that I have to give x number of turns warning before going to war rather than a peace pact of x number of turns.

Contentious issue maybe but should be brought up again.

Edited by: Bwaha

"Non Aggression Pact". The number is usually the number of turns grace period you have to give the other player before attacking.

For instance, say you have a NAP-3 with me. You declare that you want to break it on Turn 4. You can't issue attack orders against an opponent until Turn 7.

I had a similar question a few months back on the dom3 forums.

I think I was advised (I think by Maer?) that its always best to spell out the terms so that there is no confusion. So I basically list an example of what I mean by NAP-2, down the turn notice is given as to the termination, to the turn attack orders can be given, all in the same message as the offer of the NAP-2. Its worked well for reducing confusion over the terms.

But specifically to me I make it explicit that I understand that NAP-X means waiting X turns till the attack commences. Others interpret it as X turns till attack orders are given. Under the way I describe it currently, a NAP-1 basically meaningless.

Edited by: elitesix

Yeah, spell out the terms every time. It can and will mean different things to different players. Deception and deceit is also a part of the game, so it never hurts to be clear..

I also suggest just not using the term 'NAP-X' at all. Many games do not have binding diplomacy in which case NAP-X is worth exactly the paper it isn't printed on and where there is binding diplomacy NAP-X is just kind of lazy and promotes sloppy play. There are more specific and interesting things you can do than just spam NAP-X at the first person you meet then attack the second person you meet.

NAPs can be X turns notice or last X turns. Either is acceptable as a diplomatic tool. That's why you must define what is meant. I will add that last X turns isn't common in the shrapnel games / desura metagame, but is extremely common on SA where turn notice NAPs are usually derided.

The_Demon wrote: NAPs can be X turns notice or last X turns. Either is acceptable as a diplomatic tool. That's why you must define what is meant. I will add that last X turns isn't common in the shrapnel games / desura metagame, but is extremely common on SA where turn notice NAPs are usually derided.

Ah, true. The Den uses turn notice too.

Just keep in mind they're all made to be broken.

DegenerateArt wrote: Just keep in mind they're all made to be broken.

Pfft. There are some of us who honor them you know.

Since it's relevant, I'll re-post here what I posted in the CakeOrDeath thread, detailing how NAPs function.

baumgarm wrote: Actually, since we have a handful of people new to the multiplayer scene, let me explain one thing which has caused a great deal of misunderstanding and drama in Dominions MP games over the years: the correct handling of a Non-Aggression Pact, or NAP. The standard NAP is that two nations must give one another 3 turns of advanced notice before one invades the other. An agreement of that duration is denoted as an NAP-3. The spirit of the agreement is that the person about to be invaded should have 3 complete turns to ready themselves for said invasion.

A simple example: On turn 12 Ulm sends an in-game message to Caelum that their NAP-3 is being terminated. Caelum receives the message on turn 13 and has all of turn 13, 14, and 15 to prepare without fear of Ulm invading. On turn 15 Ulm can give the command to move his troops into Caelum's provinces because those troops don't actually arrive until turn 16. That means that the amount of time between announcing the end of the NAP-3 and actually standing in enemy territory is surprisingly long: turn 12 all the way to turn 16.

A more complicated example: Ulm submits his turn 12 shortly before the turn hosts and emails the player controlling Caelum that their NAP-3 is off. It isn't reasonable to expect Caelum's player to have the time to read the email and then re-take his turn in light of this new information, so we treat it as though Caelum received the termination announcement at the start of turn 13, just like in the previous example. If Ulm had emailed the Caelum player shortly after turn 12 came out then it is fine to assume that Caelum could use turn 12 to prepare, so in this case Ulm gets to invade a turn earlier.

What I like to do when communicating an end to an NAP is to explicitly state "...which means you and I will be able to have troops standing in each other's provinces no earlier than turn 21". It prevents a lot of game-derailing confusion and drama.

Generally speaking, catching another nation moving scouts, spies, assassins, or even stealth armies through your territory does not violate an NAP. Scouting is harmless and should cause no concerns, ever. Spies, assassins, and stealth troops should cause concern and might make you decide to end the NAP yourself, but they don't actually constitute a breach of the pact... after all, they could be moving on through your territory to screw with someone else. Also, infiltrating spies into NAP'd capitals is not a breach, but the other guy might not feel good about it. Note: if you want to move assassins and what-not through someone else's territory, it might be smart to give them a heads up so they don't get the wrong idea.

Casting anonymous spells on people you have an NAP with is a gray area that is generally allowed because it's almost impossible to prove who exactly is doing it (and sometimes bad events actually do cause frogs to rain from the sky on to your capital, reducing your income and giving your precious slow-to-recruit mages disease). However, if the other guy uses that as justification for ending the NAP, no one should be surprised.

Casting explicit remote attack spells, being caught having stealth commanders attempt to seduce or assassinate NAP'd commanders, or being caught sneaking around NAP territory with stuff like bane-venom charms (which kill population and disease units) does constitute a pact-breach and all the repercussions that come with it.

Of course, you are free to define whatever duration or conditions you want in your own agreements. I just want to state what constitutes the default so no one has any unpleasant surprises later on.

Well .. I'm playing MP for the first time right now and I just met other players.
I proposed NAPs but did not give a number of turns.
I expect them to renegotiate terms and established borders before even considering breaking NAP (at least that's what I will do)
If it comes to breaking a NAP I expect some kind of warning before they attack, no fixed numbers of turns but still, it would be unfair to not give at very least 2 turns (the time necessary for receiving the message and have a turn to move units cast summons and raise PDs.)
Of course.. diplomacy is at best a convention.
I think that big part of diplomacy in a game that doesn't have a diplomacy mechanic is building trust and respect.
Sure someone may betray your trust, the matter is, how will the rest of the map react when a trusted and respected nation that honors his pacts is betrayed by another nation. Will anybody trust that nation anymore? Can the one who respect his pacts call in the whole map against the traitor knowing that he will indeed respect the terms he offer?

Then of course, there is a point in every game were all alliances are off and you and your friends are the last men standing to fight for total domination.
You know that, your friends know that... I would not attack without breaking the terms in advance but you can be sure I would prepare hordes of SCs and Thugs before even giving you a hint that the alliance is going to dissolve. That is to be expected.

A long thread, but it spells out the usual convention and description of a nap. (So we're on the same page)

Forum.shrapnelgames.com

I guess this had to be revised as a discussion. It's been beaten and bashed on every forum ever for Dominions.

Yes elitesix, I advised you to always clarify the terms for each agreement you make. Whatever name you give it. I personally don't like the term NAP because it's so often misunderstood. Giving it an acronym makes it seem like a standard operating procedure but it's not. People interpret it differently. So to avoid hurt feelings and drama a few things really help.

1) Make each agreement in writing with clear terms and send it by pm or email or something so you have a record.
2) Don't limit yourself to non aggression pacts. You can have extended trade agreements, border negotiations, common wars and so on and so forth. The idea of non aggression is much to limited for my taste.
3) Be really clear. What is aggression? Does it include scouts hiding? Assassins hiding? Casting a global? Sending remote spells? Building up troops on the border?
4) When an admin sets up a game, he/she should always specify the type of diplomacy. Are agreements binding? And if they are not, don't be surprised if someone breaks an agreement without notice. This one thing greatly reduces hurt feelings and drama.
5) If you feel that you personally will never break an agreement without notice, be aware, not everyone will play the same. You might want to stick to games with binding diplomacy.
6) Even if diplomacy is binding, the admin of a game has no real way to enforce anything. The single tool he has is a roll back of the turn and that is fraught with problems most severely corrupted games.

Bwaha wrote: A long thread, but it spells out the usual convention and description of a nap. (So we're on the same page)

Forum.shrapnelgames.com

Bwaha: That was on Shrapnel. This is not Shrapnel. The multiplayer policies of this board are set by Illwinter and the Moderation team. On the Dominions 3 Desura forum, Edi wrote a set of multiplayer rules. Those rules do not include a formal definition of NAP. And from discussion with Edi, he won't be writing a formal definition. He has also promised to copy those Dominions 3 rules verbatim to here.

So my point here is that the definition needs to be clarified each time you sign one.

Signing NAP means that you aren't openly admitting to planning to attack someone immediately. While it'd be advantageous for me to not mention it, I personally will generally agree to any NAP that seems beneficial, but don't really care about them at all.

Edited by: elmokki

Well I believe in honor and I won't trust those who break their pledge in future games. I like secure borders and trust. Hell, maybe I'm old fashioned... But the only time I've been called on breaking my nap agreement was when a province went indy and I snapped it up and the previous owner went apeshit. I looked him in the eye and said I didn't attack you. Just a Indy.... :p

I'm curious, do you old timers think that was a violation?

Bwaha wrote: Well I believe in honor and I won't trust those who break their pledge in future games. I like secure borders and trust. Hell, maybe I'm old fashioned... But the only time I've been called on breaking my nap agreement was when a province went indy and I snapped it up and the previous owner went apeshit. I looked him in the eye and said I didn't attack you. Just a Indy.... :p

I'm curious, do you old timers think that was a violation?

I think it's a hostile act. Everyone has provinces go indy now and then, provinces rebel so to speak...if you snap them up before giving the originally owning nation 3-4 months to quash the rebellion, I'd consider that interference with internal affairs of said nation.

umh I wouldn't know ... I don't end my diplomacy to non aggression, I usually design a border between the nations, so .. every move inside my border, even if they are regions I never conquered in the first place would be seen as a Violation.
I think a Nap without defining a border is a pretty sloppy agreement.

Bwaha wrote: Well I believe in honor and I won't trust those who break their pledge in future games. I like secure borders and trust. Hell, maybe I'm old fashioned... But the only time I've been called on breaking my nap agreement was when a province went indy and I snapped it up and the previous owner went apeshit. I looked him in the eye and said I didn't attack you. Just a Indy.... :p

I'm curious, do you old timers think that was a violation?

That's exactly the problem with trying to have a fixed definition of NAP. And why I firmly suggest folks be very clear on what is or is not a violation.

I have a very clear code of honour in life and gaming. But it's my code. Might be quite different than yours. I find that over the years, trust has a hell of a lot more to do with people's action out of game. Many of my friends in the community have stabbed me in the back in game. That's roleplaying.

lol if you don't break NAPs when it benefits you to do so. 'hmm yes i'm going to attain godhood by being very nice and polite to my neighbors'

Admiral_Aorta wrote: lol if you don't break NAPs when it benefits you to do so. 'hmm yes i'm going to attain godhood by being very nice and polite to my neighbors'

For some, winning is not enough. Honor matters.

Refusing to break a NAP is different from turtling and doing nothing in the game.

Edited by: Zinegata

Breaking a nap is fine, it depends on if you follow the agreed amount set of time. I consider my nation to be at a state of war without a Nap.

When did you last play multiplayer Bwaha? I am not familiar with you in any games. A quick google for your nick on shrapnel suggest not since 2008. Have you joined any games on Desura?

Bwaha wrote: Breaking a nap is fine, it depends on if you follow the agreed amount set of time. I consider my nation to be at a state of war without a Nap.

Well, we call that cancelling a NAP as opposed to breaking it. Breaking a NAP implies a sneak attack without following the agreed upon timelines.

Maerlande wrote: When did you last play multiplayer Bwaha? I am not familiar with you in any games. A quick google for your nick on shrapnel suggest not since 2008. Have you joined any games on Desura?

I've got 2 games running right now, one on a private server, the other is being hosted on Llama server. Most of the games I play are with a small group of Dom fanatics on the west coast.

Btw playing more than 2 games is the height of madness. If you get to the end game your brain will explode...

Edited by: Bwaha

Zinegata wrote:

Admiral_Aorta wrote: lol if you don't break NAPs when it benefits you to do so. 'hmm yes i'm going to attain godhood by being very nice and polite to my neighbors'

For some, winning is not enough. Honor matters.

Refusing to break a NAP is different from turtling and doing nothing in the game.

Why does it matter?