NAPs in MP - A good or bad idea? Thread - Dominions 4: Thrones of Ascension

Just canvassing people's opinions on NAPs or similar agreements.

Do most people agree to something similar in their MP games?

Even in the short time I have been playing MP they seem a bit ... divisive.

Breaking of NAPs (or equivalent) without warning, which i have not done yet , is to be expected I suppose in a game like this but is that right? What does everyone else think?

The only consequence when it to happens to me is that I would be to have less trust for the other player in future dealings, is that how you think or do you vets take the attitude of it's a new game so leave everything from the last one behind?

Would it just be better not to agree to something that has a high chance of being broken in the first place?

NAP is a bit like thug and SC : not two people have the same definition of it, and they are often complicated and subjective (typically, I have seen a lot of people who, when a global is cast, suddenly remember it's a NAP breakage, because it's clearly aggressive against them), so I would advice to anyone to be extremely wary of thoses and remember to ask as many details as they can, especially if the other player start to say thing like "NAP-3".

Some people, sometime the same as above, consider the refusal of a NAP as a war declaration. Which in essence mean they can attack you whenever they want if they find a pretext, but will consider you an ennemy if you refuse the NAP, and brand you an unreliable traitor if you do the same. It's a bit "damned if you do, damned if you don't"

Now, thoses are extrem cases, but it explain why I dislike thoses. If you want peace with someone, make sure he is occuped elsewhere, and/or ally with him against a third party. Solid peace is when you both benefit from it (because it free you from defending this front), not when you both follow chivalrous etiquette. That's basic diplomacy really, something that too many people forget.

As for breaking of NAP... Do it only in two case : if you really have big benefit doing it, or if you backstab the clear leader. Letting himself lose because you refuse to break NAP with due process is quite disinguenuous, and may be a breach of the informal "play to win" rule in MP.

What exactly is the controversy here? Do some people think they should not be allowed or something?

I've played a fair number of net games and seldom had people outright betray their NAPs. In fact I can only think of one case off the top of my head. There have been several cases of confusion over how to count the NAP turns and the odd controversy over anonymous smiting spells or the unmasking of stealthers, but even those have been uncommon . Personally i prefer "NAP till turn X" format over the traditional NAP3, but I usually stick with the former 'cause people are more familiar.

If I make them, I keep them, since the pool of players is quite small. I'm playing many of the same people in more than one game. Only a global which actually attacked me (like Burden of Time) would qualify as breaking it. Mother Oak, say, obviously does not.

Edited by: Taritu

I like diplomatic options. If people want to use them, let them. Defining what a NAP is should be up to the players themselves, to an extent, and to the game (not Dominions, but the game instance in specific), for example in terms of Machiavellian or binding diplomacy. I don't really understand why this often becomes such a heated topic, why people feel so strongly about this.

I think breaking pacts is part and parcel of an interesting multiplayer experience, but I can also appreciate a game where you can focus more on the game rather than the metagame. The only problem with NAPs that I can see is that they encourage bad behaviour besides the game, with blacklists etc.

Yeah, I don't see the issue. But I grew up playing multiplayer games. Keep them, break them, whatever. Just remember there is a metagame. I would never blacklist someone for breaking a NAP -- but I would remember in another game, yes.

I prefer a cease fire with a specific ending date myself. Fewer undefined variables.

I just don't understand why this discussion even exists or why it is important. If a game does not have binding diplomacy, then you cannot expect "NAPs" to mean much. Simple as that. Every game has its own rules and if you care so much about these things you call a NAP you should play in a game that has specific rules concerning diplomacy.

there can only be 1 winner
NAP that cannot be broken is not a thing I like, I like making them. It means manipulation, diplomacy and the judging and guess, making the game much better, evey nation will need to fight each other so forcing peace in a game with no options seems silly

To the OP: Basically people have different expectations of what diplomacy should be.

Some think:
- you MUST BE MACHIAVEL !
- you MUST NEVER LIE !
- you MUST NEVER CHEAT !
- everything you SAY IS BINDING AND WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU IN COURT !
- if you're bad in a game I'll kill you in another one !

Of course, much drama ensue.

For me the existence of NAP and equivalent stuff are used and necessary because the dev did not bother creating a diplomacy interface. It does not prevent me from not playing with them, I just need the choice. How diplomacy is supposed to be is defined in the game "opening post", or I don't join. Especially since some people are not native english speakers and just don't get what you say. Also, the mindset is very different from one to another country, and everyone expects stuff that is not really evident for others.

Edited by: kasnavada

Partly this issue is controversial because people think things like 'how can this be controversial, obviously the answer is X' but X differs wildly. Personally I think NAPs are pretty childish. If you're going to engage in diplomacy then engage in full diplomacy.

I also when people say 'I will remember player x broke a NAP for future games' I find that worrying. I think metagame diplomacy is extremely unhealthy and some people would even consider it cheating (two players being 'predisposed' to ally with each other isn't very far off having a pre-game alliance in place).

Sombledon wrote: Partly this issue is controversial because people think things like 'how can this be controversial, obviously the answer is X' but X differs wildly. Personally I think NAPs are pretty childish. If you're going to engage in diplomacy then engage in full diplomacy.

I also when people say 'I will remember player x broke a NAP for future games' I find that worrying. I think metagame diplomacy is extremely unhealthy and some people would even consider it cheating (two players being 'predisposed' to ally with each other isn't very far off having a pre-game alliance in place).

Yes. And if you consider maintaining your overall reputation a more important thing than winning a current game, it's somewhat disrespectful to the other players in that game - I think one should not intentionally handicap themselves but try to win by all means available to them.

I used to like them but now I'd rather avoid them.
First of all, I forget naps. When you signed a nap 40 turns ago, well, you may forget it, and sinceI don't like to break my word, I'drather avoid that.
Second, it's hard to know what exactly 3 turns mean. Does it include the turn you're sending the warning or not? If you do it by PM/outside game, the fellow player may already have played his turn and so he may feel like there's one more turn in terms of delay.
Overall, I think that's more confusing than anything else. I prefer to have less strictly defined treaties. I'll ally with someone for a common objective. When that objective no longer stands, we can talk again, remain in peace without any kind of treaty, or fight.

I don't use them myself, but I love it when other people do, the inevitable drama is just so delicious.

Thanks this is all quite illuminating and well worth knowing about when starting MP!

Why did I ask the question? Precisely because of many the things raised here and comments I had heard in games about this split I don't like NAPs, etc. I was merely wondering why this had come about.

Perhaps it is a matter of the term not being precisely defined ,which is of course up to the players involved to sort out.
I suppose some might think it means something stronger than a ceasefire whilst they pursue a mutual goal - whilst others may have no intention of honouring it for more than a few terms. Even the word pact makes it sound somewhat stronger than what many would intend.

In order to avoid ambiguity it seems best if I avoid the term in future negotiations and stick to something more clear - as mentioned - a ceasefire until X is achieved or turn Y, etc

Exactly. The term NAP has been used for years as a simplistic description of a complex agreement. And people THINK they know what it means to the other party but actually they don't.

Diplomatic agreements are excellent. Simplistic acronyms implying a consistent definition are not. So the acronym NAP needs to disappear. There is not much more irritating than a player sending PM after PM with "NAP-3?" What is that but sloppiness.

I'm lazy and will ask for a NAP3 looking out for a easy pact that allows me to pick out someone without support...

So, if someone breaks a diplo agreement I'm expected to forget that in the next game I play with them? That's not the way it works. I'm going to take it into account. I'm mystified by this strange idea that I erase my memory. This isn't about taking it out on them in the next game, this is about "I now know you don't keep your diplo agreements." That's all

There's always a metagame.

I think it is okay. Just dig more into it if you hit by a nap3 offering and you don't want to agree it simply.

For some people it means "I'm not planning against you, how about you?".
For some people it means "Promise not attacking me or I will consider attacking you!".

You can consider it either a friendly action or a hostile action (threatening) in different situations. There is no reason one player can't threaten another player in such a war game.

Breaking naps is okay too. And the nation get backstabbed may denounce you. You can defend yourself if you have some reasons, or just accept it.
Denouncing a nation who break a nap is okay.
"Ermor signed a nap with C'tis, then break it, everyone else who is friendly with Ermor currently please be aware of them!" I think this is totally acceptable.

But we should keep the denouncing at the game(nation) level. There is no reason one should be blamed for he break a nap in such a war game.
You may say "this guy breaks a nap in one game, he is likely to break another nap in another game."
Yes you are right, but that's a play style issue, just like someone plays aggressively while others prefer turtling.

One can have the honor not breaking any nap. But not everyone in the world should live a knight/samurai kind of life.

For myself, I would love to sign naps because I'm lazy too

Edit:
Some spell/grammar mistake, not very good at english yet..

Edited by: ssslock

I don't see what the problem with NAPs is, other than making sure both sides are agreeing to the same thing. They're a necessity in determining who is an imminent threat to you. If someone doesn't agree to one, you should consider them a threat. If someone breaks a NAP's terms you should distrust them.

A NAP is also not clear as to what an aggression is. My stealthy unrest-causing troops are crossing your territory to attack on the other side. Is that aggression? Better to talk it out clearly. If your partner thinks it's an aggression and you don't, then you disagree on the meaning of the nap, attack immediately because in your opinion the other party demandsmore than you offered. The other party says you violated the truce, and drama follows.

There should never be drama in a machiavellian game (which is pretty much the standard) about diplomacy because anything goes. If you get hosed diplomatically it's most likely your own fault or in some cases just bad luck. Some people just don't seem to accept the fact that it's sometimes perfectly ok to violate agreements and people will certainly do so if they benefit from it. You have to use the intel from scouts and other players to actually determine whether the agreements you make are going to be fulfilled or not.

LDiCesare wrote: A NAP is also not clear as to what an aggression is. My stealthy unrest-causing troops are crossing your territory to attack on the other side. Is that aggression? Better to talk it out clearly. If your partner thinks it's an aggression and you don't, then you disagree on the meaning of the nap, attack immediately because in your opinion the other party demandsmore than you offered. The other party says you violated the truce, and drama follows.

You may:
Break it and attack them, then explain these to all the other players. Leave the judgement to themselves.
Negotiate with that player about it.
Withdraw if you don't want to tense your relationship.

It is not good to have such a dispute, but you can make the agreement more detailed when creating it if you really care much about these.

As a lazy guy I would prefer a simple nap though. Solve the problems if they pop out later, or just enjoy the simplified diplomacy.
And for many other players they just don't care much about distrust by other players when they already have a strong possision in game.

I love to sign naps when adopting a turtling stragedy, but never count on them. Judging the situation and guessing what other players are thinking is far more important and reliable way to do diplomacy in dom. A nap that never breaks only make senses in those games you playing with AI. I havn't played many mp games yet, but personally I'm expecting more interesting diplomacy than sign a nap then don't consider anything more about that player ever.

Edited by: ssslock

NAPs are in fact generally heavily used in games involving more than just 2 or 3 players; because having more than 1-2 neighbors necessitates some kind of peace agreement. Ceasefire, NAPs, defensive alliances, whatever. You need to do diplo when the game is basically a fantasy version of Diplomacy with a tactical element thrown in (that may be rendered moot anyway if everyone is of equal skill).

In fact, most of the people nay-saying NAPs in this thread generally play blitz games that only involve a handful of players. This not so much a "split between definitions of NAPs" as opposed to people playing fundamentally different kinds of games.

You simply need to do diplo in a game where you have 4+ neighbors. If you don't then either a) Everyone turtles, terrified of making the first move and leaving themselves vulnerable to "uncommitted" nations, b) You get blindsided by another neighbor when you're off busy fighting someone else, or c) You win because you bully other players unopposed because your opponents are incompetent and doesn't even do basic intelligence-gathering to know when to jump in on a war.

Just define exactly what you want out of your peace agreement and you'll be fine. Yes, there is some confusion over what a NAP-3 may mean exactly; which is why you send them a your formal definition of a NAP-3 when you make the offer if they're a new player (over in the Den, we're almost all well aware of what a NAP-3 means so we can have diplo that literally consists of "NAP-3?" and "Sounds Good".)

Also: In general keeping a NAP is a superior move over backstabbing someone it because aside from the metagame issues (which some people try to handwave but are in fact extremely relevant), and the advantage of three turns worth of "surprise" is often less important than being on the right side of a three-on-one attack because your allies know they can rely on you. Live with the three turns warning it takes to declare war with a standard NAP-3, or wait until the ceasfire expires if that's how you do it.

Diplomacy is simply integral to the game as soon as there are 4 or more players; and NAPs are one of the tools in the diplomatic arsenal. Pretending it is undesirable will simply get you killed very quickly in a game where people are actually competently looking at the board position. I've known games where a player ended up on the wrong side of a three on one attack simply because he kept refusing to NAP with anyone; without realizing everyone else had already NAP'd with each other and were thus gunning for him as the only "legal" target remaining.

Edited by: Zinegata

Zinegata wrote: In fact, most of the people nay-saying NAPs in this thread generally play blitz games that only involve a handful of players. This not so much a "split between definitions of NAPs" as opposed to people playing fundamentally different kinds of games.

What a ridiculous, and quite frankly pretty insulting assumption to make.

Not liking or not agreeing to NAP's does not mean the player is not conducting diplomacy, which is another assumption you have incorrectly made. What it generally means is the player wants their diplomacy to be more flexible and more meaningful than some arbitrary "fixed number of turns" notice to prepare for war that some players seem unable to live without, and on times DEMAND such agreement from other players upon pain of having a tantrum.

If YOU can not play the game without NAP's then that is fine but do not make several false assumptions about other players by saying such players generally only play blitz games or do not conduct any diplomacy at all, and then proceed to base your arguments on those false assumptions. I would be surprised if there are many if in fact any players who only play blitz games because blitz games only make up a tiny fraction of the MP games played, and most players who play them are also playing in standard MP games and only playing blitz to get their Dominions "fix" while waiting for their next MP turn to arrive.

Edited by: SixHereEightThere