Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
NAP Agreements
#11
At the risk of being slammed by a certain player, here's my thoughts:

First of all, keep close track of who you are communicating with in each game. I lost track of who was who and who I was dealing with and it caused all kinds of butthurt.
I declared a player my enemy BEFORE my private conversation with him where I assured him I wasn't attacking him. Literally minutes before the turn orders were due, I realized he was NOT the player who had asked for help against the Gnome, but was indeed the player I had planned on attacking. So I carried out the attack. He has taken great offense and has tried stirring up much trouble for me. At first I was amused, thinking "it's just a game."
It IS just a game, but it is a game that costs money to play.
I do feel bad for my screw-up. But I made a command decision to carry out my original plan, and whether he likes it or not, I feel my public enemy declaration overrides my private assurance of peace. But, what's done is done. I'd like to work with him in the future to try and make up for it, but won't lose any sleep over it if he doesn't want to.

Now. Anybody that knows me from my many years of playing Fall of Rome knows I take my NAPs seriously. I am certainly not known for breaking my word. If I make a deal for peace, I stick to it and expect the other player to stick to it.
Remember, this is a game that costs money.
A NAP is as binding as you make it. Specific details help reduce misunderstandings, IMO.

And yeah, the Elf in your example got screwed.
Reply
#12
Keep the personal issues in active games thread pleaseSmile

My goal with this thread is to ascertain if there's such a thing as an -Universal NAP agreement- to where someone says, "Lets have an NAP" and then you accept and completely understand what you just agreed upon.

This could be written off as a non-issue but the terminology is prevalent in all of the individual games I'm presently playing.
Reply
#13
All: Let's keep a cool tone.

On NAP's, and their seemingly universal appeal - more so even in FoR, Kalrex, by far: I think not having a game design aspect to address this might be a major failure, in both A and FoR.

But I will say, I believe the player arrangements in Alamaze are far more nuanced as a general statement than they are in Fall of Rome. I believe in FoR, some players might ask for NAPS from about everyone on T1. Part of that is because some players/kingdoms in Alamaze don't need a region, whereas everyone needs one in FoR.

I actually like Paway's idea. But I wish players, or maybe the game design, didn't find so many players looking for NAPS and that being considered important. At least not at the beginning of the game.

One way to take away from that, that may change the games significantly that I have considered before is basically declaring a casus belli - Latin for cause for war. So a player declares before overt actions. I like this because it would still allow for a cold-war like spy vs. spy, not put so much pressure on getting a slew of NAPS, and be more in the spirit of the game. A surprise attack could still be allowed, but at major influence sacrifice.
Reply
#14
(06-24-2013, 12:39 AM)Ry Vor Wrote: All: Let's keep a cool tone.

On NAP's, and their seemingly universal appeal - more so even in FoR, Kalrex, by far: I think not having a game design aspect to address this might be a major failure, in both A and FoR.

But I will say, I believe the player arrangements in Alamaze are far more nuanced as a general statement than they are in Fall of Rome. I believe in FoR, some players might ask for NAPS from about everyone on T1. Part of that is because some players/kingdoms in Alamaze don't need a region, whereas everyone needs one in FoR.

I actually like Paway's idea. But I wish players, or maybe the game design, didn't find so many players looking for NAPS and that being considered important. At least not at the beginning of the game.

One way to take away from that, that may change the games significantly that I have considered before is basically declaring a casus belli - Latin for cause for war. So a player declares before overt actions. I like this because it would still allow for a cold-war like spy vs. spy, not put so much pressure on getting a slew of NAPS, and be more in the spirit of the game. A surprise attack could still be allowed, but at major influence sacrifice.

So if I understand this correctly, when a player wants to attack someone, they should first issue order Cause For War, and get hit with a major influence drop? Sorry, but that idea isn't a good one.

What everyone should understand is that this game isn't just an empire building game but a war game. So kingdoms will be attacked regardless if you want them to or not and treaties will be broken while others upheld. This is the normal course of the game. It's not a big deal like some people are carrying on about it.

There are many other games that people can play if they feel that their feelings get hurt every time they are attacked or if an agreement can no longer be held due to certain circumstances. Again, not a big deal, move on, have fun !!
Reply
#15
"So if I understand this correctly, when a player wants to attack someone, they should first issue order Cause For War, and get hit with a major influence drop? Sorry, but that idea isn't a good one.

What everyone should understand is that this game isn't just an empire building game but a war game. So kingdoms will be attacked regardless if you want them to or not and treaties will be broken while others upheld. This is the normal course of the game. It's not a big deal like some people are carrying on about it.

There are many other games that people can play if they feel that their feelings get hurt every time they are attacked or if an agreement can no longer be held due to certain circumstances. Again, not a big deal, move on, have fun !!"


Amen to having fun. To clarify, what I was suggesting was that IF a player declared war (declared an enemy, moving the declaration to the end of a turn in sequence), there is not influence loss. The influence loss is the price of a surprise / undeclared attack. The reason for this casus belli idea would be to reduce the number of NAPS and so open the game. Anyway, this isn't eminent, its just my reply to the prevalence of NAPS.
Reply
#16
In my humble opinion, there shouldn't be any in game additions or changes. NAPs, or any other agreement for that matter, should be between players. A big part of this game, and for me a very enjoyable part, is the communication with all the personalities in each game.

If there is every confusion or doubt on what's included in an agreement, you should iron out the details with the other player. Seems like this thread is trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.
Reply
#17
(06-24-2013, 02:08 PM)Yellowbeard Wrote: In my humble opinion, there shouldn't be any in game additions or changes. NAPs, or any other agreement for that matter, should be between players. A big part of this game, and for me a very enjoyable part, is the communication with all the personalities in each game.

If there is every confusion or doubt on what's included in an agreement, you should iron out the details with the other player. Seems like this thread is trying to find a solution to a problem that doesn't really exist.

I think one of the issues that Kalrex has a point with is there is no way to know if the player he has made an agreement with is keeping up his end.

What if there was a divination that revealed trades by a kingdom for the last few turns. Or if a recon of a Capitol would reveal trades in and out of the kingdom. These would be ways to check up on kingdoms to see what they are up to.

I'm not sure if these orders would be possible or if there is a huge need for them.

I will say I would not try hold someone that I made a NAP with to the same expectation as an Ally. I have found this entire thread very interesting.
Reply
#18
I agree with yellowbeard and Hawk_ on the following points:

An NAP is nothing close to an ally declaration an shouldn't be held to the same level. They are limited term agreements which seem to infer hostilities at the end of them unless other arrangements can be made. That being said it is only common courtesy that you inform your counterpart of the agreement's abrogation if you intend to end it before it matured.

Secondly, I don't think that there should be any additional rule instilled in the game to cover agreements between players. The uncertainty is part of the fun/frustration, but there are consequences for those who don't take their word seriously. In game 100 I played it too conservatively, wanting to build up to an alliance and took too long and paied the price for that too. There must be a personal balance that you strike, but enforcing that with rules would take away much of the game's charm.
Reply
#19
Maybe the best response to an offer for a Non-Agression Pact is to ask what that means to the person making the offer...
Reply
#20
My 2 cents. I have always understood a NAP / non-aggression pact to mean that we mutually agree to not attack one another's pop centers or Ems with military or Ems for a specified amount of time.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)