Buddy/Ignore List
02-03-2021, 03:15 AM
(02-03-2021, 01:33 AM)Airetar Wrote:(02-02-2021, 08:02 PM)Senior Tactician Wrote:(02-02-2021, 04:29 PM)Ebenezar Blackstaff McCoy Wrote: I will take 10
I would like to hear an official definition of NAP. Seems to be a LOT of debate and it would be helpful to define it early and going forward on what is officially a NAP.
The lack of clarity on the topic is one reason I'm glad its pretty much gone. Non-Aggression Pact means different things to different people.
For instance is thievery aggression, or is moving an emissary to your PC aggression... if he just sits there and waits until the pact is over. Or, I think thievery is aggression and you don't, so if you steal from me, you broke the deal and I'll attack you. Or if you find his invisible group around your capitol just waiting. Good riddance if you ask me, too many lawyers in the game for it to depend on "one mans interpretation".
If you really want to make this kind of deal, and its allowed, and you really care about understanding your "allies" interpretation, you need to spell it all out.
The discussion has been more about creating what seems like a NAP, not so much on what might constitute breaking them. Breaking them should be a non-event since they should never have existed in the first place. Making long term trades certainly seems like a NAP. Who is going to attack their gravy train? Ergo, NAP.
I agree with Blackstaff, that the important thing is everyone comes to the same understanding, not some players effectively play with a hand tied behind their back by not entering any kind of action that could be considered a NAP while others may feel its fine so long as you can't prove it to be a NAP.
If it seems through diplomacy that two kingdoms are almost certainly not going to ever attack one another, easiest demonstrated by ongoing trades and ongoing information exchanges, then that is effectively a NAP. While a single vote of support of a kingdom's HC issue might be done to hurt a rival kingdom, ongoing support of each others' issues is also a NAP. You are not going to attack the kingdom who is supporting your issues. Even still, there is no repercussion, and then it is just a step away from back to undeclared alliances. I think players that want to work closely together with another player or kingdom should join a team game and play individual games as an individual.
I absolutely disagree with "Making long term trades certainly seems like a NAP." We can discuss this at whatever length you prefer. In the last game I played UN offered to be a trade partner the turn before he attacked my cities. . . Make what you will of this. It is simplistic in this extreme to state, ". . . long term trades certainly seems like a NAP." Of course, this is just my opinion. But I am certainly willing to spend time convincing others to adopt the same position I have.
Back in the day, the objection to NAPs seemed to me to be an extremely weak counter-argument (merely a counter-point?) to the growing consensus that large alliances attacking single players was threatening to ruin our beloved game by eroding the player base. Much of this came to pass exactly as feared.
I have always maintained that each one of us players know when we are coordinating with two (or more) other players to act in concert against a single player. Simply don't do so! If this cannot be done the player base will never grow to the level it should with such an amazing game available to us.
A NAP, on the other hand, I never once cared about or worried about. If every player on the board has a NAP with every other player except me that doesn't ruin my game so long as three or more of them do not work in concert to harm my position. Hell, that means I just have to beat two players at a time until I reach victory or the game ends on turn 40 (this is how I think)! I will enjoy myself immensely under these circumstances. If I keep getting attacked by three or more players simultaneously I will simply spend my time and money elsewhere.
The limited forum-only diplomacy concept was an attempt to eliminate the growth of large alliances. I just learned of the late-season only diplomacy and believe this furthers the intended goal of forum-only diplomacy. [Although I think more taunting should be engaged in between actual negotiation turns?]
To me, NAP is too nebulous a concept and means different things to different players [examples have been provided in previous posts]. Good luck in clearly defining and eliminating this . . . If the argument is no long term trades should be allowed then pursue this discussion and make a case as to why it is detrimental. But the idea that nobody will attack a trading partner has never been true in history and isn't true in Alamaze.
DO NOT COORDINATE WITH TWO (OR MORE) PLAYERS AGAINST A SINGLE PLAYER is a clearly defined, easily understood game mechanic for every one of us to abide by. NAP is not clearly defined, nor easily understood, nor makes clear what is being asked of the players. I do not think we will have two players clearly state "I will not attack you before turn 10 if you make the same promise." This interaction, in my mind, is the only interaction obviously forbidden [both clearly defined and easily understood] by the "no NAP" game parameter. Beyond that? Who knows?
[I completely agree with Senior Tacticians previous post in this thread (shown above).]
[P.S. ". . . what seems like a NAP" is even more nebulous a concept than "a NAP" is.]
Lord Thanatos
