Posts: 5,613
Threads: 619
Joined: Feb 2012
Reputation:
6
Steel Your Nerves!
With a couple games ending or winding down, there should be demand for a new Steel game.
Not to tread on the also active signup for an Alliance (team) game, have we got a deal for you! Everyone signing up for both the Alliance game and Steel Your Nerves (this one) will get $5.00 off the signup for whichever game starts second. Let support know you have the $5.00 credit when joining (after the draft) the second game.
This one is our new standard format of 48 hour turn cycle, late season forum diplomacy, no allies, no NAPS. Signup here by posting your draft position (1 - 12 not yet selected).
Sharpen your blade and whet your wits.
Posts: 637
Threads: 58
Joined: Apr 2016
Reputation:
0
I'll sign up and pick slot 5.
Posts: 115
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2019
Reputation:
0
Posts: 334
Threads: 1
Joined: Oct 2020
Reputation:
1
Posts: 91
Threads: 2
Joined: Sep 2020
Reputation:
0
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.
Posts: 1,244
Threads: 42
Joined: Aug 2019
Reputation:
5
(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.
Posts: 553
Threads: 31
Joined: Mar 2013
Reputation:
0
(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 good ole days...nap till turn 10 but on turn 8 they were already invisible around your capital!
Posts: 159
Threads: 2
Joined: Jan 2019
Reputation:
0
02-03-2021, 01:33 AM
(This post was last modified: 02-03-2021, 01:34 AM by Airetar.)
(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.
Posts: 819
Threads: 42
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
0
I will join this 48 hour contest.
I would like selection 4 please.
Lord Thanatos
Posts: 2,776
Threads: 70
Joined: Feb 2013
Reputation:
3
I'll take two baby
I'll take two baby
Just me and who?
You know I'll take two
|
Buddy/Ignore List
