New Updates Coming Soon!!!

The Old God has left the world and the pretenders are awakening and coming out from hiding. You start the game by designing one of the pretender gods that will compete for true ascension to godhood. The type of god can range from a magically powerful arch mage to an ancient kraken or a mystic monolith that people pray to. Your pretender controls one of over sixty different nations and with the help of that nation he will spread his word and battle the other pretenders. Dominions 3 is a turn based strategy game. You can play single- or multiplayer (1 - 23 players) with simultaneous turns. There are more than 1500 different units, 600 spells and 300 magic items in the game. The game also features a medieval musical score by Erik Ask Uppmark and Anna Rynefors, both awarded the title of Musicians of the Realm by the Swedish Zornmärkeskommiten. Dominions 3 is a highly detailed game and a 300 page pdf manual is included in the download.

What does NAP-3 really mean?
by member
  Posts Date
Thread Options 1 2 3 4
Ogaburan Jun 22 2013, 5:42am Anchor
Ogaburan

It was brought to my attention that I might have unintentionally broke a NAP-3 agreement in one of my games.
And the points that were given seemed legit to me, but I want to clarify with the honorable part of this community what do they think the fulfillment of a NAP means.

Here are the two versions of it, we wil use the in game example of receiving a "no-more-nap" (NMN) notification on turn 49.

Elitesix Interpretation;
Betraying a NAP-0: If you submitted attack orders on 48, and battle on 49, give "notice" on 49, that is betraying the treaty.
Fulfilling a NAP-0: Gave/Received notice and do not wait to give orders - attack orders on 49, and battle on 50, you fulfilled the nap-0
Fulfilling a NAP-1: Gave/Recieved notice on 49, wait 1 turn and do attack orders on 50, and battle on 51, you fulfilled the nap-1
Fulfilling a NAP-2: Gave/Recieved notice on 49, wait 2 turns and do attack orders on 51, and battle on 52, you fulfilled the nap-2
Fulfilling a NAP-3: Gave/Recieved notice on 49, wait 3 turns and do attack orders on 52, and battle on 53, you fulfilled the nap-3

My interpretation;
Betraying a NAP-0 - Not Giving any warning, and just attacking. (aka "Gentleman's Agreement")
Fulfilling a NAP-0 - Giving/Receiving warning on the same turn you are attacking. T49
Fulfilling a NAP-1 - Giving/Receiving warning T49, and attacking the next turn.T50
Fulfilling a NAP-2 - Giving/Receiving warning T49 , and attacking in 2 turns.T51
Fulfilling a NAP-3 - Giving/Receiving warning T49 , and attacking in 3 turns.T52

Which version is the "correct" version?

Cheers,
Oga

DegenerateArt Jun 22 2013, 5:56am Anchor
DegenerateArt

Basically, they really mean nothing

tewey Jun 22 2013, 6:47am Anchor
tewey

Then there's the most logical meaning (atleast to me) where the number just means the amount of turns during which both parties agree to not attack each other. I don't think there's a correct version because the interpretation varies and for that reason I don't like them at all. Also to me, those agreements that you described sound overly restrictive and complex which results in people not honouring them anyway.

Edited by: tewey

Ogaburan Jun 22 2013, 7:16am Anchor
Ogaburan

Well, I tried to hint in the OP that this is meant to be a discussion between people who actually want to use them.
Should have been more blunt about it, but thanks for the feedback.

They are restrictive, and some people seem to brake them regardless. Good.
That wasn't the question tho, was it?
;)

tewey Jun 22 2013, 7:29am Anchor
tewey
Ogaburan wrote:Well, I tried to hint in the OP that this is meant to be a discussion between people who actually want to use them.
Should have been more blunt about it, but thanks for the feedback.

They are restrictive, and some people seem to brake them regardless. Good.
That wasn't the question tho, was it?
;)


I wasn't trying to be rude if it came out that way, just gave my two cents. By all means, everyone use them if you want but when you do, just don't assume other players actually understand your terms.

Maerlande Jun 22 2013, 7:51am Anchor
Maerlande

There is no clear defined answer.  You need to negotiate with the other player and agree on the terms.  That's one of the problems with NAPs.  Why not just negotiate peace for 5 turns then renegotiate.  And the fact that you asked about what is the "correct" version is exactly why I find NAPs a huge problem.  Take 5 players and each will have a different interpretation.

So to make it easy, when you send "I am breaking our NAP."  Also send " I may or may not attack on the third 42."   If they object, attack on turn 43.  Or accept that they object.  Of course, if they are going to object that you are breaking the NAP no matter what you say, why wait?  Attack immediately.

If you and elitesix have a disagreement about wording you need to work it out.  Or ask your game admin for adjudication.

GoodKnight_IL Jun 22 2013, 7:57am Anchor
GoodKnight_IL

I go with Oga's interpretation. As long as the message has been sent via desura and not the game and as long as he has had nuff time to use that turn to ready himself..

The_Demon Jun 22 2013, 8:29am Anchor
The_Demon

Absent other information, my interpretation is the same as the Oga's.

However, I never negotiate a NAP without also including in the agreement an example of when it would be appropriate to attack "the attack is resolved 3 turns after notification is given, so if the attack is resolved on turn 49 notification must arrive during turn 46" or "our NAP lasts until turn 50, meaning it is appropriate to give hostile orders turn 50 and have them resolve on turn 51".

Edited by: The_Demon

Bullock@dom3 Jun 22 2013, 9:02am Anchor
Bullock@dom3

Oga's +1

Ogaburan Jun 22 2013, 9:18am Anchor
Ogaburan

For the record me and elitesix have no disagreement or anything like that, that needs to he resolved.
There was no incident or any drama involved.

In fact quite the opposite, i value his opinion on the matter and thats why i opened this thread.
If me and elitesix can have a misunderstanding, its probably something that needs a community ruling.

Because as i see it, both of pur interpratations are valid.
So it needs a "public" concensuss on the matter.

Again... to those naiive enough to sign and respect them to the letter.

elitesix Jun 22 2013, 9:21am Anchor
elitesix

It's not really a big deal in our game. I suppose the best way is to be clearer when the agreement is made.

The only thing about your theory Ogaburan, is there is no difference in your Betraying a NAP and fulfilling a NAP-0.

If you give notice the same turn you invaded, that is no notice: let's say we had an NAP in our game and you did not give notice until turn 52. Well my friend, the turn file would have also given me notice on turn 52 that my province was invaded...therefore, that is the same as betraying the NAP - you do not have to notify me of what happens in my turn file as that is redundant :).

If you had provided notice on turn 51, and my turn 52 trn file had an attack, that would have been complying with an NAP-0, because there was a notification of it ending.

If your understanding of NAP-0's is adopted, it makes them non-nonsensical as you can invade with the only notice being on the same turn his province is taken over and that's ok - then that is not a NAP.

Edited by: elitesix

Ogaburan Jun 22 2013, 9:24am Anchor
Ogaburan

I agree... in my view a NAP-0 is just a friendly "im going to attack you this turn, if you want to change your orders" kind of thing.
Those are quite silly...

Maerlande Jun 22 2013, 9:35am Anchor
Maerlande
elitesix wrote:It's not really a big deal in our game. I suppose the best way is to be clearer when the agreement is made.
The only thing about your theory Ogaburan, is there is no difference in your Betraying a NAP and fulfilling a NAP-0.If you give notice the same turn you invaded, that is no notice

This is the key. I may not have been clear above. Whatever agreements you make, clarify the details before. That's the only way to avoid misunderstanding.  And that's quite right.  If NAP-0 means nothing, I think that interpretation doesn't work very well.

Ogaburan wrote:So it needs a "public" concensuss on the matter.

I strongly disgree.  There is a reason for no rules defining diplomatic agreements in this forum EXCEPT don't scam trades.  We, the vets, have been over this hundreds of times and it's never anything but pain.  You can't rely on some simple rule of thumb with these.  Do your work.  Write out clear agreements and make sure you both understand.  Nothing else works.  You are fishing for something that should not be laid out as a rule or consensus.  I'll tell you right now that if you reach consensus it won't affect me in the slightest.  I will continue to do diplomacy the same way I've done it for years.  With hard work and clear writing.  And I'll continue to evaluate any agreement each turn to decide if it's to my benefit to break it without notice.  I've only done that a few times but I am always prepared to do it.  If you have left yourself undefended thinking a NAP with me will keep you safe, you have a mistaken idea of my sense of gameplay.

elitesix Jun 22 2013, 9:42am Anchor
elitesix
Ogaburan wrote:I agree... in my view a NAP-0 is just a friendly "im going to attack you this turn, if you want to change your orders" kind of thing.
Those are quite silly...

I believe you still don't understand the ramifications of your own interpretation as you posted.
If you tell them you are going to attack and they have notice to change their orders, this is only one possible scenario:

1) You tell them on turn 51 you are going to attack and the attack occurs on turn 52. 

If you give them notice on turn 52, when you invaded on turn 52, that is not a NAP-0, because they have no notice to change their orders. You just attacked them, then on the same turn as the turn file has the battle, you redundantly tell them you invaded lol - no need.

Put it this way. In a game where winner takes all, all NAPs must end. So, an NAP-0 (or a straight NAP) is an agreement not to fight AND some form of notice built in. If it was only an agreement not to fight, it not make sense because it would have to end, and if it could end without any notice, there's no point in even making the agreement. Under your interpretation Ogaburan, NAP-0s (or straight NAPs) are not just silly, they are made nonsensical and into treaties that have no obligations whatsoever.

Edited by: elitesix

mongler Jun 22 2013, 9:53am Anchor
mongler

I always thought a NAP-3 meant the deal has to be cancelled 3 turns before the attack, 

Wether the attack happens on turn 3 or 4 after the cancellation has never bothered me.

tewey Jun 22 2013, 9:59am Anchor
tewey

You are arguing about semantics when everything could be simplified into "let's have a non-aggression pact". I don't even understand why you would warn your enemy before attacking. I certainly don't expect my neighbours to reveal their plans beforehand. I'd rather not have an artificial "metagamer's code of honour", and this is basically exactly that.

Oscarius Jun 22 2013, 10:00am Anchor
Oscarius

I've never heard about the concept off a NAP-0 before so I'll keep out of that discussion...

My general view of NAPs is that the number notes the number of turns a party can be safe from attacks after it breaks. You will have that many turns to prepare.
As such I normally go with Ogas interpretation in the rare instances where I sign a NAP. So when a message is sent on turn 49 the players will have 3 turns, 49, 50 and 51 to get ready. Attacks can be ordered on turn 51 and battles/spell effects/whatever may happen on turn 52.

The most important thing is of course to be bloody crystal clear about these kinds of things so people don't get upset when the pixels die. :P

Edited by: Oscarius

elitesix Jun 22 2013, 10:04am Anchor
elitesix

There's a lot of confusion here.

I will definitely proceed as Maer suggested - make it clearer rather than just saying nap-3 when making the agreement.

But also as Maer suggests, I think it makes sense to have an interpretation where NAP-0 or straight NAPs exist as treaty obligations. I don't think it makes sense to have an understanding that renders straight NAPs / NAP-0 into treaties that carry no obligations, and NAP-1+s into the only one that carry obligations.

But obviously, some people disagree!

Edited by: elitesix

Oscarius Jun 22 2013, 10:14am Anchor
Oscarius
elitesix wrote:
But also as Maer suggests, I think it makes sense to have an interpretation where NAP-0 or straight NAPs exist as treaty obligations. I don't think it makes sense to have an understanding that renders straight NAPs / NAP-0 into treaties that carry no obligations, and NAP-1+s into the only one that carry obligations.


Once again I won't comment on the NAP-0 thingie, but NAPs usually have some sort of terms. For example:

"NAP for the next 10 turns"
"NAP-3, where you can't attack until 3 turns after the NAP has been broken"
"NAP until nation X is dead."
are all valid treaties, even if spoken/written treaties can be a bit iffy in dom3.

Just "NAP" has no value as a treaty as far as I know. It is the terms surrounding it that are important.

Edited by: Oscarius

Maerlande Jun 22 2013, 10:17am Anchor
Maerlande

+1 Oscarius.  And clarifying those terms when you make the agreement is the key.

tewey Jun 22 2013, 10:21am Anchor
tewey
Oscarius wrote:
elitesix wrote:
But also as Maer suggests, I think it makes sense to have an interpretation where NAP-0 or straight NAPs exist as treaty obligations. I don't think it makes sense to have an understanding that renders straight NAPs / NAP-0 into treaties that carry no obligations, and NAP-1+s into the only one that carry obligations.


Once again I won't comment on the NAP-0 thingie, but NAPs usually have some sort of terms. For example:

"NAP for the next 10 turns"
"NAP-3, where you can't attack until 3 turns after the NAP has been broken"
"NAP until nation X is dead."
are all valid treaties, even if spoken/written treaties can be a bit iffy in dom3.

Just "NAP" has no value as far as I know. It is the terms surrounding it that are important.


A simple NAP has exactly as much value as the most elaborate agreement with multiple terms as long as diplomacy isn't binding.

DegenerateArt Jun 22 2013, 10:25am Anchor
DegenerateArt

When you consider the circumstance in the game they're talking of, it makes zero sense to discuss these things. Elitesix has the most powerful nation, and is on the course to win the game unless everyone else attack him together, Ogaburan can be considered the runnerup. It makes zero sense for these two to hold any peace treaties in this circumstance.

Ogaburan Jun 22 2013, 10:29am Anchor
Ogaburan

@Maerland
Well, I doubly disagree with you on that one. lol.

As you say, this has no actual bearing on game-play rules-wise.
Its perfectly legal to break a nap or any other agreement.
The only difference is how much "face" you lose.
For this specific example, if I do with the war against Lanka, It will still be "tainted" in my eyes by a dishonorable declaration of war.
Im obviously in the minority from what ive seen in game, but there are quite of few of us here.
This discussion is aimed at those people.

By not beeing reinforced in any kind of "real" game rules.
Any NAP-X is effectively a "Gentleman Agreement", By definition.
So I dont understand your objection on trying to have a semi-official "League of Extraordinary Gentleman" that if they wish so, will play by a certain set of interpretation of those "Gentleman Agreement".

If you and the band of vets that elected you to be their representative, do not wish to subscribe to this, no one is forcing you.
Your prerogative, and I doubt anyone will hold you account for anything discussed here.
So I dont understand the hate.

As you may or may not be aware, this is more or less a new community of players who play Dominions 3.
At least those who are mostly active in the games arranged here, I do appreciate your wisdom and input... but constantly pulling your "seniority badge" is getting old.
Not every little thing that was done in the past is the right/correct way of doing things.
Especially regarding none-biding agreements in game.

Since its a new community with some vets, I think these kind of "clarification" threads are in order.
Especially since they are conducted in a very civilized manner and the two players involved are actually interested in what the community thinks.
Perhaps this kind of discussion was exactly what was needed in order to cealry define such loose terms that are none-biding, anyway.
Maybe im deluded or naiive, my prerogative.

My "ultimate" win evolves me not braking my word/promises/agreements during the game.
This does not mean I will never do it, just that on a game in which I will actually abide by those "Gentleman Agreement" it will feel doubly sweet for me.
[sarcasm]Like one of those precious achievements everyone loves on steam![/sarcasm]
"Win a game with honor!"

I can bet your reaction to this will be a giant smirk, only reinforcing my belief this discussion was obviously not aimed at you... so I dont even understand your participation. You have nothing constructive to say other then "I dont care what is being said here".
Gee, thanks!
Not only you in fact...

To those;
We have already agreed that a NAP-3 is a very loose definition, "legal" to brake, very inflexible and some people if not most dont use it.
Great.
None of those were what I asked, please show some respect and address my actual question in the OP.
And not try to derail/hijack this thread.
Thanks.

@tewey

tewey wrote:You are arguing about semantics when everything could be simplified into "let's have a non-aggression pact". I don't even understand why you would warn your enemy before attacking. I certainly don't expect my neighbours to reveal their plans beforehand. I'd rather not have an artificial "metagamer's code of honour", and this is basically exactly that.

Couldn't agree with you more.
It is an argument about semantics. (Tho its hardly an argument, but that's me being petty now lol)
Yes im not as narrow minded to understand some people do not care about some "metagaming code of honor".
Why cant you comprehend that some do?
And would like to have this "metagamer's code of honour" somewhat more clearly defined?
Hell some people even base their whole decision making on "RP", there is more then one style of play.
To each his own.

Mind you, form what Ive seen people actually refuse to join games because X or Y player is in it. (I dont share this view)
And that's mostly based on skill-lvl, but also on the amonth of backstabbing expected.

@Elitesix
Well, at least form now on I will know exactly what you mean when you say NAP-X.
And this was my intention behind this thread, to actually clarify or rather show that there are more then one interpretation of NAP-X to those who use them.

I would apologies for my action in game... [rp]But screw you! You bloodsucking ape![/rp]
XD

Ogaburan wrote:For the record me and elitesix have no disagreement or anything like that, that needs to he resolved.
There was no incident or any drama involved.

elitesix wrote:It's not really a big deal in our game.

DegenerateArt wrote:When you consider the circumstance in the game they're talking of, it makes zero sense to discuss these things. Elitesix has the most powerful nation, and is on the course to win the game unless everyone else attack him together, Ogaburan can be considered the runnerup. It makes zero sense for these two to hold any peace treaties in this circumstance.

Gee...
Its like someone deliberately didn't post this discussion in the the relative game thread for a reason...
Rather was trying to address a generic subject.

But thanks for clarifying that it has no real impact on the game.
Both players involved stating the same exact thing might have gone unnoticed by the rest of the community.

I am forever in your debt.

Btw, im pretty sure you are braking the law by mentioning which players play what nation... so be careful.
"They" are watching!

(Its obviously a joke, so please treat it as such... and dont get offended by what is intended as lighthearted humor)

Maerlande Jun 22 2013, 11:05am Anchor
Maerlande
Ogaburan wrote:@Maerland
This discussion is aimed at those people.

What people are those?  I didn't see anything in your original post that excluded me from responding.

Quote:So I dont understand your objection on trying to have a semi-official "League of Extraordinary Gentleman" that if they wish so, will play by a certain set of interpretation of those "Gentleman Agreement".

I have no objection to forming a league of like minded players.  We already have a method for that in the suggested multiplayer template where diplomacy rules per game are laid out.  That's where they belong.  Individual for each game.

Quote:So I dont understand the hate.

 
I have no hate for you.  I dislike NAPs because of the drama they cause.

Quote:Perhaps this kind of discussion was exactly what was needed in order to cealry define such loose terms that are none-biding, anyway.

 Excellent.  You wanted an open discussion of NAP interpretation.  I gave my opinion.

The rest of your response to me was over the top.

DegenerateArt Jun 22 2013, 11:05am Anchor
DegenerateArt
Ogaburan wrote:
Gee...
Its like someone deliberately didn't post this discussion in the the relative game thread for a reason...
Rather was trying to address a generic subject.

But thanks for clarifying that it has no real impact on the game.
Both players involved stating the same exact thing might have gone unnoticed by the rest of the community.

I am forever in your debt.


And that, then, was necessary? Fuck off with your sarcasm.

Reply to Thread
click to sign in and post

Only registered members can share their thoughts. So come on! Join the community today (totally free - or sign in with your social account on the right) and join in the conversation.