So... I''m hoping to get some more experienced players to share some thoughts about NAPs, since much emphasis seems to be put on setting up the political atmosphere, and there is very little info out there as far as how to go about doing this. I''ve read through the Politics lecture, but it is mostly concerned with the motives rather than the logistics.

Some questions I have:

When is the best time to form a NAP?

How do you choose whom to NAP with?

What conditions/terms do you generally include?

How long should a NAP last and what kinds of end terms do you include?

Examples (real and hypothetical) would be helpful.
Thanks,
Code Blue

i would also like to know this information

I believe there are no specific rules for when to set up NAP.

But let me shed some general pointers.

The type of NAP is based on my knowledge and trust I have with a player.

If I know the player from before and trust him:

Then I just set up a NAP for a specified amount, or undefined. We know each other so if we want to go to war it will be on mutual concent, not only because one side wants. I don''t mind safe passage (with a prudent distance). Sharing of intel is upon request.

If I don''t know the player or don''t have a good feel for him:

Then I specify duration, that it can be extended, and if it will not be extended, then I specify upfront the turns before we can go to war (or just cancel the NAP). If I don''t know the player I don''t allow nor encourage safe passage. I don''t share intel with players I don''t know.

When to do this NAP?, it''s not simple.

NAPs at the beginning of the game are different that the ones you do as the game progresses.

To begin I normally try to cover one or two strategic side(s) with a NAP, but not so much that I can''t manouver (things change and don''t like to be surrounded by NAPs and people at war). If I will block my self out, then I go to war very fast with my intended target so that I''m not beaten by someone else.

As the game moves on, and I find new neighborgs sometime I elect not to NAP with someone, because I have a know someone will go at war with them, and I want to face that certain foe. So there is no golden rule.

What is for sure is that it should be strategic to your plans, and to the other person that your doing the NAP for it to fully work.

If someone approaches me with a "strange" NAP (let''s say a 15-20 turn NAP), i will normally go to war with him upon reply. Why?, I''m certain that we do not share the same plans, and he simply doesn''t want me to attack him early. So I solve that issue like that.

Communication is the key to games.

If someone doesn''t communicate with you upon encounter, and he''s not "busy" ... watch out, and be on the agressive.

If I want to war someone I try to inform them also that I''m comming, let''s say 5 or so turns. I think it is polite, so they are prepared and I can have fun. Every so often (very rarely) I just charge.

I truly believe that attacking someone should be a challenge, so giving time to someone is a must. I try to be as acomodating in this, but sometimes there needs to be an uncomfortable middle.

Last Edited : Tuesday, 10 April 2007 - 05:13

The length of a NAP is crucial.

If you both want to go to war at sometime (let''s say after both of you have taken another castle) then it can be specified like that, plus 5 or 7 turns after the last one has take the last castle (or more or less depending on the delta - if one takes the castle in 10 turns and the other in 20 or so, then there is a big delta of strength).

If you plan to takeover another castle, and then go to war with another neiborg then you plan your takeover, and let''s say you manage to eliminate the player in 20 or so turns, plus travel time, plus resource takeover ... etc. then you do the NAP for that amount of time.

I think is important to remember that this is a game, and you usually play games with friend, and you play them fair and square. If you want to play a 3vs3 basketball, you try to balance the teams, and so forth. Don''t poke eyes, and certainly don''t abuse other players. It''s a friendly, fun and healthy game.

Well keep in mind the same here. By overruning a player and defeting him, after he was in war for a length of time, and you were sitting in his border wanting to pounce, it doesn''t make you a hunter, it makes you a scavenger. Sure you got your kill, but not based only on your your skill, but mostly based on the other players previous encounter.

If you impose to play basketball a 1vs1 game with another player that had already played 3 or 4 games, and you beat him ... well ... it''s not only because of your skill, there is other factors at play there. I usually try to test my skill, so I want to make sure that if I''m at war with someone, that I catch him in his best possible position. So whether I win or loose, i know it was because of both of our skills.

You might think that this has nothing to do with NAPs, but it does. NAPs need to be fair-play, Wars need to be fair-play.

Think of the other player as a friend, treat him with respect and have fun. Those are the rules about NAPs.

from my experiment:

- you need to concentrate on one war, and you need to NAP another neighboor to secure the other side of the front.
- you are not strong to fight of a threat. for example you had a war, and need some time to build economy or military. this kind of NAP mostly conditional and it''ll cost you some. (For example, msg your offender: I give you the mine and the wood mill in exchange of a NAP of 20 turns, if there are still other targets, your offender will probably agree to
take the free goodies, instead of fighting.)
- sometimes game length NAP, because you will lose when fight. But there will be not much left in game any more. Offer your opponent a game length NAP, so you won''t be a threat of his ranking when you have the strength build up later on in the game. This will give him easier the choice to NAP with you. mostly when other players are out. you and the opponent will vote to end the game.
- mutual NAP, this NAP is kind of defensive alliance. when the NAPmate get attacked by more than 2 players, the other player need to help. Be carefull with this condition, because you need to keep your words. when you have a mutual NAP who you have to travel for long time. this will be no good. actually you just can''t help him.
- setting a NAP, you need choose the one who keep his words.
- setting a NAP, you need NAP with a player who likely will be more threat to you. This way you don''t have to worry about him for a while, besides get killed later in the game, will probably give you better ranking in the game.
- setting a NAP you need to build in exit condition. otherwise this will probably be a bad choice later in the game when the situation has changed. most exit conditions are: 2-turns or 5-turns warning, before you attack. sometimes, you just set up a NAP till for example turn 20, then you don''t have to warn when you attack.
- NAP is also a tool to change the course of this game. a few examples of situations with 3 players:
3 players left even strength, NAP both of them, then they need to fight first. while they fighting you build up. when
3 players left, one strong, 2 weak, NAP the strong one when you think you can take out the weak one fast. NAP the weaker one when you think both of you can take on the strong one. and the fight.
3 players left, 2 strong and you are weak. NAP/ally the most strong guy, this will secure your 2nd place when the other get killed.

These are my thoughts and experience about the NAP. hope it''ll help you.

i dont use naps but i beleive u can use them however u want, even to trick your "ally" into lowering his forces while u walk into his castle..lol.

Soljah ... I hope that was a joke ... though this is the S&T forum.

I believe that faking a NAP will get you little love!

little love .....but a castle .....and plenty of opponents the next games

i try to use them to secure a front and take as much land as i possibly can,

they can come and bite you later as your nap partner had weaker opponents and so conquered more castles and now you have to fight yoru original opponents and now a super strong ally that is bored and so attacks you.....

hehe like i sed i dont use naps, but why couldnt u use it like that? you play the game however you want right? i beelive it would be the smartest way to sue a nap ^_^

I think it is possible to use it like that ...

... I would not encourage it!.

I repeat my self ... that will get you little love.

yes thats true but we need a bada.ss who can be mean on here and still be praised for his battle tactics u see them in everygame, the guy everyone hates but wants to be at the smae time ^_^

One new thing to be aware of:

In the past, I have usually put an expiration on my NAPs with other players...saying the NAP will end on turn 30 or 40 or such.

I am playing my first campaign since the new rules were intiated and just got quite a surprise. I am on turn 38 and my opponent is on turn 40! Wow. He didn''t break the NAP, but my forces were not expecting to be hit yet either.

I guess I will improve as I start to understand the new turn cycle system...if anyone ever really does understand it. Until then, I will now begin using a date and time instead of turn number to establish my NAPs.

I don''t know about the issue of someone getting 2 extra turns or how that was supposed to work, but if anyone has any ideas, let me know. I will be starting my turn 39 in about a half hour...that will be fun!
Thanks,
H.

PS. I just had a terrible thought as I was typing that! If I attack him before my turn 40, am I breaking the NAP? Do I just need to sit there and take 2 turns of hits to maintian my honor? Even though he has attacked me, he did completely honor the NAP, don''t I have to honor it as well? Geezzzzz!
This sucks!?! I guess for now, I will adopt Soljah''s version and just be a "bada.ss"

You got attacked, you must defend. All bets are off once the fight starts!

Thanks Moggy!

After all consideration, I do plan on holding off until turn 40 for my attack though. I have never broken a NAP...ever. I have responded with deadly force whenever someone else broke a NAP or alliance with me. This is the first time I would be attacking someone else who completely honored a NAP (and an extension too) and I can''t do it. It seems justified in a way, but I just can''t do it. I will chalk this one up as me not understanding the impact of the new rules. I will play it better and smarter next time (date and time instead of turn number). And next turn will be lots of fun for me in any case!
All the best,
H.

How does he know you''re not on turn 40? If he is, then he would think you are.

As far as NAPS and when they can be broken, I'm going on record here to say that I still believe that a NAP arrangement can be broken abrubtly with only a message under certain circumstances and here's an example:

suppose you have just a *nap* with one player and a *nap with defence against gang attackers* with another and your *nap only* player joins in a gang attack against your other nap player.

See.
Now please explain that one to me experts.

PS:

Hwatta,
I wouldn't even try to answer that question because it's loaded and I understand that this is your first campaign since the new version and that you might get confused by the information in the upper right hand corner.

The truth of the matter is that from my own observations of the game you are playing, the game turn or map turn is actually on turn 40 and it should be shown as turn 40 when you click "my games" or if you look at the "introduction page" or at the "game news" or just at the "map turn".

God forbid if I say that you "missed a turn" if in the upper right hand corner of your game screen it says something like Turn 39(+1) and I admit that I don't know the exact information in the upper right hand corner of your game screen, but it sounds like you are behind the true game turn and possibly on "catchup turns";

but all those other sources I mentioned should give you the true game turn.
Sorry for all the extraneous details, but I like to make myself completely understood.

rex

Last Edited : Friday, 13 April 2007 - 11:40

Thanks rex!
In my game screen at the upper right, it said:
Turn 38
Next Turn 1:37 hrs
at the time I found out I was attacked.

Just as now it says:
Turn 40
Next Turn 6:43 hrs

On my map it says turn 40 now and said turn 38 then. So, I am using that to determine which turn I am playing. As you noted, if you look in the list of running campaigns, you will see that the game is listed as being on turn 41/120. He was on turn 40 when he attacked me...I was on 38. Just part of our new time system, but it is not a problem for me once I am aware of it.

Neb,
He might know or might not know. I have to check after I type this, but doesn''t it indicate your turn on the attack and defend messages? I would know I was breaking my agreement for the NAP and that is enough in any case.

Also to consider, this might be my first campaign under the new system, but I think it is his first campaign ever! So, I have been impressed by his honor and his courage so far. I can only give him every benefit and play by my version of honor as well.

Cheers,
H.

Well I was under the impression that the map turn also shows the true game turn So in all honesty I don't have the answer except to say that when I looked at your game approximately five hours and 22 minutes before you posted, it said that it was turn 40 for your game in the list of running games and also in the game news, in the ranking and also when I clicked on the game link.

As you catchup to the actual game turn the information in the upper right hand corner will eventually coincide with the actual game turn, but you seem to be trying to say that your attacker may have been ahead of the ACTUAL game turn which I don't think is possible or is surely a bug if it was so.

rex

Last Edited : Friday, 13 April 2007 - 21:41

A nice shorter version to keep poor Code sane.

CORE: (the short bit, and probably the only bit you really wanted )

Basic NAP, and the only real one I use - you dont'' hit me, I don''t hit you. If there''s anything you might disagree with like a mine on the border, claim it first or set it out in your message.

When, who and how long - early game naps are about 20-30 turns long in my case, and go to the people I definitely don''t intend to attack yet. Typically I will make sure I have a target first. Once your first (or latest) war is done, you should have an idea of what naps to extend, and which ones to close.

Terms and conditions...5 turn notification seems accepted. Otherwise, just let it end naturally.

General point, you nap to be secure while you go off and expand your lands elsewhere.

Example - there''s me, A,B and C. I attack C and nap the others for 30 turns. A beats B, I beat C, so we let the nap die and fight for the game. (me vs A)
If there were other players left, I would extend their nap another 30 or so while this went on.

SPECIALS:

Game-length NAPS are for special conditions - maybe I attacked or killed a guy in another game, and don''t want to unintentionally make a point of killing him every time I meet him - so I just agree not to fight. Typically out-of-game conditions cause these, or the outcomes of prior wars. Game-length is a sort of ''consolation prize'' for them coming off worse in a fight - you could pursue and win, but since you have other things you''d rather be doing, have a totally secure border in payment. (otherwise, there''s no point - you could just kill them later, and they have no incentive to sign a short peace just to be convenient to you!)
I also said on the forums to Jmacattack I wouldn''t kill him, and then ran into him on the field, so backed off. Example of a special circumstance.

TRUST: Naps are not binding. This may sound harsh, but typically the lower ranked and less experienced a player is, the more likely they are to break it and surprise hit you. It''s only a generalisation - occasionally you hear of nut vets off on a rampage and there will be new players who are absolute to their word.
Either way, you can save yourself a lot of pain by keeping an eye on your opponent. Make sure they are fighting or massing elsewhere, and not massing right next to your castle instead while fighting no-one else.
If it looks really suspect, have guards in the area just in case. Don''t allow it to be a situation you can''t get out of. By then, it''s too late to fix - so fit it now.

Some call it paranoia. I call it insurance.

CTDXXX,

Just for the record (EVERYONE BE WITNESSES) - I am not a pact breaker - have not and will not.

My two cents worth on NAP''s follows:

I agree with the common sense stated above - the only items I take issue with is to ALWAYS let your opponent know your intentions upon the end of an NAP. I won''t request that my (on-field) enemy keep me up to date on my own war plans and pacts (This is my responsibility).

Now, this IS a game, and it IS strategy, like chess or other gentlemen''s games, but it is also a war-simulation strategy game. I have taken note of an ilk here that want everything to be just-so (neatly dressed, carefully stated). I am myself a gentlman, but I do not think that any (Realistic) war game has value if you inform your enemy (who is your buddy) of your impending attack strategies ALL the time.

****(Remember, I am not talking about breaking pacts, but instead about communicating the intentions upon the end of one.)*******

Here''s the gist of what I am saying I don''t think you actually build a well-rounded strategy in a medium (10 player) to large (20-25 player) campaign if you ALWAYS talk with your enemy neighbors. When a Vet does this to a newb. it is an insult, and when a newb. does this to a vet it is rediculous. If you fellow vets want to be in a club of ALWAYS telling your intentions 5 turns out, great - call it the Gentlemen''s War Club or something - wear bow-ties on the battlefield and ask each other if you can attack or defend.

Keep your NAP''s and continue to defend your fronts, focus on ALL your surroundings, and be willing and able to confront ANYONE once NAP''s run out without agreed-upon extensions.

That''s just my thoughts.

Jmacattack