NAP (NONE AGGRESSION PACT) GUIDE NOTES FOR NEWBEES

[Vortan]

The NAP is one of the biggest stumbling blocks for new players in WOK. It is vital that you have a proper understanding of them before entering into one or accusing another of a breach of NAP.

The NAP in WOK is a holy document which no player should act against intentionally or face the wrath of the community as a whole.

There are several key factors that need to be considered regarding NAP agreements these being;

a Make sure the NAP covers SPYING, MISSILES and ATTACKS.

b If NAP is purely NO SPYING check duration.

c Make sure borders are defined clearly ie 1, 2, 3 mine etc.

d Duration of NAP is clear. ie 6 turns.

e Rolling NAP's come with a notice period. ie 6 turns 2 turn notice means that if notice is given on turn 4 that hostilities can commence on turn 7 (after 2 full turns have passed).


PROBLEMS THAT COULD ARISE.

If you have no territorial agreement (ie borders; see c above) and you attack what was at the start of a turn a neutral province you could find yourself spied on or attacked by people with whom you have NAP agreements in place. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY BROKE THE NAP. The province was a neutral at the start of the turn and is therefore considered to be fair game.

Agreeing to a NAP which only mentions missiles and attacks could suggest that SPYING is acceptable and therefore not a breach of NAP.

Likewise a NO SPYING NAP will not stop an outright assault or missile strike.

Rolling NAP's, with cancellation periods, can be unclear. If in doubt ASK for clarification from the other player.

*NEW EDIT START*
If one player releases you from the terms of a NAP earlier than the agreed end time. You can still enforce it. Provided you have not agreed to the ending mutually. This edit inspired by the South America game. Learn from my mistakes and those of others.
*NEW EDIT END*

In WOK politics is half the battle. Get this right and you could be assured victory before the game even begins. Get it wrong and face the firing squad.

NOTE: Experienced players wishing to add to, expand on, or correct any item above should please feel free to do so. Keep all additions factual and to the point PLEASE as this thread is here solely to help guide new players through the minefield and help ensure they enjoy their early games. PLEASE DO NOT USE THIS THREAD FOR ANY OTHER DISCUSSION. THANK YOU.

[trewqh]

Good job, Vortan!

I did think about doing something like this on our wiki and I think we should include your guide in the wiki under the NAP entry once some of the vets add their comments.

Here are mine:

e Rolling NAP's come with a notice period. ie 6 turns 2 turn notice means that if notice is given on turn 4 that hostilities can commence on turn 7 (after 2 full turns have passed).

1. Duration is very often a matter of disputes. If you ask me a NAP that says 6 turns minimum with a 2 turn notification means the notification can be given after that 6 turns as the notification is a phase of nap-ending. People will quite often intuitively understand NAP terms differently from the other side of the agreement, but, as Vortan said, it's always possible to ask for clarification ('So the notification can be given once turn X runs, right?') or you could make your offer as precise as possible.

I advise never to sign vague agreements which say 'no hostilities for x turns' etc. This can save you a lot of unnecessary arguments.

2. Also, there's 'letting through'. Just because your NAP says player A cannot attack, bomb or spy on you doesn't mean he cannot let player B take his provinces. If you fear that player B, who is further away, may attack you you need to sign an agreement with that player as well.

And how about a new convention:
3. It may be useful to send a CC of the agreement you signed to your GM so that there's someone impartial who knows what the agreement was before any potential disputes arise. Same goes for notifications.

[Saladin]

If you have no territorial agreement (ie borders; see c above) and you attack what was at the start of a turn a neutral province you could find yourself spied on or attacked by people with whom you have NAP agreements in place. THIS DOES NOT MEAN THEY BROKE THE NAP. The province was a neutral at the start of the turn and is therefore considered to be fair game.

Yes and no. If you have a nap with another player and you both might be gunning for a neutral that has come available and for which you didn't agree on who it belongs to in the nap discussion if nothing is said or done than it's fair game i agree.

But if the first player in the OoP announces his intend to take that neutral and the other still attacks him, that i would see as a nap violation as you know you will not be attacking a neutral but in fact will be attacking the other player.

Best thing of course is to work it out on forehand so neither player loses any armies attacking each other unnecessarily.

Also i agree with Trewqh that it would be good to add the 'no letting through part' to this little guide.

[trewqh]

Sal's example points to an imprecision in the NAPs that I think all of us tend to ignore. I know I usually do.

This problem can be solved by explicitly adding a particular clause after the list of things that are not allowed. Ie 'No attacking of provinces that are held by the other side of the agreement at the beginning of the turn for x turns'.

If you include such a clause then there's no room for interpretation.

Of course, all of the mentioned clauses, conditions, wordings, advice are optional. If anyone wants to he or she can sign a no bombing NAP that has a 1 turn minimum and a 7 turn notification period.

Negotiate what you need, just make sure you make your offer clear.

[korexus]

If I had a NAP with someone who then tried to arbitrarily add another province, I wouldn't put up with it. Just being before me in the OOP doesn't mean you can say "we didn't agree on this province, I'm taking it, there's nothing you can do about it."

Of course, if this situation arose in game, I would mail the other player to explain this to them, not just attack in regardless. Communication is always useful.

Oh, and I have never had a NAP which stipulated only no spying. Only once have I had one which allowed spying. Anything as rare as that doesn't need to be included in the newbie guide imho. Also attacking through always turns out to be impossible to police. I'd recommend not including it in a NAP deal...



korexus.

[trewqh]

attacking through always turns out to be impossible to police.

And it's a fun tactic to apply if your opponent didn't think of/wasn't able to secure NAPs with other players.

I think we need to make newbies at least aware that this is not NAP breaking.

[TBert]

I know everybody already knows this, but it especially applies to NAPs. Don't assume anything. It's better to painstakingly (and annoyingly) mention every little rule and contingency you want, than to leave something in the open and have it exploited. Most people won't exploit the things you don't mention, but don't trust anyone until you know them.

[Brykovian]

but don't trust anyone until you know them.

And then, once you know them ... watch them even more closely.

-Bryk