What is a NAP in WOK?

Its all WOK here.

Moderators: Duke, trewqh, korexus, Egbert

Post Reply
User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

What is a NAP in WOK?

Post by Hannibal » Mon Jan 28, 2008 4:38 pm

Someone to explain to new players?
Last edited by Hannibal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
korexus
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2819
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2002 8:00 am
Location: Reading
Contact:

Post by korexus » Mon Jan 28, 2008 5:55 pm

Well, I feel that you're putting too *much* strength in NAPs.

NAPs are not inviolable for the simple reason that players can break them.

Nor should players be punished by any in-game mechanism for breaking a NAP (I know you didn't mention that here, but I just read it elsewhere). The punishment for breaking a NAP is that players won't trust you in the future.

The same goes for letting through and sending notice 3 minutes before the deadline. If you want to do those things then the rules do not prevent you and (unless the NAP specifically precluded them) you have not broken the deal. You have, however, played the NAP very close to the line and if you do that frequently you will get a reputation for it, which will make future NAPs harder to come by.

My advice to new players would be: "Remember that WoK is not just one game, it is a series of dozens or hundreds of games over many years. You can do what you like in a game, but it will have repecussions for every game you play afterwards."

Combined with the statistic that (roughly) 95% of players keep all their NAPs and the others keep 95% of theirs and some emphasis on making sure you are clear about the terms of the agreement I think that is enough.


korexus.
With Great Power comes Great Irritability

User avatar
Hannibal
Commander
Commander
Posts: 886
Joined: Sun Sep 21, 2003 7:00 am
Location: London and The Vulkings Clan.............(started in Valn Ohtar, then jointly founded The Vulkings)

Post by Hannibal » Mon Jan 28, 2008 6:55 pm

Deleted.
Last edited by Hannibal on Fri Mar 21, 2008 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
There are two ways to write: Short-hand, and Long-Han'ed. ~ Han

"If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs"......... it's probably just that you're the last person to appreciate the enormity of the catastrophe about to

User avatar
Dragonette
Commander
Commander
Posts: 629
Joined: Wed Apr 18, 2007 7:00 am
Location: mercenary camp

Re: What is a NAP in WOK?

Post by Dragonette » Tue Jan 29, 2008 7:36 pm

hA<b>n</b>n<b><i>i</i></b>Ba<i><b>L</b></i> wrote:IMHO, this should be made a sticky thread near the top of General, with this post and comments from others. You can delete this paragraph if you ever do make it a sticky.

NAP's in WOK are VERY important. NAP = Non Aggression Pact. New players wonder about them (are they inviolable? How long should they last? How do you phrase them?).

And even stalwart, WOK-loving, veterans can fall out over them, argue on the boards, and sometimes leave in grand dudgeon. It's happened.

So here's an attempt to get a common view of NAP's in WOk. Others can add to the thread and put different views, but at least a new player will see a a view or two on NAP's. Remember: he might be playing as a Merc, and not guided on things like Naps by his clan.

OK, the key thing is that, within all of WOK, NAP's are regarded as sacred, not to be violated. It is NOT like "Diplomacy", and some other games, where every deal you make may be a fake deal, for a stab later. The idea in WOK is that a NAP is fixed and should NOT be broken. If you break a nap, you will come in for flak on the boards, nobody should ever trust you again; NOT admiration for a well-timed stab.

SO, you stick to YOUR naps, and yes, you CAN trust the naps of others with you: they are not policed by the game-engine, but the nap-breaker would be SOOO looked down on by the rest of the community.

In short, count naps as inviolable in this game, not just ploys as in some other games.

Now is a good time to say that we don't all agree on that! 95% do. Ex-player TK went down in WOK history as telling his clan that Naps were merely convenient diplomacy and COULD be broken to advantage. Duke takes a typically rebel stand, and avers that he himself would never break a nap, but he defends the right of those who do: he reckons it is part of WOK to judge whom you can trust on naps and whom you can't.

The upshot, for any newbies, is that nearly everyone in WOK regards NAP's as supposed to be inviolable. You all stick to them.

This is for NAP's. It doesn't apply to other expressions of alliance. You can say that you are working with X, or working against Y, or hope to stay napped with you throughout the game ... and not necessarily mean it. A nap is a contract; anything else is diplomacy and perhaps puffery (you can't stay friends with EVERYONE you make friendly overtures to).

People will judge you on whether your non-NAP deals and "promises" were stuck to or not; but you have the haven: naps are sacrosanct, every other deal or promise is up for grabs, and may be real or may be false, but you and your opponents are probably making more implied deals than you can possibly fulfill ... not all of them!

SO, naps are inviolate, all other deals and promises are up to you and the other to keep or not keep. It might affect your Rep in future games ...

Sounds clear? Nope. That's because, even if you've sussed that they are unbreakable, naps are so often very unclear and open to arguments later:

Think of a NAP as a temporary binding contract between two players who might well be enemies later.

You stick to the contract. You may grow into allies for the rest of the game. Neither of you might ever cancel the nap between you. Great. But bear in mind that each of you might well have naps with other people as well, and you can't stay napped with 4 players till the end of the game (only one or two can win). So you are EXPECTING that your nap-friend will have to cancel his nap with you or with some others (as will you). That is down to ongoing diplomacy in the game. Just don't get annoyed if someone cancels a nap with you; he was probasbly napped with 3 or 4 players, and the nap with you did not rank higher than the others!

SO, no getting annoyed if someone cancels a nap with you (it's happened); he probably had 4 naps, and HAD to cancel at least 2 of them. Same as you!

SO, nap's are "contracts between future likely enemies!". You might grow that into an alliance, but that will probably be at the cost of cancelling your naps with other people, and of the other player cancelling his or her naps with others in favour of you. All of that is diplomacy and trust; naps are inviolate, but other promises are either solid or cons - your decision. No way can all naps grow into alliances; too many naps; MOST naps will expire and leave you at wear with each other. Remember that when you make your naps!

A lot of later disagreement comes from vague naps, that one player thinks they stuck to, and the other player thinks they broke. Hey, they are never going to agree if it was vague in the first place! So, leave it vague if you WANT it that way; but mostly make it clear and unarguable.

Helpfully, I hope, here's the most commom form of a nap proposal:

"Hey xxxxxus, how do you see the game going? (etc.) I'd like to propose a nap between us. The way I see it is ... I propose a nap for X turns, with 2 turns notification, though it continues if neither of us notifies. To be clear, this means earliest notification would be after Turn X, such that earliest hostilities would be from start of Turn Y". Note that this specifies when the between-turn notification, AND the first turn of possible hostilities. Beware. Clarity often looks like calculation! Soften it but keep it clear.

Remember, some naps are made on Turn 3 or later, ie, not simply counting from Turn 0. People are human; don't expect them to do the math(s); say when earliest hostilities would be, and/or when 2-turn notification is required. State preferably in terms of game-turn rather than turns from "now".

That sorts it? No! That was about DURATION. What do you put IN the contract??
OK, think of it as a contract, and you can propose anything you like, see if the other guy says yes, or leave him or her with options, eg "Duration up to you!".

You are basically saying you will not attack, or missile, or spy-ops on, any of the other player's provinces. Nor will he on you. For the duration of the NAP, until one of you has notified and the notification-period has elapsed. Clear, right?

But no. What if you both go for the same neutral on the same turn, and maybe clash there? Or both want to carve up the player between you?

OK, you CAN simply set the contract as "I will not attack, bomb or spy-on any prov that is yours, er ... at the start of the turn". Or you can specify a border-line between you! You say that, not only will we not bomb, attack/spy each other, but we will ALSO agree a border - i.e. you have rights to all enemies and neutrals in provs .... (maybe describe a demarcation line) ... whilst I have first dibs on any enemy or neutral provs on MY side of our border.

Does that sound hard to think through and write down and agree? Nope. Not in comparison with the grief you would get from an unclear nap, with each of you, arguing later, saying what it meant or implied! Best bne clear on provinces or on lines across the map as spheres of influence.

You would think that that would sort it? Nope! You've cracked duration and geography ..... but not "clauses" !

This is the trickiest ... and the one on which views differ most.

Half of us think that a nap is basically a contract between future likely enemies, so it's a deal you make which is a contract, not a vow of friendship. The other half hook onto the name of it, "NON-AGGRESSION pact", and are severely offended if you do ANYTHING against their interest, as if you broke the nap. Contract between future enemies, or promise not to help harm you? You might think there is little difference? But there is. We call it "Letting-through".

Opinions are equally divided on this one (so you can choose how to play it!). If you have a nap, peace on your border, can you (deliberately) let someone else attack THROUGH your prov to attack the enemy you are napped with?! I'll be honest with you: half of us think it is underhand and cheating on the nap, while half of us think it is a clever use of shielding, not violating the nap-between-enemies, and adds clever tactics to the game. You can probably tell which side I am on!

Unfortunately, that leads more and more players to automatically insert a "no-let-through" clause into a nap. Which means that it becomes the norm. Which means you cannot reject, or even omit, that clause, without it sounding as if you already plan to ruin their day. So, "no-let-through" becomes the norm, written or taken as assumed, with nobody likely to reject it from a contract, because omitting or rejecting it implies "We will attack you". No way out. The clever strategy of "letting-through" becomes outlawed. Half of us would say that it impoverishes the strategy-options in the game. But you can see how the complainers and the cautious MAKE it go that way, with no way for the cavaliers to keep it an open and strategic option ... Assume that the House is still divided on this!

How do you end a nap without offending?
You don't HAVE to explain! You can if you like, but otherwise something like the following will do:
"Sorry, but the time has come. I am notifying for ending our nap. 2 turns notice. So earliest hostilities are start of Turn XX. Good luck!"

Note that I inserted "earliest hostilities are start of Turn XX". Look, YOU have just worked it out, but pls be fair on your opponent? If you only say end-of-nap, he or she might mis-remember that notification was just one turn ... or 3 turns ... or might miscount when notification was, plus how many turns, therefore the turn on which this notification into hostilities? Come on! Be fair. REMIND THEM of the nap conditions and length and notification, and TELL them on what turn hostilities can commence.

I know that I sound like a hawk on treating naps as temporary contracts between enemies, regarding attacking-through as good tactics; but I sound like a dove on spelling out to the victim when hostilities would end, or indeed WILL now end, giving him or her a TURN NUMBER rather than leaving them to try to work it out or get it wrong.

Last point: Etiquette. Don't think it would be clever to notify someone that you are ending the nap, just minutes or hours before the turn runs. They may already have put in orders and not get your notification till after the turn runs, too late to do much about it. That might have been your intent ... but it would be deemed underhand. Assume that everyone thinks you are fair if you give your nap-ending-notifications within 36 hours of the last turn.

Over to others to voice their agreements, disagreements and alternative views. But at least you have a reference-point.

Han
HOW LONG???? :lol: :D :shock:

User avatar
Duke
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 1699
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 7:00 am
Location: Sweden, Valn Ohtar

Post by Duke » Thu Jan 31, 2008 4:47 pm

hA<b>n</b>n<b><i>i</i></b>Ba<i><b>L</b></i> wrote: You seem to work off the assumption that all this advice is for new players who will be with us for dozens or hundreds of games. Pls introduce me to them!
Hi, I'm Duke. A tad absent these days but nevertheless. 8)

(I get your point)
First one here, last one to leave.

Post Reply