» RWS and NAPs
We usually say that we dont like NAPsWe laugh at ppl who makes lots NAPS ..
But why ?
Whats wrong with NAPs ?
And RWS actually HAVE made naps ..on a few rare occasions..
This is about RWS and Naps - Our view of it.
.............................................................................................................
The ideas has alot to do with Machiavellian war strategy ideas.
Even though it was over 500 years ago - his ideas are still very valid and easily translated to modern situation .. Books like "The Prince" and "The Art of War" are masterpieces and very important if youre into political philosophy and psychology.
It was Machiavelli that founded the expression " My enemys enemy is my friend" and though the words sounds simple and easy .. theres alot of thought behind it .
So what does Machiavelli have to do with RWS and Naps? Most of the ideas we have about alliances has its origin in Machiavellian theories about relationships between warlords/alliances/powers.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A NAP between two alliances can ONLY be good if that nap was made for defense - motivated by a real threat. A situation where 2 alliances have a common enemy that is threatening them.
A NAP should not be made until its really needed.
and it should be dissolved as soon as its not needed for defense anymore.
Never ever make a nap for expansionistic reasons - They ALWAYS fail - and usually also creates lots of troubles and irritations in both alliances involved.
Why? Because you cant find the exact level of what is "fair". One or the other party will always feel they dont benefit from the nap as much as the other party . One is always stronger . One is always the underdog. The psychological processes inside the "less strong" alliance in the nap will eventually mean and lead to conflicts between the napped partys . Its often not worth to create this mess inside your alliance for the gain you get from a nap.
Naps for expansion ?
If 2-3 alliances "commits" a NAP in beginning of round - and they divide a gal between them - they have to almost insult each others when they try to decide who takes what sectors - who deserves more - who can handle more - who can secure this or that many sectors ? Difficult discussions that will inevitably have a bad and bitter aftertaste in their mouths .
Then when leaders have to tell the members of the deal they made for sectors - and members will often feel that the leader had failed - no matter how much sectors he/she negotiated for his/hers alliance . This is damaging to the spirit in the alliance . Some will always be unhappy about results ..
And later in round even more troubles will be created once its a matter of going to war against someone ..
Powerstruggles of visible or invisible kind will create long lasting problems .
We saw this situation in round 7 Saturn . BRC+ONIX+GF ..Some of the leaders and members still dont like each others now after that joint venture . Some feel betrayed . Some feel angry. Members reacted differently . Noone forgets it . Its a type example of why a NAP made for expansion isnt a good choice as it wrecks and ruins relations and trust and faith - even though they were good friends before .
We saw in R5 .. OPA+FBL+COS+2P+ .. dont remember who .. It also had similar effects with long lasting irritations and mistrust between the leaders and members inside the nap ..
There are examples in EVERY round .. I bet if we start to think we can make a long list of examples ..
NAPS for defense ?
Yes, we have done those .. R6 .. we (RWS) took almost all of our galaxy .. in the end we had some small figths with TFT . Suddenly there was a real threat in the neighbourgalaxy .. LLJK +Ceots + a few others gathered together in a nap - the reason was to jump over to our galaxy and kill RWS. We had a guy in CEOTS so we knew the steps for sure. There was a real threat - together they were both larger and stronger than us .. so we made a nap with TFT - actually we made a full merger instead .. it was only 3 weeks left of the round . This was effective . It was a nap made for defense - nothing else. and it prevented the neighbour gal to jump over to us . They had hoped to nap TFT also and use their help once they landed in our gal. That option was now gone .
And like every other nap made for expansion - the nap /merger with Ceots+ LLJK + one more, proved to be full of conflicts and backstabbings. Some are still angry and hurting about how things went down . The nap they made was a failure.
Should we have NOT made the nap with TFT ? Well .. we ended the round #2. If we had NOT done the nap - then TFT would have joined the ceots pact and also attacked us together with Ceots+ lljk etc. Isnt more fights more fun? Yes they are . But with 3 weeks left of the round we wouldnt have had time to properly fight it out anyways - so we chose this way.
Round 7 Saturn .
RWS got word that GF+ONIX+BRC was gonna jump over to us .
We owned most of our gal already . We had not yet killed a small ally called INORDER. There was no nap with INORDER - we simply hadnt prioritised to attack them as we were figthing ROYAL and "Hellstrike force" ( I forgot their name :S )and some others . We had indeed taken a few INORDER planets .. but it was no real attacks.
Once we heard we were gonna have visitors we decided to nap INORDER . In fact also this time we made it a merger instead . This was good . INORDER provided the extra fleets that was needed to meet the attack in a convincing way without too much losses.
and once the threat was gone we dissolved the Merger . Inorder ended the round in their own name . The nap was a success. For both alliances. Everyone was glad and had respect for each others after.
We still have excellent relations with the allainces we napped/merged with .
We only napped for defense reasons .. nothing else .
IF we make a nap - then we follow that agreement completely .
A nap in RWS always have lots of support as all members will vote about it first - and a large majority must agree on the nap.
Hugs
Lizzy