Adjudication on a NAP -edited please comment again
 

I was hoping to get some opinions on a recent event in a game. Honest answers will be appreciated as I plan on sticking with whatever opinions come out of this post.
The problem is I have been called an Oathbreaker for attacking someone who thought we had a 2 turn NAP when I thought we didn't.
I will sum the situation up as best as I can.

The Defendant: the worthy and honourable Arcoscephale,
The complainant: the bloodthirsty virgin slaughterer Mictlan.

I receive a message early in the game, before we sight each other, asking whether I could rustle up some owl quills.
I reply that not yet but I should be switching to construction shortly and then I will trade.
More discussion a couple of turns later about how the quills are going
Then a request for a 3 turn NAP.
I respond with yes no problem, I promise not to attack for the next 3 turns and ask for clarification as to whether this is correct.
I receive a response saying no a 3 turn NAP means "3 turns of notice before an attack, otherwise lasting throughout the game". Of course, we can negotiate something else if that is disagreeable."
This is unsuitable for me so I respond with "At this point I find myself able to commit to a 2 turn NAP."
Then I think 4 turns go by, but it might be 3 or even 5, with no response about whether my 2 turn NAP is accepted.
So I make alternate arrangements under the impression my opponent was unhappy with a 2 turn NAP and is getting ready to invade.
I then receive a message asking how the owl quill research is going and I respond with "No quills for you, you are about to invade my lands"
A response back "No I am not, I assumed the NAP was in place. So can we assume it is in place now?"
My response "I am afraid not, in fact prepare your borders for you are about to be invaded"
This response was given the turn I invaded, but he had not sent in his turn so therefore he had an opportunity to prepare himself for he knew I was coming. Basically one turns warning.
So the question is,
1. do I withdraw and allow him one more turn to prepare himself for war? Or even 2?
2. do I press on since due to his lack of reply to my renegotiated terms the NAP was never in place?

That is the situation and I hope my erstwhile foe, he who enjoys the butchery of young innocent girls, will either agree with my rendition or give his own account of the events.

My opponent has responded in our game thread and I now present his side of things here in full. I am hoping the people who responded may have a bit of time to read over his side of things and then present their views, or anyone else. This is directly cut and pasted from the game thread, but just in case there are doubters you can check it here
http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...t=all&vc=1

"I am still feeling ill. I would appreciate it if we can stay on the 48 hour timer for the next few turns. I would like to see how things go and perhaps find a sub or set the game to AI after that. I am undecided on whether I should continue spending energy playing a game I feel has mostly gone sour due to the level of difficulty I have had dealing with zenphos who either does not understand what a NAP is, or feels that it is acceptable to slip out of one with vague wording whenever he feels it is convenient.

Anyway, since zenphos has presented his side of the story in the above link, featuring "the worthy and honourable Arcoscephale", and the "the bloodthirsty virgin slaughterer Mictlan", I feel compelled to present my side of the story here since the thread he started has been presented in a one sided manner and has gone off topic.

It began with a trade negotiation for owl quills that I opened with zenphos early on. Afterwards, I him on the border, and offer him I what I understand is a standard 3 turn NAP that most players seem to use. Note that at this point, he does not understand what a NAP is, so I go to the trouble of posting a question on the forums and sending him the link and explaining it.

zenphos replies with this message:

"At this point I find myself able to commit to a 2 turn NAP.
This is the same NAP I have organised with other nations.
Which means 2 turn warning before any sort of aggresive behaviour or subversion.
Basically scouts are fine but no one else.
Looks like things are quieting down so can install my wizards back into their labs and start thinking about owl quills and other goodies."

We have already exchanged quite a few messages at this point and I think we have an understanding, so I take this as done deal. Particularly the sentence "At this point I find myself able to commit to a 2 turn NAP." Little do I know that he will later turn around and say that we have no agreement and that he believes I am massing on his border to take his owl quills "by force", as if it would be a simple matter to march into his capital, lay siege to it and demand that he forge them for me then. Later on, he will claim that I am "unhappy with a 2 turn NAP and [...] getting ready to invade."

Both of these claims are illogical. The idea of marching on his capital to take the owl quills by force, would have resulted in my empire spanning the entire map horizontally which would make me a target for every other player on the map. An obviously impractical idea, not to mention the amount of time that this would required. Any why would I attack him because I was unhappy with the offer of a 2 turn NAP when I was the one who originally proposed the NAP? I cannot think of a more pointless reason for starting an attack. The whole point of arranging a early game NAP is allow both players to conquer indies without being attacked by another player. As illogical as these reasons are, zenphos used both as excuses to cut a deal with other players against me, all the while conveniently forgetting about our negotiations.

At this point, I consider the NAP and the trade agreement a done deal, and turn my attention to finishing off the early war I had with Lanka and to conquering indies, assuming there will be at least a 2 turn notice before hostilities with zenphos. However all this time, he is busy cutting more convenient deals with other players. When I send him another message to see how the owl quills are coming along before I go off for the weekend, I discover that he believes that we have no such NAP, and that I had been planning all along to invade him instead of trade with him. Why then would I have bothered to set up a trade agreement with him? A simple look at the research graphs would confirm that I was trying to acquire some more research boosters.

I don't know how much back and forth it normally takes to secure a basic NAP and ask for some trades, even by the standards of having to explain it to someone with slightly less experience, but I think I went out of my way to explain it and in return, I get backstabbed. In contrast, my negotiations with other players in this game have all been direct and to the point.

Anyway, it certainly looks to me that like I should have not bothered negotiating with someone who either does not understand how to negotiate, or feigns misunderstanding when it is convenient to backstab someone. zenphos, if you're going to try to slip out of agreements when you find it is convenient and fabricate some illogical reasons for doing so, that is one way to play, but do not pretend that you hold the high ground at the same time.

And give me a break about role-playing that you are "avenging the ghosts of Lanka". Aside from the thematic problems associated with Arcocephale avenging a nation of demons, I saw you attack Lanka several turns ago as I was laying siege to his capital. And now you claim you are avenging them when it is convenient to attack me. If there is a more ridiculous contradiction, I don't know what it is, but I believe other players would be well advised to steer clear of dealings with you."

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

If he did not confirm the NAP I would think it is null and void. He would probably agree if he was in a stronger position. Sounds like he is using it as an excuse to build up a little more before the assault comes.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

You will be called oathbreaker regardless of what you do I think. You just need to either make sure the rest of the game agrees with your version of what happened or just ignore it and accept that he calls you that.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Aaaah, but it is not his opinion I care about. It is the opinion of the forum as a whole.
I would not want my opponent to flood the boards with what an untrustworthy fellow I am and find myself having trouble finding allies in other games. So that is one reason I submitted this question.
The other is while I think I am in the right my view is some what biased and, being honourable arcoscephale, it would be wrong to break any sort of agreement in the game.
Now if I was one of the evil, untrustworthy races like say Mictlan, then I do not think it would bother me so much.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Well let me say it like this:

The way you tell it IMHO there would be no NAP, without the confirmation you waited for and did not get I wouldn't consider it a NAP. In my last games there have always been conformations back and forth so everyone knew there was a NAP adn I consider that normal.

The point is that he has interpreted it otherwise and might say the facts are slightly different too. It's hard to give an opinion on the story of only one of the parties and unless his story is identical it will be hard to when he had his say since it will be your word against his.

If you roleplay a very honourable nation you should give him the turn I guess since there is some room for doubt.

Personally I'd never let roleplaying interfer with the results of my game.

NAP breaking isn't forbidden btw, you won't get expelled, it's another part of the game. Personally I'd not do it but..

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I have tried to give as accurate account of the details as I could, and I have PM'ed my opponent with a link to this post and have asked him to give his own version of events.
I can't see how he can dispute the key point though, that is the lack of a confirmation of the renegotiated NAP.
Guess I will wait and see if he responds.
By the way thanks for the input so far.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

At least for me if there isn't a confirmation message there isn't NAP. That's something quite importante you (or him)need to have somehitng to quote and say: this is what I said and here is his agreemnt. Until then nobody has broken a NAP.

I also do not consider that you have to give him another turn: you informed him even without having a NAP (from your point) why should you give him another turn? You are honorable, not stupid http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I think you had a NAP. He offered a 3 turn NAP and you replied you wanted a 2 turn NAP. Obviously if he is willing to go for a 3 turn NAP he's willing to go for a 2 turn one.

You aren't an 'oathbreaker' though. You made no promises.

People who say stuff like '3 turn NAP?' and assume that you will know exactly what they mean deserve to end up in situations like this though.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

well Sombre it was clarified later on.

PS Karlem do we have an official NAP in vampirebat? If not we should talk about it http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

edit: we have a 5 turn NAP I could find in our messages..

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

No oaths made, in my opinion.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Yeah I dont consider this NAP to be binding. Sombre makes a good point that if he was willing for a 3-turn, it makes logical sense that he would probably accept a 2-turn. But the key word is probably. You cant know with complete assurance what someone else is thinking unless they tell you explicitly. So if you recieved no message of the nature "I agree to these terms" then there is no agreement.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Yep, I generally don't consider an agreement reached unless one party accepts a proposal from the other without modification.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

By the same logic, if he was willing for a 3-turn and you proposed a 5-turn he "probably" would accept as well. However, a Nap2, Nap3 and Nap5 are completelly diferent kind of diplomatical agreements, and sometimes you want to accept a Nap3, but you wont accept a Nap5 or Nap2.

I think this nap is not binding as well

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

No agreement, no NAP.

I can see his thinking there was, though. He made a proposal, you gave a counterproposal he found acceptable and he went with it. He just goofed in not telling you it was accepted.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

If a counter proposal is made, it is a nice way of saying “no to your proposal. Here is my proposal”. The other person in the negotiation must reply confirming their assent or rejection of the new proposal. If they don’t there is no agreement, just an unfinished negotiation. You are within your rights to attack, there was no NAP.

If I may, in my very limited MP experience, I would like to say that I am rather surprised at how this issue is generally handled. I had expected a lot more rough and tumble real politic and have found instead a real focus on honour. I am undecided about this. It means that I must always play it straight or I will never be able to make a deal in another game. It takes the potential of betrayal and back stabbing out of things. The game of Diplomacy turns on this very issue and I am not convinced that efforts to remove that element from Dominions are all positive. It is nice to know you have an ally you can count on, but it does take some of the tension and gamble out of the game.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

If you want to backstab just do it however use another account to join future games http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

That's metagame in a "small" comunity. Whatever you do know comes back in future, search function using one user name can give lots of information, probably too much information http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I don't think the potential for backstabbing is gone.. I doubt it would be held against you in a new game unless you did it all the time

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

You treach someone once, your mistake. You treach someone twice, his mistake http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. (Probably a very bad translation from spanish)

At least I check forums for user IDs and verify his NAP background before really commiting myself.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I think Saxon has a point. Part of the player culture of Diplomacy is that lying and treachery are part of the game, just like part of the culture of poker is that bluffing is part of the game. Nobody would refuse to play poker against someone who lied about his cards, and only an idiot would refuse to play Diplomacy against someone who lied about his plans.

Dominions' current MP scene doesn't have that dimension and I think that diminishes it. The presence of multi-game reputations and grudges and players who would rather preserve their "honor" than get ahead in the game they are actually playing right now changes the nature of the game, and IMO, not for the better.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

btw you can always play under another name http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Doesn't it go like this?

"Treach me once, shame on — shame on you. Treach me — you can't get treached again."

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I am not sure how much of the game Diplomacy you have played - but unless you were playing 'blind' or against people you have never met and would not meeet again reputations were very important. And they did not stop back stabbing or make the game 'nice'.

The whole craft of the game was to gather allies so you could take out enemies without having to worry about all your flanks. Then you turned on one of your allies. But you didn't really need surprise if things were working well. He would be engaged elsewhere and could not fight both you and his current opponent. You could afford to give notice that your agreement was over (although no formal NAPs were involved in games I played) and it was obvious to everyone what was happening a turn or two before that as you repositioned your forces.

In games were people simply lied to each other all the time people tended to simply fall out. Outside of the game to. And I associate such games with very young, immature players.

Most people are understandably upset when they get ganged up on or when their (ex) allies attack them. But if later you can see why it happened and it makes it easier to take. A good stab is rarely a surprise in either Dom3 or Diplomacy. In hindsight while you may not like it you can see why it happened.

Most of us are playing for fun. If you are really desperate to win play single player! Continual lying and duplicity in mp - unless everyone knows that beforehand - will just reduce the enjoyment and skill for most of us. This goes dor Dom 3 and Diplomacy.

I don't think Zenphos had a NAP in this example but I think the general honouring of NAPs here is a good thing. I doubt the mp community would last for long without it. Most of us would have better things to do. I've played a lot of boardgames with Diplomacy as well as Diplomacy and no group of players lasts for long as friends or players in a free for all, say anything, do anything atmosphere.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

The point of backstabbing is that the gain has to be really big and obvious that it will work out. Say you backstab an ally to gain /some/ advantage and are not killing him outright is usually a bad idea because you are sure to make a permanent enemy in the game that will eventually convince others to gang on you.

Therefore, it is usually better to keep your 'honorable' face and rather take advantage of dubious contracts, find some excuses why you had to attack or the like. You should always look like the good guy, even though you plotted your neighbours into fighting each other because you didn't want to attack straight away.

I think it is a good idea to roleplay the pretender god. The more convincing you play, the less out-of-game consequences this will have on your reputation, I think, or at least hope.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I agree reputations are important.

I used to play board games with friends. There was one guy who always, always, betrayed people he agreed an alliance with, more often than not the first turn they'd agreed to ally. Everyone quickly knew never, ever, to make an agreement with him.

This is the real danger. There's a community here, and people play against the player. Experienced players will smash new players because it's easy territory, and players will not form NAPs with untrustworthy players. If you have have a bad reputation, you're stuffed in MP because diplomacy is so important.

Breaking NAPs can be done 'fairly', but I think the justification must be that there is a crisis situtation, such as the guy being about to get unbeatably powerful.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I agree, both Diplomacy and Dominions do and should shift on the larger power issues. Once should expect and understand that allies will change and stabs will happen. A good stab will make sense and people will see it coming. Hopefully, a turn after it is too late! However, not all stabs will be good or successful, which is also part of the game. I had expected more of this, a kind of agreement to disagree. Diplomacy is very transparent, while Dominions is not, so I would expect a higher level of deception, as there are more tools to do so.

What I am more concerned about is the perception, largely on the forums, that any breaking of a NAP should result in your name being blacklisted. Creating a second identity is an option, but is a real deceit. I would rather accept that deceit will happen within the game, but that people understand and accept some degree of it. When you trust someone, there is a risk.

A certain level of trust is needed for NAP, but there are ways to generate that in game. Scouts in your neighbor’s territory, messages that armies will be moving in a certain way at a certain time, frequent discussions, hostage provinces. All those build trust that a NAP is being upheld. Sure, it is more work, but isn’t it worth the assurance? Isn’t it also more “realistic?” You can gauge your level of risk.

In any case, it is interesting to discuss this point, as it does reflect on a fundamental part of the game, but one that is not in the code or the manual.

On the role playing side, I am personally biased. If a game is role playing, great, you should all go for it. Just agree on the rules. Remember that not everyone agrees who is good and evil. There was a poll on this recently, which suggested that this is a muddy area. Further, you have to deal with the real person, the forum person and the role playing pretender, so be ready for some confusion. Am I Dave, Saxon or The Unhappy One? What if I slip up?

If it is not role playing, don’t expect anyone to do anything based on their nation. It is simpler.

Finally, on Hoplosternum’s point about winning. People who really want to win come in at least two sizes. Some will be happy beating the AI, even though there is no challenge. Others recognize that SP is the third division and will only be happy if they win in the premiership. They are two very different personality types with two very different motivations. I hope that the second type will have the thoughtfulness to realize that they need to ensure they are playing exactly the game they want to be in and leave the less hard core to our games. That way they can be fully satisfied when they win and the rest of us are fully satisfied with our games.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

The Shrapnel Board Rules state:
So using another username to play certain MP games and another to post is against the rules.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

On a related note...

Would casting "harm enemy" globals be NAP breaking (e.g. burden of time among others)?

Casting a global that bumps another off?

Do they constitute "aggression"? I think so but I bet others would differ.

-SSJ

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

On globals I personally would say that:
1) Whether they will be counted as a pact breach should be agreed upon when terms of NAP are discussed;
2) Burden of Time is NAP breach against almost anyone (except death-heavy/demon-heavy nations), while Purgatory can be counted as such against, e.g., LA/MA Ermor. However, if it wasn't said so at the time of agreement, it's not direct breach, but is reason enough for other player to cancel agreement (or threaten such cancelement at least);
3) Casting global that dispels another isn't NAP breach at all. Though if all globals were by one player, he can assume this as "agression" & probably nobody would be in position to say him that he isn't right. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/smirk.gif

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Globals that harm enemies, if you don't have dominion in your NAP neighbor, I can say they should hardly be concerned about it. If you do have dominion, you should either mention it in a message (as surprise is probably a pretty big harm multiplier, and most likely a bigger deal than the harm itself), or prepare for the consequences.

As for globals that bump off globals, that's part of the game. Only 5 global slots, nothing to be done about that. Everyone is free to recast their own if they really want to.

As for the atmosphere of honor, vs. the atmosphere of betrayal... I feel that the former gives an advantage to the honorable, the latter to the betrayers. As the minority wouldn't be taking optimal advantage of the situation as it exists.

So while it's certainly true that a moderate/strong level of deceit can be fun at least occasionally, or for certain types of games... I'd have to be pretty strongly opposed to anything which actively set the tables against honorable players as partaking in a fools errand. (Since betrayals are a stronger tactic than not, inherently.)

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Yeah, I think if the global you cast has no negative impact on your neighbor - like the gem generators, or something dominion based like Purgatory, then there is no problem. But if the spell directly and negatively impacts them, like Burden of Time or Wild Hunt, then you definitely need to warn them.

As for bumping existing globals with one of your own - there are two ways you can do this. First by recasting the same spell, and second by casting a different spell which bumps off thier spell due to the global limit. In the first case, if I was working closely with that nation I would probably take issue and end the NAP. In the second case there is really nothing to be done.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Speaking of Global slots, how does everyone feel about it being raised to say, 10? Or possibly having it set up under game options?

It's been at 5 since at least Dom2, and that obviously made sense, but nowadays you can have some pretty large games with many many nations.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I'd love for it to be set in game options. More options here is almost always a good thing.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

I'd love for it to be set in game options as well, but if that's not gonna happen, then at least let it be raised to 10 or some other number >5.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

For me I think the hardest part is juggling your boarders so you have enemies to fight. In a recent game I was a second rate power that was hemmed in on all sides by either allies, NAP, or people I couldnt attack. Sometimes at that point I want to ask someone to kill me! considering the fact it would come back to bite me on the forums if I break agreements. And even if you break the NAP or agreement honestly, many people seem to take it personally "You're attacking ME?!?!" This may just be my experience but too many layers of NAP can be dangerous.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Even based on the new information I think that without a confirmaton message you do not have a NAP. It's like having an unsigned treaty, just worthless paper.

Of course there was a misunderstanding, one side though that he had a NAP and the other side was waiting for a confirmation (that never arrived) but one thing is a misunderstanding and other thing a backstab.

And about the explaining what a NAP is, well I try to say it allways to avoid misunderstandings. I had that problem once with Meister Miagi but was solved with mutual agreement and since them I always specify as much as possible.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP -edited please comment again
 

The situation is more muddy when both sides are presented, but it is good that you have. If I may, I would like to make a couple of points.

One, drop the role playing as soon as there is a real argument that is moving beyond the game. Reduce the potential for confusion and get rid of potentially inflammatory language. Tied to this, check if you both share a common language that you can discuss in.

Two, when trying to fix a situation like this, focus on the deal. Don’t try to figure out what the other guy is thinking or why he is doing it. That strategic thinking is fine when negotiating, but once you are trying to resolve this sort of conflict, focus on the actual deal and the actual words.

Three, no offense, but both sides should have done better at communicating. One should have accepted the offer, while the other should have followed up for a response. The deal was obviously in both sides’ interest at the time, so they both should have “sealed the deal.” Given the importance of NAP to most people, the minute it will take to write a message is very acceptable. You spend more time each turn figuring out how to spend your gold and gems, so there is no excuse for not confirming a critical strategic point. The symbolic shaking of hands needed to take place and would have avoided all of this.

As such, no one is covered in glory in this exchange and we can all learn from it. You would do well to consider apologizing to each other and asking if you can still be friends. Sort something out in the game for a few turns and then have fun trying to killing each other. There can only be one, and all NAP will end one day.

You will note I am not giving a final opinion on the NAP. This won't be resolved by one side being right or the other wrong. You two need to talk this over.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Hahaha, are you serious?? Anyone who would fall out with friends over a game is an idiot. We lied and double-dealt with each other all the time in Diplomacy games in my circle of friends and had no problems separating the game from real life...a problem a bunch of people on this forum have apparently http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Hmmmmmm,

A couple of points I think I should make in response.
1. I like roleplaying and don't want to drop it. Have no problem with inflammatory language if I am about to invade someone and already knew he spoke good english.
2. I am not trying to fix this situation, not interested in resolving it and know what the deal was.
3. I always automatically take offense when someone says, no offense, because generally it means they are about to say something offensive and I find it saves time all around, for instance if I say no offence but the topic of this post is "Adjudication on a NAP" not "Sanctimonious preaching about a NAP" is it then not offensive?. Also I did not want to do better at communicating and was looking for someone to attack so when he did not respond to my PM I figured he would do. If someone stuffs up in a major battle, such as sneaking with stealthy units instead of moving, do I then pull back, unwinding my plans for the last few turns so he can have another go or do I keep going with my plans of invasion. What then is the difference in diplomacy?
Or if I had replied with NAP3 no good for me but I will commit to a NAP4 would that constitute acceptance of the agreement by both parties? Would my opponent then have been bound to an agreement to give me 4 turns warning? And if not then what is the difference when I respond with a NAP2 request?
Sorry for the length of the post, and the slightly inflammatory language, but I do not like being judged or lectured to by someone who is not aware of all the facts.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

While roleplaying is generally good, few out-of-character sentences don't hurt anyone, and can be enough to assert the situation to both parties. I think that's what Saxon was saying, and that's a very good rule of thumb IMO.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

Actually... its not. And, no offense its foolish for you to think so. While the OP definitely colored the language of the post to put himself in a better light, he also made clear and (so it would seem now) effective efforts to get your opinion into the mix. That does not qualify as sanctimonious, IMO.

Edit:
It does appear that I was confused as to who was speaking above. However after reviewing the post and the OP I am still confused as to who said what so I have no real idea how to reword this http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

This is why my standard NAP is not a 3-turn NAP, but a a 3-turn NAP with a 10-turn duration. That way, both nations must renew every 10 turns or so thier commitment to the NAP. If someone wants out they just choose not to renew. This does not always even mean war.

I started doing this after another player offered me a deal like that and found it makes the game MUCH more fun. Way more dynamic games instead of being hemmed in by treaties the whole time.

Re: Adjudication on a NAP
 

"Don't take offense" is of my favorite expressions along with:

I don't mean to judge, but...

...bless his/her heart!

Don't take this the wrong way, but...
---

It's like a socially acceptable way to be completely uncouth. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: Number of globals
 

I do think it should be a config option, although another thing I think would work is 3 + the number of players currently active, with the provision that the elimination of a player won't take out a spell.

Re: Number of globals
 

I love ironhawk's idea! I'll have to start using that.

Re: Number of globals
 

Yeah its just fantastically useful. As other posters have mentioned sometimes even terminating a NAP with a 3 turn warning still causes anger. But if the NAP just expires on its own then people are even less likely to get upset.

Additionally, I like durations because you never know how your nation will develop. On turn 10 you could want peace with everyone... but on turn 20, someone could be close to winning and you would need to go to war with them. Can't ever tell what the future will bring.

Re: Number of globals
 

A 10 Turn NAP with 3 turn warning...what is the point of that? It's basically just a 13 turn NAP if you can't terminate it before the 10 turns are up. Unless you mean at least 10 turns before you can terminate it, and then any time after that when you want to fight you give them three turns of warning? That would make more sense, but I read your suggestion as "Ten turns of NAP with a three turn warning at the end of that, unless you renew for another ten turns" in which case it's basically a permanent peace agreement.

Also Ironhawk you seem a bit confused there little buddy. Zenphos IS the OP.

Re: Number of globals
 

Oh yeah and if it matters I agree with Zenphos. If someone doesn't send a confirmation of the NAP then there is no NAP.

Re: Number of globals
 

Sounds more like, no attack within the next 10 turns without at least 3 turns of warning.
If you want to continue it, you have to negotiate again.

Standard 3 turns of warning, but no deal after the 10 months are up

Re: Number of globals
 

Yeah thats right thejeff. Its just a regular 3-turn NAP, but it expires on the 10th turn. So if you still want to go to war with someone you can still give notice. But unless its something hugely pressing, its normally easier to just wait until the NAP expires.

Re: Number of globals
 

My position has always been "never attack anyone until they hve gobbled up eighteen nations and can eat you for breakfast," so maybe I'm not the most qualified judge here, but it seems to me that Zenphos should probably have either sought confirmation of the NAP or explicitly confirmed that no NAP existed.
If Zenphos is correct and he was deliberately seeking a war, using deliberately ambiguous wording and messaging strikes me as, though not oathbreaking per se, at least dishonest and deserving of a volley of seeking arrows.

How would the OP feel if his NAP proposal met with the response "maybe"?

That being said, ambiguous wording is not criminal, and better communication from the other party would have resolved this much more easily. I therefore reluctantly side with the OP, but suggest, without intention of giving offence, a less equivocal diplomatic methodology in the future.