> To be fair a dominions convention is that NAPs are meant to be inviolable, but many players don't know that yet (it isn't true in a lot of other turn-based games).
Huh? I didn't know that.
I have never played a game of strategy and diplomacy in wich pacts are not expected to be broken.
I'm not very fond of NAP's as it seems people expect anyone who breaks them to be a bastard. I will unvariably attack an opponent when I assume my gains will be the greatest (including diplomatic ones).
There should be no unbreakable pacts, and if players use the term 'NAP' to mean 'a pact that makes you a bastard if you break it' I think the diplomatic traditions of this game has been broken somewhere
It is fun to betray, and it is fun to be betrayed. Frustrating, yes, but all the more fun when you strike back with righteous vengence! Or die trying to
It is also more fun to play when you might expect a backstab from one of your neighbours at any time.