[MaxWilson]

I think "Reverse NAP" is a misleading name. I was expecting something like a mutual aggression treaty whereby two parties both agree to attack each other for three turns and then cease hostilities.

I also think it would be difficult to enforce. What does it mean to say that A can attack B and B can't act against A? Does B have to stale for three turns? Can B raise PD? Can B shuffle troops around? Can B build troops in border provinces? Can B retake provinces that A takes?

That said, I sort of like the idea of penalizing the NAP canceller. A Non-Aggression Pact has no more teeth than the World Court, but politics and diplomacy are a legitimate part of Dominions. It might be simpler to simply include penalty clauses in the NAP: "The cancelling party must wait three turns before attacking, and must also pay a fine of 2000 pounds of gold to the other party immediately upon cancelling of the NAP." It doesn't need a new name, though, it's just another variation on NAPs.

Hmmm, Dominions as a UN metaphore. Only dictators, unlike pretenders, cost lots of upkeep regardless of the size of the national army.

-Max