Quote:
Originally Posted by licker
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoloMo
Most problems occur when you make say NAP-20. So the experienced players mostly make NAP-3 only, sometimes NAP-6. There is no need to violate NAPs when you can attack in just 3 short turns.
Even if you have "conflicting" NAPs, if you only have NAP-3 or even NAP-6, why can't both mutual defense treaty and NAP be served by waiting 3 turns to attack?
|
Indeed, which is why I find most of these discussions to be nearly pointless. Rule lawyering sucks, and yet, it seems that's what people actually want...
Well so be it, but I don't quite see the need for the insane level of detail being proposed, *if* you simply bother to talk to your partners regularly enough.
Again, how often are people actually back stabbed as opposed to notified that the agreed upon NAP needs revision? Or do you not see a distinction? |
A distinction between what? If both parties agree to the revision, then of course there's no problem. What if one party disagrees? Then I propose that this template heads off most of the perceived problems before they arise.
The insane amount of detail is just a collection of actual situations that I have encountered which have been resolved in that way with both parties agreeing. And if you are infering this is a NAP template for lazy players who can't find the time to talk everyday with their NAP partners... you are right!
