Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapmeister
I think that when one nation is clearly running away with the game, the only risk lies in not cancelling any and all treaties with that nation 
|
I think we can all agree with this
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zapmeister
Also, I don't think that anyone (except Shin, of course) would blame Arcos for failing to honour the period of peace in a crisis situation where the only realistic alternative would be to throw in the towel and call it game over.
|
This kind of thing has caused many many bun fights on the boards and I am sure will do so again
Lets just say this is a very controversial view of NAPs
Normally I don't like long term NAPs. Especially as they are usually secret. You don't know when you negociate with someone if he is in an effective eternal peace with some of his other neighbours or not. It also leads to situations like this when neighbours of the big bad are faced with a choice of oath breaking (to those who see it like that) or watching their neighbour win. It can also have a knock on affect for the whole game. If only the long term NAPpers can stop him them the game folds if they have scruples against breaking NAPs. Short term NAPs don't suffer from this, it is usually clear that a power is getting ahead in time for the NAP to be dissolved and the NAPer to help.
Having said all that long term NAPs were not banned in this game. And I have to confess I signed one
Didn't do me much good though as the power in question went AI and shockingly has not kept to the bargin
