NAP

[Huzurdaddi]

The Panther said:
Actually, this in no way can be considered a violation of an Non-Agression Pact UNLESS it was specified as part of the agreement. Truidy above was talking about an alliance between players, not a simple NAP. There is a huge difference between those two.

Panther I totally agreed with you when I started playing the game. However I now agree partially with Tuidjy in that the terms of the agreement must be specified in full when you are entering it. That way no one is suprized when something happens.

Personally I would like game enforced diplomacy. But that's pie in the sky thinking.

[BigDaddy]

Huzurdaddi said:

Personally I would like game enforced diplomacy. But that's pie in the sky thinking.

There comes a time when all diplomacy must cease. If its always too soon for you, maybe you should look at your strategy. Also, traitors should definetly be slain at the earliest possible convenience.

[The Panther]

Game enforced diplomacy can be very good. I am very partial to the fixed ally idea, like in a 2v2. If you fully trust your partner, this can work extremely well.

But an FFA is a totally different issue. NAPs (and alliances too, of course) come and they go. They all must end at some point unless the two allied parties agree to end the game when all other players are eliminated (which usually means the snookered parties are pissed off).

I particularly resonated with Big Daddy's comment above that there comes a time when all diplomacy must cease. Like they often said in the Highlander movie series: "There can be only one."

I usually make and break at least half a dozen NAPs in any given FFA. But I always keep my word and warn 2 or 3 turns before attacking, which is the main point of an NAP. However, all NAPs must eventually end if the players are being honest with each other.

And the players who break their promises go into my little black book for future reference...

[Verjigorm]

I do not favor game-enforced diplomacy... It lends a kinda weiner-like flaccidity to the game. Part of strategy is knowing what you can and can't get away with. To put a system in place whereby breaking diplomatic treaties is not possible would be childish. If Jojo breaks his treaty and blows your prophet's head off, go whine to your momma about how "unfair" it was. There are situations in which a treaty, no matter how expertly worded, becomes worthless. It is easy to create such a document in a way to give yourself an unfair advantage. When the person who thought you were an ally realizes they've been duped, they aught to be able to retaliate without sending you a 52-page Letter of Grievance and a declaration of war. Surprise is a valid tactic, after all. There ain't no United Nations or Geneva Convention in Dom2...