What do NAPs mean to you?

[Baalz]

Well I can see your point, but the way I see it is like this.

Astral Corruption/Utterdark/Burden of Time/etc. - (for the sake of argument) screws everybody but the caster roughly equally.

Arcane Nexus/Forge of the Ancients/etc. - Benefits the caster and nobody else

In either case the only change in advantage is between you and the caster. It doesn't matter if the caster is directly benefiting or screwing everybody else up, the effect is the same. Casting something like Purgatory though, if you're Ermor would be a completely different thing.

[atul]

Heh, but I'm the benevolent GOD and you're hurting MY people and lands that are MINE.

Your logic may be valid, but humans are not logical people.

[Warhammer]

An NAP is just that, a Non-Aggression Pact. The problem is that many players use NAPs as a crutch while they move all their other forces to the otherside of the world since they have an agreement.

Not only is this unrealistic, but it can be foolhardy for many players in them. The best thing to do to ensure that you do not get attacked is to constantly talk to all players. Too many games I have been in consist of: "Let's sign a NAP." Then you don't hear from the guy until, "Hey, I'm ending the NAP in X turns." All too often, that means they are attacking in X turns.

The key to not getting kicked in the pants by someone violating a NAP is to prepare yourself for your partner violating the NAP. If he sees you are thoroughly prepared, he is not going to attack you.

Additionally, some players make a NAP, then take anything you do as threatening. One game a guy took a high dominion. We had a NAP and his dominion was encroaching on a lot of my territories. I built temples and the guy started complaining about my temples, etc. Just because you NAP me, doesn't mean I am going to let you dominion kill me, and any action I take to prevent that does not mean that I am going after you, only protecting myself...

Also, if you get a global off that I can dispel and is in my interest to dispel I am going to do it. I do not consider that a violation of any NAP, but some would scream to such an extent that you would think it was.

[Gandalf Parker]

To me its an alliance. They might not have meant it that way when they made it but I try to treat it that way and Ive rarely been disappointed.

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

What do NAPs mean to me? Well, I'll mention an alternative treaty I've used maybe twice.

I occasionally make a border treaty instead of a full-fledged NAP or peace treaty. It does not exclude later war, but it does prevent unwanted early conflicts.

I say that you have such and such territory, I have such and such. To move into that territory is a declaration of war. After setting up one of these, I often have a year of peace before something happens. When I make such a border treaty, I don't expect a warning before someone invades, but I do expect a declaration of war to arrive when they attack me.

I don't consider the inevitable invasion dishonorable unless this border treaty is paired with a non-aggression treaty. It exists simply to ease the early expansion game. I suppose if they broke this treaty quickly, i would be annoyed. But I generally set up this border treaty so both our nations have a strategically comfortable border. To delay conflict, not prevent it. For instance, if certain provinces are on the wrong sides of chokepoints or are uncomfortably close to another players' capital.

Most often, though, I do go with Non-agression pacts. I also always assume that both sides have different ideas of what the NAP is, and either iron out the differences or maintain caution.

[Hadrian_II]

A NAP is just to say an other player that you have no interest in attacking him, and that you are strong enough to crush him even when he is prepared. (Or that he could crush you if he wanted so, and you just hope that he agrees and you can live on )

I personally do not backstab on NAPs, but if people do this i consider it their right (but i will note the player, and never trust him again). I think that casting Anonymour Rituals on nations you have a nap with can make a lot sense, and while the grace period is running down, even not so anonymous artillery might be used.

[Lingchih]

I'm amazed at how many people consider a 3 turn NAP to be an unbreakable pact. A 3 turn NAP is just that... a 3 turn warning that you are on the way to war. I've had 3 turn NAPs last for dozens of turns, and some that only lasted 8 or 10. I don't ever take it amiss when someone cancels an NAP, as long as they do it honorably and wait the full 3 turns. And I don't expect them to hate and mistrust me in other games from then on if I cancel one... we only agreed to 3 turns.

A 10 turn NAP, or a pact, is different. I expect to be on a much more friendly basis when under one of those.

[Warhammer]

Hadrian_II said:I personally do not backstab on NAPs, but if people do this i consider it their right (but i will note the player, and never trust him again). I think that casting Anonymour Rituals on nations you have a nap with can make a lot sense, and while the grace period is running down, even not so anonymous artillery might be used.

I think it is wrong to never trust a player again once an agreement is broken (inside the same game is fair though) because you don't know the situation they are in. If they are in a no win situation, I think it is better that they keep their options open, rather than limit their options to their own detriment.

[Tuidjy]

I am used to the old style Y+X NAPs. I have never violated one, and I will not
engage in any diplomacy with anyone who, to my knowledge, has. Before I agree, I
always try to make sure that the other person understands NAPs the way I do.

I also make it clear that any action that ends up hurting one unit of mine on my
territory, or attacks my income is a violation of the treaty. This includes spies,
stealth preachers, or even scouts/assassins not set on immediate retreat. Although
in the last case, I will not necessarily attack. I also warn the person first if
his domain is encroaching on mine, and he keeps building temples.

In my experience, most people do comply with the X turn notice requirement.