Nap-3

[legowarrior]

Personally (although I NEVER play it this way, cause it isn't widely accepted) I'd like to have the NAP 3 to mean that I give you three turns warning that I will break the truce (following Mattyburn's explanation in the beginning of the thread) but that my opponent is free to strike at me ASAP. After all, I'm the one wants to break the NAP, and much like breaking a contract, the party breaking the NAP must pay for the consequences. Now as soon as my opponent strikes me, or 3 turns are up (which ever comes first) war begins.

Again, this is not the consensus in this forum, and I don't play that way, but I think it makes breaking NAPS a slightly riskier play, and makes it harder to double cross other people. Than again, I'm a nice guy.

[bbz]

Originally Posted by legowarrior

Personally (although I NEVER play it this way, cause it isn't widely accepted) I'd like to have the NAP 3 to mean that I give you three turns warning that I will break the truce (following Mattyburn's explanation in the beginning of the thread) but that my opponent is free to strike at me ASAP. After all, I'm the one wants to break the NAP, and much like breaking a contract, the party breaking the NAP must pay for the consequences. Now as soon as my opponent strikes me, or 3 turns are up (which ever comes first) war begins.

Again, this is not the consensus in this forum, and I don't play that way, but I think it makes breaking NAPS a slightly riskier play, and makes it harder to double cross other people. Than again, I'm a nice guy.

How you can look at it is: Every month after you agreed to a NAP-3 you sign it over and over again unless stated otherwise and that means that there won't be any aggressive actions for 3 months. And when you decide to stop signing that treaty. The 3 month period starts expiring for real.

[Vanguard X]

I am a noob, and I am glad this question was asked.

I was under the impression that NAP-3 meant: Non Aggression Pact- lasting for 3 turns. After that 3 turn period, NAP is over- attack at will.

To me it seems silly to give a 3 turn notice before smashing an opponent. I thought this game was about war!

Apparently, I would find more suitable diplomatic relationships in a 'free-for-all' or 'machiavellian' style game. Not that I am one to back off of my agreements, but more because that is how I expect other players to be, and enjoy finding out if they really are, or are not.

P.S. I am thoroughly impressed by the fact that somebody made a MOD based off of the old-school Avalon Hill 'Diplomacy' game. That's just so cool!

[legowarrior]

Originally Posted by bbz

How you can look at it is: Every month after you agreed to a NAP-3 you sign it over and over again unless stated otherwise and that means that there won't be any aggressive actions for 3 months. And when you decide to stop signing that treaty. The 3 month period starts expiring for real.

I see it as a contract myself, and if you break contract, just like in the real world, you have to pay the penalty. Like I said, it isn't a widely accepted definition (yet), but I think it makes sense. Why should the defensive player have to pay the same penalty as the aggressor.