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...

[johan osterman]

Verjigorm said:
Perhaps a standard NAP should be drawn up and (maybe) stickied in the MP Forum for general use. ...

Not sure putting up and stickying standard treaties on this forum is such a hot idea. Since it might appear to lend some sort of official sanction to certain forms of diplomacy and not others. Possibly stifling the varities of treaties people enter into as well.

[Grey]

I have not played any MP yet (still learning to walk in SP), so when I first saw 'NAP' I thought "but did you wake them up? If so they might be mad." Anyway bad pun aside; I have played SEIV (and other games of similiar nature) and note that usually several grades of diplomacy. For example: Non-Agression Pacts, Mutual Trade Agreements, Mutual Defense Agreements, "You're my Slave and give me everything of yours" Agreement, etc...

Both Johan and Verjigorm have valid points about not stifling the variety of treaties. Or setting an official standard. But I do see some value in a definition list of some type that would give general guidelines while disclaiming that at anytime any and all points could be dropped during a game => posted on one of the fansite webpages (so it would not be official). At least this way you would not have to draft a laundry list each time as Tuidjy seems to do, but could quote a community standard starting point (i.e. NAP + Artifact Agreement + No Surprises) or (i.e. NAP + Global + Surprises) or ( ad infinitum ). Any thoughts on this???

[Ironhawk]

In my opionion NAPs are actually composed of two parts, one explicit, the other implicit:

Part 1) Rules: The actual rules of the NAP, which both players agree on. The default NAP stating only that players may not militarily attack each other.

Part 2) Courtesy: The process of staying away from (or informing before taking) actions which will irritate your NAP-partner. Taking globals, stealth preaching, supporting thier enemies, etc...

Of course if someone violates the rules of the NAP it is immediately terminated. But the situation is far more murky if the NAP-partner is just being discourteous and must be handled on a case-by-case basis. If I do feel that if a NAP-partner abuses the common courtesies in a seriously bad way that screws up my plans (or if I detect a pattern of interference on thier part) that I will void the NAP.