Do you really think that you're fooling anyone?

[Lazy_Perfectionist]

I've seen two kinds of NAPs offered.
10+3 (ten turns minimum, 3 turns warning)
3 (3 turns warning, min/max not specified)

And I've offered
'until late winter year 3'

I'd be quite pleased with dmentd's behavior, sum1won.

I prefer the 'until late winter' NAP best. I'll renegotiate, but it also gives some vagueness to my intentions, so nobody's certain exactly who I'll attack. And, in case of Veturi, gives Pangaea a chance to attack me first, and change my plans to compensate for that, rather than my intended target.

I will try to offer more responses, other than silence.
"Your messenger was treated to a feast, engaged in hours of diplomatic talk, but no consensus among the oligarchy(or oracles, or Angakuks) could be reached. Perhaps in the future."

I do agree, though, there's no problem in making sure your attackers have little to gain- a tendency to be an expensive or risky conquest with little reward is a good reputation to have. As long as you aren't being a sore loser, I suppose. Though I'm not certain precisely what a sore loser is... Well, no matter. I'm sure I'll form an opinion sooner or later. Don't read too much into this paragraph- its a thought in progress, not a final opinion.

I view NAPS as truces, at worst. At best, trade opportunities. Kind of how America's still at war with North Korea, and at peace (while selling fighter jet parts) to Iran, despite having warhawks beat their drums. Cultural, perhaps, but I'm used to not believing what my government's just done.

[thejeff]

I actually kind of dislike the 3-turn NAP being so much the default.

I prefer to at least include some border negotiations, if there are still independents within reach of both. Trade, possible alliances against other powers, exchange of information, etc, etc

A diplomatic message consisting only of "NAP 3turn?" is a almost a declaration I'm not going to get anything else out of you.

At least tell me why I should promise you peace. What do you think I have to gain by it?

[Xietor]

Rather than have the reputation of someone who pillages and burns their lands to create a disincentive to attack, I would prefer:

1. To have the reputation of always honoring my deals, even if it costs me a chance to win the game,

and

2. To be known as a player that is extremely good at fighting battles and killing off my enemies in battle.


The 1st is a matter of trust. If you have the rep of sticking with your allies through thick and thin, hopefully more people will choose you as an ally in the future. You are dependable and they do not have to fear the knife in the back.

The second, if a powerful neighbor has 2 or 3 expansion options, but knows you are going to extract a heavy toll on his armies, and that a quick victory is extremely unlikely,
then he may look elsewhere even though geographically your lands are the next most logical choice.

Players that pillage and destroy their own lands, or have d3 dominion, are precisely the players I want to kill off 1st. If they are left alone, then they will have an even bigger area of lands to destroy in the future. So I would rather bite the bullet early and remove them from the game.