Adjudication on a NAP -edited please comment again

[Cerlin]

For me I think the hardest part is juggling your boarders so you have enemies to fight. In a recent game I was a second rate power that was hemmed in on all sides by either allies, NAP, or people I couldnt attack. Sometimes at that point I want to ask someone to kill me! considering the fact it would come back to bite me on the forums if I break agreements. And even if you break the NAP or agreement honestly, many people seem to take it personally "You're attacking ME?!?!" This may just be my experience but too many layers of NAP can be dangerous.

[Karlem]

Even based on the new information I think that without a confirmaton message you do not have a NAP. It's like having an unsigned treaty, just worthless paper.

Of course there was a misunderstanding, one side though that he had a NAP and the other side was waiting for a confirmation (that never arrived) but one thing is a misunderstanding and other thing a backstab.

And about the explaining what a NAP is, well I try to say it allways to avoid misunderstandings. I had that problem once with Meister Miagi but was solved with mutual agreement and since them I always specify as much as possible.

[Ironhawk]

Cerlin said:
For me I think the hardest part is juggling your boarders so you have enemies to fight. In a recent game I was a second rate power that was hemmed in on all sides by either allies, NAP, or people I couldnt attack. Sometimes at that point I want to ask someone to kill me!

This is why my standard NAP is not a 3-turn NAP, but a a 3-turn NAP with a 10-turn duration. That way, both nations must renew every 10 turns or so thier commitment to the NAP. If someone wants out they just choose not to renew. This does not always even mean war.

I started doing this after another player offered me a deal like that and found it makes the game MUCH more fun. Way more dynamic games instead of being hemmed in by treaties the whole time.

[sector24]

"Don't take offense" is of my favorite expressions along with:

I don't mean to judge, but...

...bless his/her heart!

Don't take this the wrong way, but...
---

It's like a socially acceptable way to be completely uncouth.

[Loren]

I do think it should be a config option, although another thing I think would work is 3 + the number of players currently active, with the provision that the elimination of a player won't take out a spell.

[Cerlin]

I love ironhawk's idea! I'll have to start using that.

[Ironhawk]

Yeah its just fantastically useful. As other posters have mentioned sometimes even terminating a NAP with a 3 turn warning still causes anger. But if the NAP just expires on its own then people are even less likely to get upset.

Additionally, I like durations because you never know how your nation will develop. On turn 10 you could want peace with everyone... but on turn 20, someone could be close to winning and you would need to go to war with them. Can't ever tell what the future will bring.

[gowb]

A 10 Turn NAP with 3 turn warning...what is the point of that? It's basically just a 13 turn NAP if you can't terminate it before the 10 turns are up. Unless you mean at least 10 turns before you can terminate it, and then any time after that when you want to fight you give them three turns of warning? That would make more sense, but I read your suggestion as "Ten turns of NAP with a three turn warning at the end of that, unless you renew for another ten turns" in which case it's basically a permanent peace agreement.

Also Ironhawk you seem a bit confused there little buddy. Zenphos IS the OP.