MP: Smiting Season (newb-intermediate, LA, CBM 1.92) smiting has begun!

[Whollaborg]

You might notice that even a simple NAP cannot be maintained trough the game as there "can be only one".

Originally Posted by Legendary League

Define conflicting treaties?

In general, people only really sign NAPs. Alliances, if any, are always temporary (and never written or binding in any way). You rarely see anything that may be considered, say, a mutual defense pact or somesuch (i.e. X attacks Y, Ys treaty with Z forces them to attack X), because there is only one winner at the end.

I suppose someone can try more zany treaty ideas (and go for things like a double victory), but in the overwhelming majority of cases, you don't see it. And things like gem/item trades are basically always honored, even in games where diplomacy isn't binding. Even in non-binding diplo games, the majority of treaties which are signed are generally maintained (due to the reputation cost of breaking them).

[Legendary League]

Originally Posted by Whollaborg

You might notice that even a simple NAP cannot be maintained trough the game as there "can be only one".

Well, that's why every NAP has an expiration clause (either it's timed to last only X amount of turns before being renewed, or, more popularly, there is a cancellation clause which requires X turn notice before the treaty is dissolved and attacks may commence).

[Whollaborg]

Perhaps this doesn't qualify as a "simple NAP" any more

Originally Posted by Legendary League

Well, that's why every NAP has an expiration clause (either it's timed to last only X amount of turns before being renewed, or, more popularly, there is a cancellation clause which requires X turn notice before the treaty is dissolved and attacks may commence).

[Groundworm]

All right, Bat/man, you're in! Shall I put you down for Agartha or Bogarus?

Finalgenesis, I remember you! Great to play with you again! Welcome back!

The whole issue of binding vs. non-binding diplomacy seems to be contentious. I'm changing it to non-binding, with the caveat that most of the people I've played with have been more interested in having a good game that's won honorably. If someone does breach a NAP, feel free to call it out publicly so that it's noted for future reference. Things that constitute breaching a NAP include, among others: deliberately overwriting the same global, assassinating commanders, casting remote attack spells (hard to catch), etc. Trades of gems and items, as well as province swapping, are to be considered inviolate regardless.