Adjudication on a NAP -edited please comment again

[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.

[gowb]

Oh yeah and if it matters I agree with Zenphos. If someone doesn't send a confirmation of the NAP then there is no NAP.

[thejeff]

Sounds more like, no attack within the next 10 turns without at least 3 turns of warning.
If you want to continue it, you have to negotiate again.

Standard 3 turns of warning, but no deal after the 10 months are up

[Ironhawk]

Yeah thats right thejeff. Its just a regular 3-turn NAP, but it expires on the 10th turn. So if you still want to go to war with someone you can still give notice. But unless its something hugely pressing, its normally easier to just wait until the NAP expires.

[Valandil]

My position has always been "never attack anyone until they hve gobbled up eighteen nations and can eat you for breakfast," so maybe I'm not the most qualified judge here, but it seems to me that Zenphos should probably have either sought confirmation of the NAP or explicitly confirmed that no NAP existed.
If Zenphos is correct and he was deliberately seeking a war, using deliberately ambiguous wording and messaging strikes me as, though not oathbreaking per se, at least dishonest and deserving of a volley of seeking arrows.

How would the OP feel if his NAP proposal met with the response "maybe"?

That being said, ambiguous wording is not criminal, and better communication from the other party would have resolved this much more easily. I therefore reluctantly side with the OP, but suggest, without intention of giving offence, a less equivocal diplomatic methodology in the future.