I don''t really think anyone is saying you have to tell the other your intentions at the end but by having a system where you have to say you want an extension you say atleast 5 turns before the end of the NAP that way you know if there is no extension that there *might* be an attack.

Personally I wont make NAPs with people on the same terrain at the start as it avoids all those questionable resource building issues. It does kind of force me into attacking people sometimes but I figure if someone is good we have a more level playing field at the beginning or if they are crap I get an easy win, either way I''m happy.

Perhaps I should probably have added, this grace thing is a temporary circumstance of mine.

I''m playing nice, basically because it serves all ends. There''s nothing to say in future games - or even further down the line in the game WE''RE in - that there won''t be fighting. Call it insulting for me to be graceful this time around, but when I entered into WOL I got mashed from Raptor almost straight away. Of course, over 5 years on I''m still quietly biding my time and plotting revenge (even if it''s lousy, tiny, pyrrhic victory revenge ) but it would probably have been easier if I''d been on the insider club to start with.

5-turn notification is only if you terminate prematurely. If a player doesn''t go with this, it waters the value of the nap since it can become invalid at any time and you must always be within running distance of home. Without it, the NAP is almost worthless - games like civ have mechanisms to stop players just using peace treaties as excuses to mass outside gullible AI cities.

Before I go too far wide and ramble...

There is of course another element to my diplomacy strategy. It seems simplistic and maybe even crippled so far, but it doesn''t bear into the....shall we call it, ''Roman'' nature of diplomacy.

Sure, we play niceties, we act all graceful, and we do the whole bow-tie thing (but not literally ). At the same time, we sharpen swords, plot death and scheme behind each others backs.

I will personally play the niceties if it serves me. Pro will be able to tell you of a game in which I killed him some years back - if I had MY way, I would have roped BigAmigo into it and split the spoils. But the vet code meant I got a lecture on how terrible and dishonourable it was, so I figured it would be easier to just take the increased chance of defeat and keep the code intact, so I might use it to my benefit later. I''m -generally- honourable as a person, but a game is usually a different matter to me and in this case honour is good because it suits me.
(This excludes tactics which are REALLY just plain dirty, but thankfully most don''t apply to waronline - like the ''total annihilation'' trick of using your ally''s commander unit as a flying bomb, and all they can do to stop it is run around, hide underwater and pray the dropship goes away! )

Summary I suppose...since I''ve said even more that could have meanings I didn''t want...

Diplomacy is as much about what the other guy DIDN''T say as what he did.
I don''t tell anyone my plans ahead of time if I think there''s a chance it could be used directly against me, or unless I have little other choice. See first statement.
Roughly 30-turn naps fit into this, because all you are telling the other guy is ''I''m fighting someone else this time around. We''ll review after that.''

Let this be a lesson to all about the nature of diplomacy. So muddy that even when you 95% agree with each other you still ramble on like crazy to verify points for the other 5%!

There''s even the issue of building a contact net as you meet over games, but now we''re off into the distance.

The final note...before the current...complaints - about the turn system the prime reason for quitting campaigns was in fact the politics. So don''t let ANY of it get you down!

I''ve been making maps with only one castle per terrain type, so you can''t just go after the same terrain color.

Yes Mog you have made it harder for me to choose my first opponant but I cope somehow!

I did notice the latest map designs are made to get in the way of the old ''rules'' some folks live and die by...

It can only be a good thing though. We can always use more diversity.

Without being too politically correct: I believe that any development, whether it be map design or game play, that requires further learning and new utilization of strats and tacs is a very good thing for this site. (A stagnant lake, no matter how beautiful the setting, becomes a haven for leaches, and therefore unfit for swimming in).

Jmacattack

NAPs can be beneficial and ugly.

Much depends on the situation of players (the progression of events) that leads them to make different and important decision during the events of games (as a recourse to survival [recreational survival]).

Those that adhere to a NAP are probably making something beneficial for themselveseven if this is only territorial agreement. A simply breaking of one would mean nothing.

I would hold NAPs as being originally very inconstant but it might be worthy to maintain one during a long-term part of event when you could evoke its agreement to a conforming player. It might save your a**.

However, the discrepencies encountered through interpreting the conditions of the NAP might be enough to throw your agreement into the fires of contention. Players must be brief and too the point of establishing a NAP.

And it''s true, as Jmacattack denotes, that in any game, your territory could become a "haven for leaches." What good would a territorial NAP mean then? Good question!