#1 18.12.2017 19:18:21

Posts: 156

Diplomacy: The non-aggression pact (NAP)

Having to prepare for possibly being attacked eats up resources and slows down development.
The consequence of this is lagging behind if others don't have to take the same precautions.
The obvious solution is to try to speak with your likely opponent to propose an agreement.
Longturn tradition calls the most frequently used agreement a NAP, or non-aggression pact.
Traditionally a NAP seems to have a fixed end turn.
If there is, besides the end turn, a common understanding what "non-aggression" exactly means, if no explicit rules are laid down, is a question that needs to be answered by senior players.
Same goes for the question if the end turn is included into the peace period or not.

A tricky question is, what takes precedence for a player, a NAP or alliance.
If you're new to the concept of NAP, it might be surprising that senior players say the NAP takes precedence, but after the first shock is over, I think that is -- at least in general -- sensible.
It's probably wise to check if the parties have the same opinion on that, as well as to check the affiliation of the other side in general. If there is disagreement about some topic it is not covered by the treaty.

In the next post I propose a framework that shall cover the most basic eventualities parties having a NAP could encounter. It doesn't mean in a real situation it has to become relevant. It's just an attempt to think things over.
It also would be great if others write what in their opinion is the ideal treaty.

Last edited by fran (22.12.2017 04:41:38)


#2 18.12.2017 19:24:14

Posts: 156

Re: Diplomacy: The non-aggression pact (NAP)

What follows could serve as a framework to establish some basic rules and as starting point for solving problems that are not covered here. It's subject to further editing.
That's just my private opinion. I don't want nor can impose anything on anybody, but
writing this stuff here gives me or others the opportunity to reference it from game.
What looks simple in the beginning, can get quite complicated in the end. And vice versa.
And if you want to disagree with something it needs to be stated before that, right?


1) Forbidden aggression of course is any attack or capturing, also sabotage, poisoning or theft by diplomatic units, if not otherwise stated below.

2) It is not forbidden to attack units inside the city of a 3rd party.

3a) Military units may not enter the other side's territory.

b) If really necessary, a military unit may cross the foreign territory as long as the start and end tile of the move are outside.

c) Naval vessels have the right of free passage on ocean tiles, as long as they adhere to the rules for civil units.
The right of passage cannot be revoked.

4a) Civil units may enter as long as they move in a non blocking way, if not otherwise stated below.

b) If a civil unit blocks production or movement, its destruction is not a breach of the treaty.

c) However, civil units pose a risk of intelligence leakage, if the owner shares vision with a 3rd party or proliferates his knowledge in another way to a 3rd party. Therefor any side may revoke the right to enter with civil units at any time, in which case they have to leave instantly.

d) In any case civil units have to leave if the treaty is nearing its end, be it one side gave notice or there are only
10 turns left until it automatically runs out. Because intelligence gathered from that point on is possibly used for attack preparation.


5a) With a fixed end turn the treaty runs out automatically. That's an easy way to go.

5b) The alternative would be to have some cancellation deadline/abrogation period. In that case the treaty does not run out automatically, but one side needs to notify the other that she abrogates the treaty. The treaty would end after the deadline. I think 15 turns would be a sensible number.

6) In any case the end turn is included in the peace period.

7) If one side allows a 3rd party to use its territory for attacking the other side, the attacked player may terminate the treaty instantly.

8a) If one side wants to reserve the right to instantly terminate the treaty if an ally of hers is attacked by the other side, this is only possible if a) the alliance is older than the NAP, b) she named the ally when she agreed to the treaty and c) she explicitly said she wants to reserve this right. Alliances that are younger than the NAP never can take precedence.

b) If one side attacks a 3rd party and the other side interferes by helping this 3rd party, be it by blocking the way or attacking on that 3rd party's territory, the side that attacks the 3rd party may terminate the treaty instantly. Of course both sides could agree on restricting the war to a certain area. 

9) If one side starts building the spaceship, the other side may terminate the treaty it instantly.

10) If one side breaches the treaty, the other side may terminate it instantly.

11) If one side is idling for more than 3 turns, the other side may terminate the treaty instantly by giving notice.
This is only possible before the other side has logged in again.

12) The treaty is void if one side announced she will stop playing, even if there is a permanent delegation, i.e. the treaty is bound to the player and not to the nation.

Last edited by fran (13.01.2018 12:10:58)


#3 19.12.2017 09:31:07

Posts: 1,626

Re: Diplomacy: The non-aggression pact (NAP)

There are several NAP types. Making a NAP is not that bad idea. It doesn't rely on the in-game mechanics but on mutual trust between the players. The more veteran players often care about the reputation they have and rarely break the deals. May also apply to the new players but you never know... Then again it's completely different matter about how the deals are interpreted when there is need to do something that wouldn't be in the spirit of the deal.

Maybe keeping the NAP simple?

Like: No attacking, no blocking, no entering claimed land (or only with permission or with civilian units) and no helping the enemy. To make things clear I usually want to define an end turn: "The deal will end at the end of turn T50" making it obvious that it will be valid for T50 but not T51. If it would be agreed that the deal would end at T50 it might be unclear of it would include T50 or not. Also making it the last for only 20-30 turns is a good idea. It's hard to predict what will happen in 50 turn. Also hard to say about 20-30 turns but you may have some idea about that.

You can also agree that there will be talks about extending the NAP maybe 5 turns before it ends. That will leave some time for preparing to deal with a neighbor you have no NAP with.


#4 19.12.2017 11:29:11

Posts: 877

Re: Diplomacy: The non-aggression pact (NAP)

wrong thread...

Last edited by Corbeau (19.12.2017 11:29:37)


#5 19.12.2017 12:03:18

Posts: 156

Re: Diplomacy: The non-aggression pact (NAP)

wieder wrote:

There are several NAP types.

The number of possible treaties is infinite, because everybody has the freedom to agree on whatever he wants.
It's the purpose of this thread to write about treaties that are frequently used or about what  players  think should be used.


#6 19.12.2017 17:29:34

Posts: 877

Re: Diplomacy: The non-aggression pact (NAP)

I definitely agree that the number of possible treaties is (near) infinite. But regarding game mechanics, the only question is: what is needed. I definitely agree that the current "peace" feature is senseless. But the problem would be solved if the alliance wasn't so difficult to set up. The main problem I see is the default state of "War" which, if you and your target ally have made contact with a lot of nations, makes it very difficult to have a functioning alliance without establishing embassies with everyone and their mother. And everything would be solved if the default state was "Neutral", with going to war only after you've declared it or attacked his unit.

OR, simply, what I've believed forever, that you don't need a diplomat to have a treaty. Simply have the whatever-the-name-of-the-setting to a few turns, so that you can touch Warriors, agree on Peace and be done with it.

Apart from that, I'm not sure there is a need for an additional diplomatic state.


Board footer

Powered by FluxBB