Built-in NAP feature

[nukita]

It would be really nice if Dom5 had a built in NAP feature.

It wouldn't actually do anything other than keep track of when your NAP ends. Similar to the "send gems" feature, you'd select the NAP feature then pick which nation you are establishing the NAP with and specify how many turns.

Once your NAP ends, you'd get a message in your message screen warning you.

Both players would get this warning, so it helps both keep track of when they can attack (cuts down on miscommunication) and makes it easier to keep track of NAPS when you're dealing with many players.

[Twogun]

i doubt that will ever be implemented. but i would actually really like it.

much confusion on NAPs, and often i think people feel 'betrayed' when in fact it was a misunderstanding.

awhile ago, i had a nap with another player. somehow, one of my scouts moving thru his territory attacked instead of sneaking. i sent an apology, and thought all was well. 20 turns later he hit me with everything he had without warning, insisting my scout had ended the nap so he wasn't violating. your idea would clear things like that up, while also handling the 'when can we script attacks' problem.

[Mirthral]

I honestly prefer the game without this feature, as it leaves the players solely responsible to either honour or break the agreement as they see fit, even without warning. Its up to each player how honourable they want to be and, to me at least, it brings a certain level of unpredictibility that other strategy games lack, where they give you so many turns before being allowed to attack, ect ect.

[nukita]

As a feature it would be non-binding, like i said it's just QoL for those of us too lazy to write down all of our NAPs in games with many players.

[Mormacil]

Originally posted by nüke:

As a feature it would be non-binding, like i said it's just QoL for those of us too lazy to write down all of our NAPs in games with many players.

I'm totally fine with non binding NAPs honestly. Binding NAPs are very much a terrible idea. But non binding leaves player choice in tact, it just improves the UI which is always welcome.

[Andrej_S.]

The whole essence of the historical diplomacy of mankind is treaties that never prevented anyone from breaking them. Take the same example of the German attack on the USSR - there was a non-aggression pact, the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Hitler attacked without denunciation. This point is not needed in the dominions, the simulation of the "natural" path of diplomacy is very good, and so. You conclude a pact - keep in mind that everything is at the discretion of your opponent.

[Stormworm]

I find that having a decent size force neighboring whoever you made a NAP with almost guarantees they'll stick with it. If you leave your provinces empty to go fight wars somewhere else, this temptation to simply take those provinces is sometimes too much for some people.

You also should not make NAPs with people who play a nation that ideally would like to war with you and expect them to not break them. If Mictlan asks to be friends and he has a choice of invading your land nation or an underwater one, you know he's gonna come knocking on your door with those jaguar warriors.

When my NAPs end, I usually send a message a turn earlier saying "our NAP is ending turn X as per our agreement and I wish/do not wish to renegotiate it" and that usually clears any confusion.
Some people like to go silent when their NAPs end to keep you guessing but I've never found the need for this.

[Twogun]

i think maybe some folks are missing his point. it isn't a 'you can't attack' feature.

it's just a notification for clarity's sake.

you can still violate at will.

also, i'm not sure historically treaties NEVER prevented an attack. like, canada hasn't attacked the USA yet.

[Mormacil]

Originally posted by Andrej_S.:

The whole essence of the historical diplomacy of mankind is treaties that never prevented anyone from breaking them. Take the same example of the German attack on the USSR - there was a non-aggression pact, the ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ Hitler attacked without denunciation. This point is not needed in the dominions, the simulation of the "natural" path of diplomacy is very good, and so. You conclude a pact - keep in mind that everything is at the discretion of your opponent.

Nobody here requests the game to enforce NAPs, they request an interface element that keeps track of accepted NAPs. Historical diplomacy tended to rely on signed documents for this. No reason to not make it easier for us and use digital markers ingame.