NAPs in strategy games

[Warhammer]

A lot of us play strategy games here and I was interested in what everyone's takes were on Non-Aggression Pacts.

I'm in an MP game of dominions that has been incredibly awesome. There has been a complete ebb and flow to the game, and it has been rife with intrigue.

I made NAPs with two of my neighbors. The third, I basically allied with to eliminate one of the other players, but there was nothing written in stone.

That took the number of players in the game from 8 to 5. One, I have no contact with. One of my NAPs I am taking with to the end game. The de facto alliance I wanted to switch, but the other player that I had an NAP with was being cagey. He has been trying to get a coalition against me all game. He tried splitting me and my alliance and pitting us against each other. He would then take the remains. I told the guy to come clean, or else I would send my armies against him (the guys were right next to each other, so the army staging areas were the same). For the record, my alliance partner will probably win, which was why I tried changing things up.

So what I did, was take this NAP as far as I could, and tried to get the guy to commit to an attack against my partner (remember, nothing set in stone). But, he flubbed orders, and he didn't have any troops where he was supposed to, to launch the attack, as he promised. So I attacked him. Then I find out that my alliance partner was being bribed by the same guy, and was building up on my border because of it.

Now, dude is hacked off because I violated our NAP, and didn't give warning of breaking it, etc., etc.

I know in my situation, I made the right move. But how do the rest of you feel, are NAPs sacrosanct, or is it buyer beware?

[SirFozzie]

There can only be one.

[rkmsuf]

Try that in a big game of Risk and you are walking out of there in a body bag.

[lordscarlet]

Sounds like Survivor. :)

[Warhammer]

Sounds like Survivor. :)

I plan on doing a dynasty when the game is over.

EDIT: Best MP experience I have ever had. Makes Diplomacy look like childs play.

[Anthony]

in the games of Risk i play with my friends, NAPs are generally believed to last only as long as it benefits yourself. they are very temporary deals. at some point it needs to be violated if either of the two parties want to win.

[Mustang]

For a minute, thought this was going to be about handling players that take a REALLLLLLLY long time to make a move. I have one friend that I could play Stratego with and it would take him 15 minutes to make a move....

Anyways....

There are 2 types of NAPs for me. One is stable and you don't expect the other person to break it and the other is unstable where as long as it is convenient for both parties, the status of it will remain unchanged but, is more of a turn by turn... Definitely think that your NAP with this party was unstable so, he shouldn't be surprised that you broke it.

In the end, if there is only one winner, all NAPs will be broken and are most likely to be broken the stronger one person is over the other or a party might move out of a NAP the stronger the combined strength of a group is over a party.

But, bottom line, the guy just had sand in his vagina...

[sabotai]

are NAPs sacrosanct

If they were, they'd be called "alliances".

[mckerney]

General guideline I go by, notice that a non-aggression pact is off must be given within 15 minutes after your troops have started to attack. Alliances within 5.