NON AGGRESSION PACTS

Sounds redundant, no matter what happens units can still move through. My advice-don't make allies out of the bat.

Allies in my experience is based on convinience if your weak chances are your resources is more effective in other people's hands.

This wouldn't fix the problem though... they could just turn off the Non-Aggression pact???

I love the thought that you put into this and at first I was against it. But now that I have thought about it, it sounds pretty realistic to have this implemented. It would be there to signal non aggression between two nations. Any type of diplomatic action can be changed or broken in the game just as this would. I say this would be nice as a start before you start allying yourself with others. Nice idea.

I too rather like this idea - it would add an option to formalize current ad-hoc agreements.

It would be nice to be able to click on the Country Info and see who that nation had an NAP with (just as at present you can see who they are at war with)

This could be expanded to have a highest level of diplomacy of Alliance which should also be visible on the Country Info.

Note that none of these diplomatic statuses would be obligatory and you could still have private NAP's and Alliances.

RogodeterSnowl wrote:

It would be nice to be able to click on the Country Info and see who that nation had an NAP with (just as at present you can see who they are at war with)

Sir McSquiggles wrote:

This option would make diplomacy a little more interesting

Look Y who is threatening me(X), I have an alliance with Z so you better not attack me - unknown to Y, Z allowed a temporary alliance with X (me) to make Y think again

Or...we could update and improve the diplomacy tab, to show who is with right of way with someone else. Diplomatic status in-game is good on paper but on actual practice reliable only if the person is trustworthy. In reality non-agression pacts does not mean the two countries are Allied simply saying that were not planning to attack each other now, but it can easily be broken like RoW and SM, Hitler broke it by attacking the Soviets, like I said only good on paper and bears no certainties.

It's good idea sure, but we can always replicate the same end result when two players talk and reach a mutual aggrement, the only difference is that other people will know we made a pact. This implementation would also reduce the blue spies ability because the blue spy tells the diplomatic relation of countries since that info is not public, personally I like the secrecy good for RP.

But it's still a good suggestion but I think there are better ways to improve the diplomacy in normal games, since normals is basically a free-for-all.

I've had the flip-side of this happen to me my very first game where it made the papers look like I had initiated a war when really I was just passing through troops by request. I was quickly taken apart afterwards by his two allies

It would be nice to be able to click on the Country Info and see who that nation had an NAP with (just as at present you can see who they are at war with)

Certain types of spies can do this I think...

You might have moved on your own without the others permission.

V1nd1cat0r wrote:

You might have moved on your own without the others permission.

Yes, it is hard to prove so empirically, but that's not the topic of this thread.

ETA: the province location! I could have used that listed in the WH as evidence if it were not a border province

thanks for all the replies guys! I really think this would be a great thing to implement...

RogodeterSnowl, I like the total alliance thing, it would be great... would be even better if you could let the other player control your troops when afk to defend your provinces, pool resources and then split all types proportionately as far as who contributed how much so you don't get stuck with all one resource or have to make multiple trades every cycle... although you would REALLY have to trust the other guy...

As for your predicament, Time4Alchemy, I kind of think that the revocation should not be allowed to take place till the other player logs back on, although this could also lead to problems, like "I'll just send all my troops to key provinces he owns before I go to bed and revoke as soon as they are in position, then he gets shafted when he logs in"... have to think about how to make that work.

-C

Isn't this what the ceasefire option does? Although I just realised of the detriment to trading via the stockmarket.

It seems like a good idea, you just have to figure out what an NAP actually does in a complete sense.

well, nothing against a NAP as an additional option, but i think it would be only really needed for RPGs...

but since someone else here brought up the topic, i would like to read in the newspapers if 2 nations made an alliance, just as we allready can read, if two nations declared war at each other.

but i wouldnt go as far to show if anyone made a NAP/free-passage contract with someone else. i think this should stay as it is, to allow some secrecy between the players.

and if people here are afraid, that someone brakes their agrements and attacks them overnight, i would suggest, that instead of some sort of new complicated system, we would just use the allready in Sup1914 implied feature of the "honorary deadline". so that in order to attack someone, one has to declare war to the other first and has to wait for an amount of time, befor he can actually attack his units.

Actually another nuanced option would be "Share Maps" without "Right of Way"

That way you could have a good relationship with another player without the threat that they move into your territory while you are asleep and kill you

Good idea, this would avoid many betrayals .