RBP2 Lurker Discussion Thread - No Players!

[pindicator]

Yeah, I was always under the impression that breaking an NAP was a strategic move, where you have to weigh the political fallout against potential gains (like breaking a treaty in real life). It's up to the players to make NAPs meaningful.

I agree with this sentiment: it's not part of the hard-coded game; it's part of working with people (and not AIs). I wrote as much in an attempt to calm the flames in the Sullla thread. Sullla seems to be of the opinion that the trade-off of becoming disreputable is never one worth making.

Now, concerning NAPs and MDPs, I can still see an out for Nakor & Whosit -- all they need to do is clarify that existing NAPs will be honored but all renewals and new NAPs will be made with the caveat that the MDP comes first. The only underhanded move I could see would be Team A & B getting a MDP, Team B gets a NAP with Team C, Team A declares on Team C later, and Team B says "we'll, now you're at war and attacking our ally so the NAP is out the window". Even if Team C knew about the MDP before negotiating the NAP with Team B, that would be quite dastardly.