Improved NAP terms

A lot of the recent mw68 drama seems rooted in miscommunications around NAP discussions.

We can and should ease this by allowing families to create formal NAP proposals with DPA-like terms.

  1. Any member of a family can create a draft of NAP terms including:

    • time period
    • which systems and/or planets are being given up
    • which systems and/or planets are being acquired
    • misc details and comments
    • whether or not the NAP is public or private
  2. The leader can approve a NAP proposal, and send it out to another family

  3. The family that receives it can accept it, or reject it.

    • If rejected, they can respond with a modification of the proposal they received, which goes back to the original family to accept or reject. In this way, a NAP offer can be passed back and forth until everybody is happy.
  4. The entire history of a NAP offer would be documented.

  5. When the NAP is cancelled, it is “closed” and any future NAPs between the same parties would restart the process anew.

At the end of the round, any private NAP agreements are made public.

Vote for this feature to raise its priority and get it done faster!

Captain Diplo finally getting busy with his own strongest skill.

2 posts were split to a new topic: Allow unlimited NAPs

Don’t make the info public, we have an op to check that shit right…


Maybe the way to make these nap terms “official” without writing more code to account for it is that you can add a section after every NAP agreement where you can state additional terms of the agreement.

@Random good point. We should consider privacy options for NAPs, wars, and alliances. Either all public by default or all private by default.

@Translucent see the “misc details and comments” under #1. Even with something as straightforward as notes, we’ll still have to write some kind of code to ensure that both parties actually agree to what is written.

This all is dependent on NAP Refactoring work that is in progress.

So I’m not saying there isn’t any coding needed to add like a description section. I’m just saying its much less work (I’m assuming) than coding a NAP section that can take in more complexity

1 Like