Non-Agression Pact

July 20, 2007 2:22 PM from

Would it be advantageous to include a NAP into the treaties section? Just a way to say that both races agree to not attack the other and it'll improve relations between the two races. A NAP would have to be broken at least 1 week prior to a war declaration and would have 1/2 of the relations hit that a broken alliance would have.

ideas

4,780 views 2 replies

Reply #1 July 20, 2007 3:36 PM from

GalCiv2 Forums Top

I think it should have a heavier relations hit. There can be many reasons to break an alliance (i.e. not wanting to get involved in someone else's war) but there's only really one reason to break a non-aggression pact.

Reply #2 July 20, 2007 4:09 PM from

GalCiv2 Forums Top

I was thinking of a more 'permanent' hit akin to the 'warmonger' hit, but just with that race.

As you said, there is only one reason to break a NAP, but that reason will put you to "At War" status anywho lol.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting and posting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!