Question about alliances

[manicman]

If I make a non agression alliance with someone and the condition to break it is a one turn warning then when I break it do I wait a turn and then they wait a turn, or do I wait a turn and then they get to attack immediately?

[tahitiwahini]

If I make a non agression alliance with someone and the condition to break it is a one turn warning then when I break it do I wait a turn and then they wait a turn, or do I wait a turn and then they get to attack immediately?

My answer to your question is yes.

The essence of the termination clause for this agreement is that the party receiving notice must receive the notice BEFORE the receiving party's turn starts. This is to allow the receiving party to prepare for the end of the agreement. This guarantees that the party receiving notice of termination will not be attacked before he is ready.

There are two ways to interpret the termination condition of the pact in your question. Your question anticipates the answer by giving both of the interpretations. We might call the first the conservative interpretation and the second the liberal interpretation. Both of them protect the party receiving notification.

For the sake of an example assume two players, red and green. Assume it's round 10.

Round 10:

Game Chat:

Green: red, non-aggression pact with one-turn notice of termination?
Red: OK, agreed.

let's say it's red's turn first

Red honors the terms of the NAP on his turn.
Green honors the terms of the NAP on his turn.

Round 11:

Red honors the term of the NAP on his turn.
Green would like to get out of the NAP at this point so he gives notice to red as follows:

Game Chat:

Green: red, I'm giving my one turn notice that the NAP is terminated.
Green: the NAP will be over at the start of round 13.

Green honors the NAP during his turn.

Round 12:

Red has received his one-turn notice before this turn. He must honor the terms of the agreement during this turn.
Green honors the NAP in order to give red his one-turn notice.

Round 13:

Red is free to attack green because he has received his one-turn mandated by the notice requirement (in round 12) and the NAP is terminated.
Green is free to attack because he gave his one-turn mandated by the notice requirement (in round 12) and the NAP is terminated.

Analysis of the conservative interpretation:

1) Green gives notice during his turn in round 11. The NAP remains in effect during round 12 (the one-turn specified by the notice terms). Both parties honor the terms in round 12. At the beginning of round 13 the NAP is terminated and both players are no longer bound by it in any way.

2) The effect of this type of one-turn notice is that the party who receives the notice gets one-turn (in this case round 12) during which the terms of the NAP are honored after the notice is received. In other words, this is red's one turn during which he can expect the terms of the NAP to be honored following the notification (which occurred in round 11).

============================================

Here's the liberal interpretation of the same scenario:

Round 10:

Game Chat:

Green: red, non-aggression pact with notice of termination?
Red: OK, agreed.

let's say it's red's turn first

Red honors the terms of the NAP on his turn in round 10.
Green honors the NAP on his turn in round 10.

Round 11:

Red honors the NAP on his turn in round 11.
Green would like to get out of the NAP at this point, so before green's turn ends he posts to game chat:

Game Chat:

Green: red, I'm giving notice that I'm terminating the NAP.
Green: the NAP is terminated at the start of your next turn (round 12).

During green's turn in round 11 he honors the terms of the NAP

Round 12:

Red reads the game chat containing the notice from green.
He takes his turn without any obligation to honor the terms of the NAP because it has been terminated by green with notice.

Green takes his turn, without any obligation to honor the NAP because it has been terminated with notice.

Analysis of the liberal interpretation:

1. The party terminating the NAP gives notice in game chat prior to the other party beginning his turn. The surest way to make sure you give notice before the other party's turn begins is to give that notice during your turn -- that guarantees that the other party sees the notice before the other's party can begin. This is the way I recommend.

It makes sense too. If you are about to end a NAP you know that during your turn, right? Presumably you will fortify during your turn to reinforce the border that was the subject of the NAP. This is the time when you should give notice.

2. The player receiving the notice of termination receives the notice BEFORE his turn starts. He must be given notice before his turn starts. He can deploy his forces with the knowledge that the NAP is no longer in effect. Red can attack green at will.

The disadvantage of the conservative interpretation in this case is that there was essentially a "wasted turn" during which both parties knew the NAP was going to be terminated, but they couldn't attack each other. Unfortunately, all the other players in the game (non-parties) to the NAP also know it's going to be terminated.

The advantage of the liberal interpretation in this case is that there's a shorter period of time between when notice is given and when the parties can attack each other. There's less time for non-parties to react to the notification, but the parties themselves are adequately prepared for the termination.

The answer is that either interpretation could be correct which is why I always had green specify the actual round number when the pact would be terminated when he gave the termination notice. I think if you do this then nobody will complain and you can be considered to have honorably lived up to the terms of the agreement.

[wacicha]

alot of thought went into that hope it helps

Or you could try my way

There can only be one

[tahitiwahini]

OK, that was the long answer to a technical question about what I thought the OP meant by termination with "one-turn notice".

The general answer is this:

You can legally terminate any agreement (unless there are specific terms to the contrary) by simply giving notice BEFORE the party receiving notice begins his turn. This allows the party receiving notice of termination to prepare for the end of the agreement. That's the purpose of the notice of termination: to give the party receiving the notice time to prepare.

It's actually fairly simple in practice.

My recommendation is that when you give notice you always specify in terms of round number when the agreement is terminated.

For example:

'I'm giving notice that the agreement we have will terminate at the start of round 12."

is very understandable, there's no ambiguity.

If you chose not to use agreements then as wacicha correctly points out your life will be simpler, but you will be foregoing one of the tools that under the right circumstances can help you to win the game.

For those that dislike agreements in the game I can only hope that one day you will be able to set up games in which agreements are prohibited. In the meantime play people who have agreed not to make agreements in the game, such as members of XiGames. Also, I recommend that you place people who have spoken in favor of agreements on your ignore-list. This will help avoid potential conflicts in the game.

[wacicha]

And my way is NEVER ALLY -NEVER have a non aggresion pact(NAP)

[hawkeye]

Or you can just not play standard.

I have only won 2 singles and have only played a few. One was was on World 2.0 and was 1 on 1 after the third player deadbeated and another was 4 or 5 or 6 player I don't remember, but it was on the Space Map.

[tahitiwahini]

And my way is NEVER ALLY -NEVER have a non aggresion pact(NAP)

I think that's an honorable position. I would be interested in playing such games and when I did so I would of course abide by that restriction.

However, I also enjoy playing a game in which it is possible to engage in diplomacy. I also recognize that some people would not enjoy these games.

I wish there was a way to set up the games where that view could be enforced.

I think people could then choose whether they wanted to allow diplomacy in their games or not.

Some people would choose one way, others another way.

I think the only problem is that now people who have entirely different attitudes toward diplomacy can find themselves in the same game. It's unfortunate such things have to arise at that time, when they could have been known before the game was even started, but since there's currently no enforcement mechanism or rule, it seems difficult to avoid.

[flashleg8]

I personally would say as long as you give notice at the end of your turn that the treaty is no longer in effect, that would be honorable. The player canceling the treaty must obviously prepare his defenses prior to declaring too his ally that the alliance is over. The former ally would be free in his turn to take whatever action he wishes, no further non-aggression period is required.
It would be slightly poor form to void a treaty when your partner is fighting on another front, but that’s part of the game - as long as you gave him one turn to change strategies I believe it would be honorable.
The exception to this is an alliance that specified a turn number to end the pact, this should always be adhered to unless both parties agree to shorten, or they are the only two players left.