Forums / In game politics / New blocker policy

I'm gonna tell you a story. Once upon a time there was a kd(lets call them A) that let their allies(lets call them B) pass their blockers into a totally sealed area. Back in those days you had great walls and could easily seal off massive parts of the map. Kingdom C was NAPed with kingdom A but wanted to kill kingdom B wich they couldnt. Massive flame erupted and the VU community decided that from this day on nobody would be allowed to harbour a kingdom like that ever again.

Then came the era of Sparker and a simmilar situation came into play. Person A decided to keep the kingdom C in this situation(wich person B(me) happened to be king over) from passing his blocker with the top1 army to flank attack kingdom B thus costing them the win in their war and allowing Person A to win the era easily.
Unfortunatly the massively hypocracy of the kingdom B in this situation(having been the kingdom C in the first situation) ment that I was now the sole defender of the old way of treating these cases and the rules where changed. This era is a perfect example on how things can then unfold.

I suggest that we hereon change the "NOT opening blocker policy" to a "Always opening blocker policy". Ofc you can add a clausule about building in eachothers territory wich was the bull*beep* reason Person A gave for not opening the blocker and insisted on was the only reason eventhough we gave him written promises not to build anything in "his" area(why would we even want to do this?????).

Nice trolling you got here :)

> As the reason you nap kingdoms can be to fend off your side flanks that aren't well defended, so you can focus on other fronts ... Not sure where you are getting with this post.

thats not *beep*ming he stayed on topic *beep*.

People need to be more open to other forms of agreements imo. If you want a "NAP" partner covering one of your flanks by not opening blockers, maybe the agreement should be a MPP instead.

"NAP"s imo shouldn't be under any obligation to protect you, or you them.. As by definition a NAP is just a "let's not beat each other up" agreement.

Why not? Why don't you like them? You haven't provided any arguments, thats the reason for my response to your first post.

Many wont like them because what your suggesting would disadvantage everyone. They can no longer count on their NAPpartner to keep them safe and to defend their flanks, so they are more vulnerable.
I agree with Ademo though, if you want another kingdom to defend your ass, make it a MAP, simple as that.

Mielo, of course it is personal, thats why its in the politics forum not in suggestions. And its not as simple as just insisting on these terms whenever we form a NAP, becouse if that kd has the opposite terms with another kd we have trouble. Simply put: Before era of Sparker all kds had the terms I want us to have again, after it all kds have had what we have now. Its not something one kd can change, several of the major kds are needed for this to take presedence.

Santa, your flank will still be safe in the sence that your NAPed kd wont attack. And since the rules would be the same for all it wouldn't be a disadvantage to anyone, you would still be warring wichever kd is closest to you rather than marching through the entirety of a NAPed kds core only to bump into a blocker while leaving your own flank exposed by moving that much troops. And as you said, MAPs will get more important as you can just agree to have the same external relations.

They already do that to many people are afraid to die like its going to be the end of the world.

better idea, no kingdoms and no NAPs.