Global Triumph

Good idea.  I say after two weeks, they should be deleted.  That would help promote little nations to enter the field and prevent snowballing.

Or their land could be locked...  Which could work, but if it was in your alliance then that would suck.

my idea - 2 weeks MIA and all your treaties drop immediately.

Play or don't; but stop standing in the way.
-IC

Leave it as is, going dormant to raise funds is a legitimate tactic. If your enemy is a neighbor and goes dormant you are entitled to attempt to remove him from the map. One of our members left, but gave advance warning. He took some hits while away, but returned as promised and continued the good fight.

i agree with this going dormant is legal and something that can be used

you can drop them as soon as you see they are MIA.

why do people keep asking for the game to play itsself for us?

simple they go on vacation break your treaty and eat them if it bothers you. personally I have gone on vacation always let my team know and came back to a pile of cash that I blew supporting my allies.
if a guy wants to save let him save its not a bank game its a fighting game I look at some of the maps I played and see those guys in the background saving all there money and for what? they hardly fired a shot the whole game, Who got more enjoyment the ones who played and fought or the bankers that made there color grow on the board.
I have more of a problem with people that play save there money the whole game hardly fight the enemy back up their allies and just up and mass vacate themselves.
What Schmucks

After playing most maps and losing on most. I can say that this is indeed a frustrating phenomenon.

The easiest way to prevent this is to not allow treaties. Only alliances. 

And for those who say its too hard to manage the border or any other complaint, look at the R map. Plenty of controlled borders there. And when the time came partners just rolled each others borders.

As slow as the game moves, even 7 days is en eternity.

that's why i've mentioned several times that a day or two treaty would be a nice option

I don't know that removing game features is the key.  I think that, if it bothers you that much ("you" in general, not "you" specifically), then you can play without treaties.  There is nothing that says that a player, even a player in an alliance, /must/ use treaties.  One can just as easily explain to his mates that he's had a bad experience with treaties in the past and chooses to play without them.  I've done this in situations before and, while it is often more costly since your opponent/teammate may choose to militarize the border in case you try to surprise attack him, it is definitely not unheard of.

I am just as frustrated as anyone with people who disappear and just leave you hanging and having to wait a week to claim their land while the country that they were fighting on the other side eats away at them for seven days, but I can also see the other side of it where it may be a decent tactic for certain situations.  Therefore, I really don't think a game feature needs to be added or removed, but, rather, players need to be aware of just what they are signing up for when they make a treaty with someone and, perhaps, not take treaties so lightly.

I've noticed a lot of people, friend or foe, just seem to offer treaties to everyone in their vacinity as a blanket rule and then only break the treaties with the country that they plan to attack next when I believe a word-of-mouth agreement or non-aggression pact would suffice.  Treaties need to be used as more of a last resort than an everyday thing and, really, are only needed when the other party has turrets or units capable of firing at jets and you plan to be fighting an aerial campaign with a third party over their airspace.  Otherwise, what does a treaty get you but seven days of heartache?

I would agree with this recommendation, and, depending on the implementation, it would probably be simple enough to code.

Question- once you click to break a treaty, is it automatic that it will break after the 7 days or however long it is?  Or can you choose to cancel your request to break it?  If not, maybe that'd be a good feature to add?  I guess you can request the treaty to be re-instated again after it's broken- but is there currently like a one-day delay before that can happen?

Another question- is the country notified as soon as you click in your request to break the treaty?  I would think so...  As long as this happens, I think it'd be good to be able to cancel your request to break a treaty before the 7 days is up.  The country would be notified every time you request to break a treaty or cancel your request, so he or she can decide if you're up to no good or not...

Does the forming of a treaty (the notification and the disabling of attacks) happen in real time, or not until the daily cycle runs? 

As for the breaking of treaty, I assume that happens during the daily cycle time.

once you break a treaty, it is broken, initiating a cease-fire that lasts for the agreed upon amount of time.

Answer- once you click to break a treaty, it is automatic that it will break after the 7 days.  You cannot choose to cancel your request to break it.  You can request the treaty to be reinstated after the 7 days is up.

Another answer- The country is notified as soon as you request to break the treaty, just as they are notified as soon as you request a treaty.

Honestly, I do not know that it matters whether the forming of a treaty happens in real time or during the daily cycle.  If the treaty has been requested and the second party accepts it on the same day, then no attacks by either party /against/ /the/ /other/ /party/ that were set prior to or after the treaty was requested and/or accepted will get processed.  That is not to say that the troops won't move toward one another if there is empty space in the way, but they will stop before attacking one another or before entering the other nation's territory.

The treaty is broken /after/ the cycle that ends the day on which it says 1 day until treaty expiration.  On the day on which it says there is one day left, you may not set any attacks (well, you may, but they will not get processed) against the country with which you have a treaty about the expire.  It is not until the game does not mention a treaty at all that you may set your attacks and expect them to be carried out.

Hope that helps.

Yes it does, thank you.

So if I understand right, you can both agree to reinstate the treaty on the same day that it's expired, so there wouldn't be any period in which you are able to attack each other.

It would still be good to allow us to cancel our request to break the treaty, just in case the other guy forgets or decides not to reinstate the treaty.  He could cancel the treaty himself / herself, but that would start over the 7 day countdown.

I also like the idea for an option to have a treaty that requires no cease-fire time period.  So that we can have the option of not being able to attack, which saves us time from having to stop those attacks, but not tied in to a minimum 7 day cease fire commitment.

Yep.  If you both agree to redo a treaty the day it expires, then you won't have to worry about attacks.

The idea of letting us cancel our request to break a treaty is fine, but not necessary.  It would be a very small detail and not needed in my opinion:
1)  If you offered a treaty and he accepted it the first time, chances are he will accept it again.  You may send a note about why you broke it.
2)  If you are worried he will attack when it expires, then why break the treaty in the first place?
3)  If he wanted to attack you, then he would probably have broken the treaty himself in the first place.

In most cases, you are either friends or not.

I for one will use a treaty for one of two reasons:
1)  If I am in an alliance, it stops my stuff from walking into my allies' lands.  I can use air attacks over them.
2)  If I have too many opponents, I will offer treaties to those I do not want to attack at that time...  Then come around later when the time is right.  ;)