NAP Breach?
 

Nation A and B have a 3 turn NAP. Both are experienced MP, so no definitions of the terms are given.

Nation A has high misfortune and loses a province to barbarians. Nation B after 2 turns and his scouts not seeing any army coming to reclaim the province, takes it from the barbarians.

I do not think this action is a breach. To me a nap means you will not attack the other player and will not cast hostile spells during the duration of the nap.

In this example Nation B took a province from independents.
Yes, it was formerly owned by Nation A, but technically Nation B did not attack him. A typical nap does not guarantee boundaries.

If player c had invaded A, took 5-6 provinces, then I think player B could go to war with Player C and take provinces from him that Player A formerly owned.

Of course an outraged Player A may be very unhappy and give notice of termination to B if he took the barbarian province. But I think that is his only recourse. I do not see Player A as having a good faith basis to state publicly that player B violated the NAP.

Thoughts?

Re: NAP Breach?
 

That reminds me of Age of Wonders when players would disband battle rams near ally towers so the ram would conquer the tower. Then the player would come behind and take the tower, and the AI would say nothing about it if it were a neutral tower http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif.

In the example that you give, I don't think there is a black or white answer. It is probably settled on a case by case basis by the players, and both can probably give you a good reason for why it should or should not happen. Personally I would end the NAP and take my land back, in addition to some of theirs.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

It is up to the ruler to decide as he has supreme power over his nation. If it is in his best interest to let the issue go then perhaps he should, if he follows reason. If he is more powerful than the aggressor he now has a casus belli in his pocket.

As you see I have a rather nominalistic view on NAPs and it seems that you don't. So perhaps this wasn't the answer you were looking for.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

I think that, technically, this is not a breach of the NAP, and I would not
attack at once. I would be pissed, though, and would start preparing for war at
once. No way I would consider this player to be a good neighbor.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Well, personally I consider several things hostile actions which I'll take as a breach of NAP and feel justified in immediate hostile action. To me a NAP is just an agreement that we shouldn't waste our guns pointing them at each other because we can each be stronger by focusing elsewhere. If you're going to (in my mind) try to screw me over and try to hide behind the NAP you'll find it precious little cover. Don't get me wrong, I'm willing to overlook a little bit of friction, but I generally consider it an act of war (as far as I can detect it) to systematically:

Corner me in by conquering all indies in my path of expansion.
Build several temples on our border
Take provinces I lost to a random event or to another player
Cast anonymous offensive rituals at me
Raise unrest with spies
Try to assassinate/seduce my commanders
Move stealth troops into my territories
etc.
etc.

In short, I feel no obligation to honor a NAP with someone actively working against me.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

well if someone took my land in such a fashion I would ask for it back first. The action of keeping it is a breach of the nap. Although if he is more powerful than me I'd let it go, that's life.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Its a breach, no different from sending in your forces to take a province. I'd consider it go time for war.

Even taking and keeping provinces that another player has taken is a breach.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

I disagree with K, agree with Tuidjy.

Baalz i agree in part. If i catch someone's spies causing unrest in my area, that is akin to an attack and it is war. the nap is no more.

If i uncover a large stealth army in my area, there better be a very good explanation that does not involve an attack on me, or again it is war, the nap is no more.

Building Temples on a neighbor's border. To me that is not a hostile act if they are trying to get dominion in their own provinces. If they are trying to push their dominion into your area, it could be a hostile act depending on circumstances,

When my neighbor has misfortune or death scales, i will build however many temples i please to keep their offensive scales out of my provinces. And I consider that good management of my nation, not a hostile action.

In no way can K's belief that Player B taking provinces from player c, in a valid war between the 2 nations, be considered a hostile act to nation A. Again a nap is no guarantee that Player B is going to make sure you always own everything within your present borders.

If another nation comes along and rolls player A back, how is that B's fault? And if C attacks b as well, should B not do everything in his power to hurt C?

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Its certianly a breach of the spirit if not the letter of the Nap. I would not do this to someone who I was not planning on backstabbing later.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

This is precisely the sort of situation where Real Diplomacy comes into play. It's worming around the edges of what a NAP does (or doesn't) mean, eithjer interpretation could be seen as valid. All depends on whether or not you want war eventually/soon, how much you want to pressure vs. reassure your ally, etc.

Even if there's "technically" no breach of the NAP's letter, you'd be equally legitimate in denouncing it as a breach of the treaty's spirit.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

So in other words, despite "Both are experienced MP, so no definitions of the terms are given" there is no commonly accepted definition of a NAP.

If you want anything beyond "Don't openly invade my provinces", spell it out. If you want to be sure nothing other than open invasion breaks the NAP, spell it out. (Or more likely, carefully avoid spelling it out by saying something like: will not attack without 3 months warning)

It's one thing to decide to break your pact, it's another to break it due to a misunderstanding.

Besides, to tie this to another thread, it's an excuse for roleplaying and adds flavor if nothing else.
A message of "NAP-3?" isn't really much fun.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

And if you want to attack even though you signed a NAP but want to avoid most of the bad reputation you get by just breaking it, be sure to present a vague and ambiguous contract. Although be vary that this could backfire if you neighbor is clever enough to see through your intentions.

On a side note, the surest way to keep even a loose NAPs is to make your neighbors fear you. Avoid being hated though as that will only lead to your ruin.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

It's not a breach of NAP

but then NAP's are broken against me in nearly every game so what would it matter even if it was http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Ah, but by taking those provinces with your forces you are preventing me from popping in forces to take them back(since I'd have to fight your forces instead of PD or his forces. I also can't pincer from behind. Essentially, you are fortifying my enemy's position against me and attempting to claim that the NAP means that I can't take those provinces back.

I'm losing more because of your actions, and that breaks the spirit of the NAP in the same way that putting up a "harmful to everyone" Global enchantment would, or a direct attack.

Expect an attack if you try to abuse the wording and intent of a pact.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

I agree with the thejeff. I always spell the terms out. As I usually play
with very low dominion, I include a provision about temples on the borders,
and a predefined border - thus, we both expand in other directions, and take
at leisure the lands in which we could have bumped heads.

There is one important thing about treaties - unless they are advantageous
for both sides, they will be broken. And of course, at some point, they stop
being advantageous to both parties. But I seriously cannot remember the last
time someone has broken a NAP with me.

Alliances against a common enemy are a different story. When the time comes to
share the spoils, there are always problems. Every single freaking time I can
think of. Nowadays I spell out the division of every single enemy province, and
the military obligation of every ally before I start a joint invasion.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Casting certain globals also breaks a nap as far as I am concerned:

Any global that hurts my income, troops, is akin to a direct attack on me, including but not limited to: Burden of Time, Wrath of Gods, UtterDark.

Any global that screams "I have won the game, try and stop me", like Arcane Nexus or the Forge I consider a termination of the nap. Though personally I will give nap notice with the forge, but i do not blame any player that does not.

Basically there are certain globals that when you cast them, you should be ready to take on the entire world.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

It's not technically a breach, but indeed does violate the spirit of a real NAP.

Most experienced players will spell out what they mean by NAP, it usually includes all possible transgressions (apart from scouting maybe). 'Agression' does not necessarily stand for just military invasion.

The example does bring up another question. What happens if nation A, having lost a province to Indy's (or a common enemy third player), does not take back the province immediately? Reasons could be that troops need to be brought in from far away provinces, or are just not available right away because of more urgent matters.

After how many turns can nation B take the province? 3 turns? 5 turns? 10 turns? I mean even if nation A were to communicate (as would typically happen) to nation B that they plan to take the province back - so hands of, does that mean that nation A can take its time indefinitely?

I would say that after say 3 turns the province is far game.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Basically anything that is not a scout is a "technical breach" of NAPs. However minor things could be seen with different eyes depending of the way they are handled.

For example the temples thing with bad scales in one side and so. I agree with Ewierl, when you run around the edges you find this things.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

As someone who will be an attorney one day K, my advice is to pay attention and abide by the language of the contract. The precise words of a contract usually trump the elusive "spirit" of the agreement.

When a lawyer shows up in court trying to rely on the "spirit" of the contract, rather than the plain words written on paper, you know he is in trouble. Unless the lawyer goes fishing with the Judge on weekends.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

On the other hand, if you start relying too heavily on the letter of the law in disputes about a friendly game, without even money on the table, other players aren't going to be happy with you.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

I have to say, I would not consider taking such an indy province to nullify a NAP, though anyone who does so should not be surprised if the ill-will spells trouble for them down the road.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Spoken like a true lawyer Xietor. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

I'm not a lawyer and my NAPs are simple: if you attack me you breached it. "Attack" is an ambiguous term that I reserve the sole right to interpret in light of the particular circumstances - as I expect you to do on your side. Thus is the joy of being a sovereign power.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

It's probably a breach of the spirit. I agree w/ the other posters that the matter should have be clarified in advance. B probably should have asked before taking the province, and A should ask for it back before declaring war.

And if B refuses, but happens to find his capital always at >100 unrest due to strange events (hurricanes, blights, etc), well, these things just happen. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif

Re: NAP Breach?
 

These things do happen. They just happen to happen more often to those who cross me.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

If there is an indie province near me it belongs to me not the false god who lost it, NAP or not.

Or he should give me back the gems I spent on ghost riders ! http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/evil.gif

Re: NAP Breach?
 

is it relevant?

its a 3 turn NAP, after 2 turns you decide to take the provice(so on turn 3?)

NAP has expired at that point anyway.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

If player B can take the neutral province and it is financially advantageous to do so, he should. If he's nice, he'll collect income for a turn or two but won't build PD. Player A can take it back whenever he wants.

If player B is slightly less nice, he'll crank up the tax rate to 200% while waiting for player A to take it back.

If he decides to keep it, he shouldn't be surprised if player A considers it a hostile act. I think Shakespeare said it best:

"Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?"

"No, sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir; but I bite my thumb, sir."

Re: NAP Breach?
 

If there is a neutral flag it's not a hostile action.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Show me the wording of the NAP agreement, and I'll argue the precise wording. Considering that most players' agreements consist of "wanna NAP-3?", we have to address what is "Aggression."

Let's take a vote. Which ones do people consider aggression?

-Taking provinces behind a third party's attack, so that regardless of whether an attacker is successful or not in his attack, you have lost provinces.

-Cutting off your attack on an aggressor by taking enemy provinces in your way, blocking your attack or movement.

-Attacking Bogus if he pops in your provinces.

-Dropping ritual spells onto provinces you are likely to enter.

-Giving gems, gold, or items to your enemy.

-Dropping anonymous spells into your provinces.

-Sending stealthy SCs through your territory to be "caught"

-teleporting in an army into a province you suspect they will enter.

-casting a global that injures you.

-pushing their potentially harmful dominion into yours by
A. Temples
B. Sacrifices/prophets
C. Stealth preachers/stealth heretics

-holding large armies next to your border.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

A NAP is what you and the person you make the agreement with perceive it to be. If you both have different views on what it is, that is great stuff because that means it is going to lead to conflict. Dominions is not a game of obtaining world peace.

Last night I introduced three of my buddies to the game through a demo game blitz. None of them had ever been to this forum and not a one of them could tell you what a NAP is. Consequently, they attacked anyone and everyone that did not have the same flag as them http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif. In the end everyone had a blast, and it reminded me of how fun this game can be when there are no player created restraints.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

I would consider it a NAP breach if it were done without communication. Whether i would actually do anything about it depends on the rest of the situation.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Chad and Sudan would be the experts on:

http://www.shrapnelcommunity.com/thr...462-Image1.jpg

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Just post the details in the game thread. And be sure you are ready to go to war with A. Some NAP agreements explicitly state no reclaiming territory from barbarians/3rd party invasions. If your NAP did not have precise conditions attached, the other nations should understand that you did not act dishonorably. Nation A will not understand, so they'll probably attack you.

Next time, you could always ask him if he's planning on taking the province back from the indies.

Even now, you can probably avoid a war just by giving that province back to him. If you want to, that is.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Oh, i am not one of the nations. I was just bored and threw out a question to see the responses.

Typically I have good communication with nations with whom i am friendly.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

I think it could easily be argued either way, but that's not what really matters; what matters is that you now have control of the province and can justify your actions so you don't appear to be someone whose word cannot be trusted. Of course the other nation can justify attacking you immediately as well (I for one, wouldn't judge him for it) so you should have been prepared for that before taking the province. If you saw it as an opportunity to snag a free province in an underhanded way and then expect to be able to hide behind the all too obscure letter of the law, then you might be in for a world of hurt. There's no small claims court in Dominions.

I would honestly only do what you did from a position of power when I was pretty much looking for an excuse to attack that neighbor anyway.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

This statement reminds me of my real life experiences with "standard" contracts. To me, "standard" is a warning sign that I'd better read it even more closely than usual.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Man, every time I look at your Chad and Sudan 3-turn NAP image, I crack up laughing. Then I feel terribly guilty.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

This is a very serious understatement. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...es/biggrin.gif I had to get more bandwidth last time we played together.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

I try to communicate, but real life often hampers anything but the necessary minimum. People in my current game seem particularly uncommunicative, though.
Maybe they just don't talk to me.
That's it! They're all just plotting against me!

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Don't feel guilty, this is not the same Sudanese situation you read about in the media, although it does trigger the peace/war cycle between the two nations.

Re: NAP Breach?
 

Maybe others know/believe A will ultimately lose to C (the attacker) unless they attack C. In addition, C loses the units/gold/gems/logistic capabilities those provinces provide that could be used against A. It's easy to say "I could have stopped C on my own eventually", but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

That aside, I would expect some veterans and more powerful nations to try to dictate/manipulate others with what they want/expect, but not by telepathic means. Since it's obvious everyone has a different interpretation of the "spirit of the NAP" one cannot assume their own interpretation is universal... especially with new players coming from different backgrounds and experiences in other games/communities.

Or next time maybe A should have said something during the NAP discussions so this would have been less of a problem for A. If it is such a big deal for A then A should have something about it before the issue arises.