Quote:
Nagot Gick Fel wrote:
Sometimes. Although most often, devious players will try to use some sort of 'magical time compression' to argue they didn't violate the NAP warning. Consider this: A and B agreed on a NAP with a 3-turn escape clause. Turn 39, A (who used only email so far) sends an ingame message to B to notify him he wants to cancel the NAP. Turn 40 A issues his armies orders to invade B's provinces. Turn 41, A's orders are effectively carried on. A will argue that the 3 turns-delay was respected (39-40-41, implying he sent his notice at the beginning of turn 39, and his armies invaded at the end of turn 41), while from B's viewpoint, only 1 turn passed since he received the message in turn 40 and was invaded in turn 41. Or even zero if he considers that the attack was actually initiated in turn 40. Sounds silly? Yet I've seen that happen, exactly as described.
|
Heh, that would be a classical example of "why the exact wording of your requests matter". Along the same lines, there would be quite a different between "I won't attack your province" and "I won't attack your provinces", or even "I won't attack provinces" (this one would be only for pacifists). And the same reasoning would go for requests such as "do not give away some information to Pythium"; though you would likely violate the spirit of the agreement when giving someone else this information, to be then transmitted to Pythium.