NAP Breach?

[Xietor]

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?

[Foodstamp]

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 .

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.

[Baalz]

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.

[Dedas]

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.

[Tuidjy]

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.

[K]

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.

[Xietor]

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?

[Cor2]

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.

[thejeff]

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.

[K]

Xietor said:

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?

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.