NAP Breach?

[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.

[Ewierl]

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.

[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.

[Dedas]

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.

[Aezeal]

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

[Tuidjy]

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.