Inviolate NAP, First Draft

[Edi]

Try to calm down, Chris.

All that I have seen in this thread is Dedas making two posts, one of which is poking fun at the thread in general and not in a malicious way (the bureaucracy post) and the other an expression of support for Ironwhawk's views. Nothing impolite, provocative or controversial there, so why the anger now?

Even for those of us who are never going to agree to the kind of things expressed in these drafts you and Lolomo have made, they make for interesting reading in that it gives an idea of just what your side means when they say something about NAPs and how they should work. People making comments is going to be unavoidable and so far there has been far less vitriol here than in the "Question About Diplomacy" thread.

[Agema]

You could probably simplify the NAP into four general terms.

1) LENGTH

A NAP until turn X means no offensive actions until turn X+1. A NAP with X-turns warning means no offensive actions until the Xth turn after the NAP cancellation is *received* (e.g. cancellation of 3-turn NAP received on turn 10, no attacks turns 10,11,12, even if cancellation notice sent turn 9). A NAP for X turns means no offensive actions until the Xth turn, with X starting the turn agreement concluded (e.g. proposal made turn 9, agreement received, no attacks 10,11,12.)

2) PLAYER ACTIONS

Any identifiable actions that directly causes loss of or damage to provinces/ population/ gold/ troops/ gems/ buildings is a breach. Stealthy units in the other nation causing unrest or dom loss is a breach.

3) RANDOM EVENTS

Random events that cause province loss (to indies or other player) are not breaches, but the original owner holds 5 turns rights. If the other player does not hand over possible gains (method negotiable), NAP breached.

4) GLOBALS

Directly overspelling or dispelling globals is not a breach. Casting certain powerful globals (negotiable) is a breach.

* * *

The key is the use of the word "directly". If you're overtly or surreptitiously funding someone else to do attacks, that's not a breach.

I think when LoloMo says that a NAP is not invalidated by the invocation of a mutual defence treaty, it makes sense. It just means you cancel the NAP and observe the requisite delay (and ideally inform your ally) before you join in. If you want to help your ally in the meantime, fund him in gold or gems, or use anonymous spells.