MP: Asia Twist - Wraithlord Wins!

[WraithLord]

Originally Posted by archaeolept

A good fight by Slobby - ended somewhat unexpectedly, due to jotunheim teleporting in on his last remaining provinces. Almost sorry I didn't get to fight his super speed hero - something like 250 movement after he casts quickness. Higher than I've ever seen

I would say that jumping in and taking neutral/eriu territories right in the middle of the fight, provinces that had previously been held by me even, is a very borderline interpretation of a NAP. Anonymous remote spells are perhaps a legitimate grey area, but contested lands in the middle of a military campaign? I take it that if barbarians or caelum grabs one of Jot's territories it is thus equally non-aggressive for me to help myself to them.

Technically, this is not in violation of NAP. However I do agree that this is in the gray area and is not something I'd normally do. The reason I made an exception is that you are very close to winning the game. You have remaining two VPs under siege and will likely take them soon. I need a leverage on Eriu's VP in order to stand a chance. I have waited at least on turn to see if you'll take these provinces back. When I saw you are not doing so I made my move.

You want to do the same on Caelum/Neutral provinces?- Sure, Just wait a turn to see if I take them back like I did before taking said provinces.

[archaeolept]

Originally Posted by WraithLord

Technically, this is not in violation of NAP. However I do agree that this is in the gray area and is not something I'd normally do. The reason I made an exception is that you are very close to winning the game. You have remaining two VPs under siege and will likely take them soon. I need a leverage on Eriu's VP in order to stand a chance.

this is quite understandable, and I don't even disagree with the appeal to force majeure. Yet if you can decide to interpret NAPs as you wish due to the situation (as well you should), how can I maintain any confidence that you might not decide upon similar, further, interpretations as these turns progress? If my having one fewer VP than you, but having broken walls on another (and having a tart besieging 300 TC troops in another cap, as you had one unit besieging another VP) serves as justification for getting "needed leverage", how much stronger will be the justifications for other acts forthcoming?

I do not wish for the other game players to point and whisper as I pass, a poor cuckold and chump, good only for the derision of the multitude.


perhaps i should probe those territories w/ some scouts, merely in order to determine whether you have decided you were in error and vacated the disputed lands. or should we just dispense w/ the niceties next turn, and set to brawl?

[WraithLord]

Well, I plan no further excursions into the gray area of our NAP, so to speak. I am willing to stand by the terms of our NAP until it expires, to the word and to the spirit. My actions mean no disrespect to you, there's no violation of our NAP and these lands were uncontested for at least one turn before I took them. I already told you that if you want you can answer with the same coin.

However, If you have come to the decision that an immediate termination of our NAP aligns with your interests then I would not force you to wait anymore. We can then agree to give the attack orders next turn.

You see, I'm willing to play it as you will, taking a serious risk that you have a hidden reason for breaking the NAP earlier. I would say this, and being so close to winning puts you quite far from being a poor chump

[WraithLord]

[quote=archaeolept;706270]

Originally Posted by WraithLord

...
Yet if you can decide to interpret NAPs as you wish due to the situation (as well you should)...

That claim is flawed. NAP stands for no aggression acts which by consensus include acts of war, attacks, remote spells and so forth. Attacking independent or 3rd party provinces is not a breach of NAP and is not a matter of interpretation.