NAP Breach?

[thejeff]

On the other hand, if you start relying too heavily on the letter of the law in disputes about a friendly game, without even money on the table, other players aren't going to be happy with you.

[quantum_mechani]

I have to say, I would not consider taking such an indy province to nullify a NAP, though anyone who does so should not be surprised if the ill-will spells trouble for them down the road.

[Evil Dave]

It's probably a breach of the spirit. I agree w/ the other posters that the matter should have be clarified in advance. B probably should have asked before taking the province, and A should ask for it back before declaring war.

And if B refuses, but happens to find his capital always at >100 unrest due to strange events (hurricanes, blights, etc), well, these things just happen.

[thejeff]

These things do happen. They just happen to happen more often to those who cross me.

[Twan]

If there is an indie province near me it belongs to me not the false god who lost it, NAP or not.

Or he should give me back the gems I spent on ghost riders !

[Peacekeeper]

is it relevant?

its a 3 turn NAP, after 2 turns you decide to take the provice(so on turn 3?)

NAP has expired at that point anyway.

[sector24]

If player B can take the neutral province and it is financially advantageous to do so, he should. If he's nice, he'll collect income for a turn or two but won't build PD. Player A can take it back whenever he wants.

If player B is slightly less nice, he'll crank up the tax rate to 200% while waiting for player A to take it back.

If he decides to keep it, he shouldn't be surprised if player A considers it a hostile act. I think Shakespeare said it best:

"Do you bite your thumb at us, sir?"

"No, sir, I do not bite my thumb at you, sir; but I bite my thumb, sir."

[Aezeal]

If there is a neutral flag it's not a hostile action.