MP: Asia Twist - Wraithlord Wins!

[archaeolept]

that's a fair offer, WL - but I don't really mind you setting up to contest that VP - I think it would be better if we are free to contest and counter-contest all the vps, as we are both at 5 and sieging others. Maintaining the NAP in these conditions will just lead to further lawyerly discussions ;p

keep the territories, and have our actions free next turn?

also, I'll refrain from jumping on those tarts

[archaeolept]

edit: oic, 282 is the province next to the cap. still a reasonable proposal.

[WraithLord]

Immediate termination of the NAP puts me at a disadvantage since I haven't planned for it. If you like to end it earlier than I suggest we end it on turn 77 - i.e give hostile orders that turn. I think we should have plenty of time to brawl then since it's not likely any of us would get that last VP by then.

[archaeolept]

neither have I planned for it - it is not like I was expecting you to teleport tarts in to territories in active dispute. The status of the NAP is highly questionable due to this being the end-game, and due to your own actions.

I will consider those territories as a legitimate target, as well as any VP area, in accordance w/ necessity, and following your own prior justification, though I am also willing to wait until next turn before any action. I certainly cannot trust that you will not decide to do something similar again, and so cannot deny myself from acting in a like manner.

If one desires to maintain the "technical" sense of a NAP one should perhaps consider the results of pushing a NAP to its limits. Either your anonymous rituals, or your interjection into the eriu territories, could reasonably be considered aggression and so proper casus belli, not even counting the fact that we are now fighting over game-winning VP's. Potentially game-winning VPs trump any prior agreements, anyways, through the logic of necessity. Trying to win behind a technical assertion of a NAP would be inane, IMO. "it's not likely any of us would get that last VP by then" is not sufficient guarantee.

I figured it would be best to discuss this in an open and clear manner. NAPs are not rules internal to the game, but dependent upon mutual consent and understanding.

In passing, it is also a good reason why such long NAPs are best avoided, as they are much more prone to lead to such issues.

[archaeolept]

It is the end-game fight for the final VP's. Clearly, we are already at war. Let us stop pretending otherwise, then.

[WraithLord]

Thank you for giving me a clear warning before violating our NAP. One thing is obfuscated though - whether or not you are willing to wait until next turn before you take action. You say you do but in the same sentence you say you will attack my VPs and disputed territories. Since you are obviously intent on breaking our NAP can you please at least state clearly when you intend to do so?

Pasha, I will need to modify my turn according to Archae's decision. Can you please grant me time for that before hosting?

[archaeolept]

yes i'm happy to wait. sorry for any confusion on that point. I consider the NAP vitiated by your actions and due to the end-game circumstances, not violated by me as if there were no prior cause. If you were sieging the final vp, you would seriously not wish me to confront you? Likewise, you would not wish to confront me? Shouldn't a game of Dominions be decided by full force of arms, not by using some (virtual) scrap of paper? I consider my claim to godhood the stronger - please demonstrate to me that I am in error, if I am. Fight for it.

[WraithLord]

Thanks for the clarification.
I have one thing to say to you:

I fully agree with all you say

let the begin, let's see who makes it to

BTW, this game is one the most exciting I have ever had the pleasure of participating in. I think the coming armaggedon war is just the icing on the cake

Good luck nemesis

[archaeolept]

yeah, it has been an epic game. I'm sorry for the victory conditions, is all. 9 VP would have been perfect.

[WraithLord]

Agree. I set 9 VPs as victory condition in my games. See YARG for example. I plan to host a new game after this one (well unless Pasha plans to host a new game ). You and all the players here are welcome to join it.
No diplomacy as well means much less hassle and lawyer stuff