Late Era - Started

[Evilhomer]

the new ip/port does not work either, maybe you wrote it wrong ?

[Blofeld]

Oops, sorry. I sent you another PM, with correct data this time.

[Evilhomer]

yeah, my turn is in, and a bloody turn it is....

[Kojusoki]

hmmm first of all, I am NOT a judge...
second... in my and ONLY my opinion, Jazzepi doesnt break NAp as long as he takes INDEPENDENT provinces.
At least my definition of NAp is that each side doesnt ATTACK each others, but both can attack independent provinces - even at the same time, the same prov - so the battle occures.

What is even more, spyes can make unrest so high, that the province will revolt and become independent - and then, as an Independent one, can be rided (you know, peacekeeping forces

But I will tell once more - everything depends what your pact stands for. Probably even you both dont know , I suggest to divide your NAP by 2 and that will be the amount of turns it expires. And the lovly war wil begin

Methel - maybe we sign a NAP too? It was a stupid idea riding your forests

[Jazzepi]

WSzaboPeter said:
Okay. Please take a look at this picture and see how Jazzepi interprets truth.

I'm really sorry, but you would like to STOP other players game simply to solve something like a territory dispute? That is way unfair to other players.

I did not gave any attack orders this turn, but I think next turn I will set myself to AI. My forces are superior, and the only thing that keeps me from crushing you is the fact that I always obey the rules of the games, and for some reason this game had a rule that
someone can hide between a non agression pact and then invade... We both know that you are planning an offensive, maybe building a fort near my capital in this very minute, and I can't do a thing. That's why I will quit this game if this will not be solved.

First off, you should have never proposed a pact if you didn't understand the consequences of it which were that you aren't allowed to attack me if I don't invade your provinces. Now, I invaded some territory nearby yours that was neutral, and then you accuse me of "hiding behind a non-aggression pact". Well obviously, the point of a non aggression pact is that I can "hide behind it", just like you can "hide behind it". Right now the majority of my forces aren't anywhere near your border, they're out expanding in other places.

Secondly, everyone is *always* planning an offensive. If you aren't eventually planning on backstabbing your partners, you aren't playing to win. Sometime, in the future, because of the nature of the game you're going to have to attack people that were previously allies. I don't understand why you seem so surprised by this.

Third, and last, if you look at the above picture you can see a mountain range clearly between the neutral province I captured from neutrals and his capital. No province that I control, or captured, is next door to his capital. I could not see his capital when I took them, and did not know it was there. While the provinces that I hold are in a good strategic position, that's part of the reason I took them! So complaining that they put you in a bad position isn't a good point to argue why I shouldn't be allowed to have them!

I would just like to put a reminder out there that this is just a game! Being sneaky during diplomacy is part of the game, but I firmly believe that nothing I did was even a stretch of the NAP I signed in good faith.

Jazzepi

[Catquiet]

Kojusoki said:
What is even more, spyes can make unrest so high, that the province will revolt and become independent - and then, as an Independent one, can be rided (you know, peacekeeping forces

I would consider causing unrest in someone else's province with a spy to be an attack in violation of a NAP. If you allow that, you are opening up a huge can of worms.

[WSzaboPeter]

I think that ENFORCING the pacts is something that is not in according to the spirit of the game. I keep my end in contracts, but only if the other part behaves friendly. But in this game this rule is something that left me with two choices: a.) breaking them b.) leaving the game.
I have chosen the second one. I'm really sorry. Farewell.

[Kojusoki]

Catquiet: I repeat once more - EVERYTHING depends what your NAP is about. Nothing more, nothing less. I've been playing that spies/assasins were allowed, but when they were cought, the attacked side were allowed to break NAP.

For the next 7 days I will not be answering emails/messages.

[Catquiet]

Kojusoki said:
Catquiet: I repeat once more - EVERYTHING depends what your NAP is about. Nothing more, nothing less. I've been playing that spies/assasins were allowed, but when they were cought, the attacked side were allowed to break NAP.

non-AGRESSION-pact. When a spy sneaks into your territory and causes damage, that is definitely an act of agression whether they are caught or not. The fact that you acknowledge that the NAP is broken if the spy is caught shows that you recognize Instill Uprising as an act of aggression.

And if getting caught is the litmus test, I could sign a NAP with Marignon banning hostile spells, then do repeated castings of Black Death on their capital.

1. Black Death is anonymous
2. They can't prove it was me
3. The NAP is still in force
4. I wonder if my good friend Marignon will let me borrow some death gems, I'm running low

[Methel]

how do you prove the black death one though? thats why i dont like absolute rules, much prefer sheps rules.