NAP Breach?

[thejeff]

So in other words, despite "Both are experienced MP, so no definitions of the terms are given" there is no commonly accepted definition of a NAP.

If you want anything beyond "Don't openly invade my provinces", spell it out. If you want to be sure nothing other than open invasion breaks the NAP, spell it out. (Or more likely, carefully avoid spelling it out by saying something like: will not attack without 3 months warning)

It's one thing to decide to break your pact, it's another to break it due to a misunderstanding.

Besides, to tie this to another thread, it's an excuse for roleplaying and adds flavor if nothing else.
A message of "NAP-3?" isn't really much fun.

[Dedas]

And if you want to attack even though you signed a NAP but want to avoid most of the bad reputation you get by just breaking it, be sure to present a vague and ambiguous contract. Although be vary that this could backfire if you neighbor is clever enough to see through your intentions.

On a side note, the surest way to keep even a loose NAPs is to make your neighbors fear you. Avoid being hated though as that will only lead to your ruin.

[Aezeal]

It's not a breach of NAP

but then NAP's are broken against me in nearly every game so what would it matter even if it was

[K]

Xietor said:

In no way can K's belief that Player B taking provinces from player c, in a valid war between the 2 nations, be considered a hostile act to nation A. Again a nap is no guarantee that Player B is going to make sure you always own everything within your present borders.

If another nation comes along and rolls player A back, how is that B's fault? And if C attacks b as well, should B not do everything in his power to hurt C?

Ah, but by taking those provinces with your forces you are preventing me from popping in forces to take them back(since I'd have to fight your forces instead of PD or his forces. I also can't pincer from behind. Essentially, you are fortifying my enemy's position against me and attempting to claim that the NAP means that I can't take those provinces back.

I'm losing more because of your actions, and that breaks the spirit of the NAP in the same way that putting up a "harmful to everyone" Global enchantment would, or a direct attack.

Expect an attack if you try to abuse the wording and intent of a pact.

[Tuidjy]

I agree with the thejeff. I always spell the terms out. As I usually play
with very low dominion, I include a provision about temples on the borders,
and a predefined border - thus, we both expand in other directions, and take
at leisure the lands in which we could have bumped heads.

There is one important thing about treaties - unless they are advantageous
for both sides, they will be broken. And of course, at some point, they stop
being advantageous to both parties. But I seriously cannot remember the last
time someone has broken a NAP with me.

Alliances against a common enemy are a different story. When the time comes to
share the spoils, there are always problems. Every single freaking time I can
think of. Nowadays I spell out the division of every single enemy province, and
the military obligation of every ally before I start a joint invasion.

[Xietor]

Casting certain globals also breaks a nap as far as I am concerned:

Any global that hurts my income, troops, is akin to a direct attack on me, including but not limited to: Burden of Time, Wrath of Gods, UtterDark.

Any global that screams "I have won the game, try and stop me", like Arcane Nexus or the Forge I consider a termination of the nap. Though personally I will give nap notice with the forge, but i do not blame any player that does not.

Basically there are certain globals that when you cast them, you should be ready to take on the entire world.

[parcelt]

It's not technically a breach, but indeed does violate the spirit of a real NAP.

Most experienced players will spell out what they mean by NAP, it usually includes all possible transgressions (apart from scouting maybe). 'Agression' does not necessarily stand for just military invasion.

The example does bring up another question. What happens if nation A, having lost a province to Indy's (or a common enemy third player), does not take back the province immediately? Reasons could be that troops need to be brought in from far away provinces, or are just not available right away because of more urgent matters.

After how many turns can nation B take the province? 3 turns? 5 turns? 10 turns? I mean even if nation A were to communicate (as would typically happen) to nation B that they plan to take the province back - so hands of, does that mean that nation A can take its time indefinitely?

I would say that after say 3 turns the province is far game.

[Karlem]

Basically anything that is not a scout is a "technical breach" of NAPs. However minor things could be seen with different eyes depending of the way they are handled.

For example the temples thing with bad scales in one side and so. I agree with Ewierl, when you run around the edges you find this things.

[Xietor]

As someone who will be an attorney one day K, my advice is to pay attention and abide by the language of the contract. The precise words of a contract usually trump the elusive "spirit" of the agreement.

When a lawyer shows up in court trying to rely on the "spirit" of the contract, rather than the plain words written on paper, you know he is in trouble. Unless the lawyer goes fishing with the Judge on weekends.

[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.