NAP

[BigDaddy]

The question really is somewhat complex. If for instance some nation who was allied with ermor decided to quickly case Well of Misery, I could see why that wouldn't fly. NAP or not Ermor has the gems and a definite reason to cast WOM. Otherwise Ermor would feel abused by the you and the NAP. . .

[The_Tauren13]

Well, the nation who replaced the first nations global is C'tis Desert Tombs, and the other is Caelum.
I didnt want to talk about the situation too much because I wanted to stay neutral. I have the feeling there are some people who would vote for or against me just because its me not because of the issue.

[Oversway]

I think you screwed up Technically it is arguable about it being aggression, but clearly replacing someones global will upset them.

Good luck with your persuasion!

[The Panther]

Actually, this in no way can be considered a violation of an Non-Agression Pact UNLESS it was specified as part of the agreement. Truidy above was talking about an alliance between players, not a simple NAP. There is a huge difference between those two.

For example: Your Cyclops has lost his only eye and somebody else has the GoH up. You need it bad to cure your pretender. Why should a simple non-agression pact interfere with this in the slightest? You need it. Period. Go for it!

How about the Forge? If you need it, just cast it and hope for the best. Or maybe you can demand the other player make artifacts for you as part of an agreement for not dumping it.

What about dispelling? For example, you are Abysia and the Jontuns cast Illwinter. Of course you will dispel it as soon as you are able! Ask for pearls from other races and just do it... Dispel is actually more problematic since you do not know who did it.

Also, what about the gem income globals? If you need one, then a NAP cannot change that fact of need. If the other player is concerned about losing it, then maybe you can ask for part of the gem income to avoid the attempt to cast over it. Why should someone else reap the benefits and not you?

A NAP cannot possibly interfere with the needs of a player. Only in an alliance of some sort can this matter. But alliances (unless fully disclosed before the game begins like in a 2 vs 2) are not a real part of a true FFA game and usually just cause problems with everyone else in the game.

Most NaPs are simply an agreement to not attack without some notice. Usually it includes a border definition. Globals are not a necessary part of this at all. No way.

To each his own.

[BigDaddy]

Hey,

If I was C'tis and my eventual enemy was Caelum, I doubt that I would be able to accept them having what I considered MY global spell. . . While it might make them somewhat angry, they shouldn't be suprised. They're just using the NAP to cast an otherwise infeasible spell. You can't really expect C'tis to let Caelum have WOM, just because they cast it first. C'tis might consider Caelums casting of WOM unacceptable as part of the NAP, and it really should have been discussed BEFORE anything was cast. Again, Caelum shuould have known better. . .

[Verjigorm]

Perhaps a standard NAP should be drawn up and (maybe) stickied in the MP Forum for general use. In my opinion, Global enchantments should be considered on a NAP by NAP basis using some generic pre-arranged scheme. A sample of such a scheme:

1. A nation in an NAP may not use any Globals that would cause the death/destruction of another participants units/economy (e.g. Utterdark, Wrath of God, etc.) without prior permission.

2. Gems derived from globals shall be divided amongst the participants of the NAP excepting that the initial cost of the enchantment shall be redeemed by the caster prior to dividend.

3. All other globals should be considered "up for grabs" at all times unless specifically ear-marked for a particular nation as the result of a special clause in the pact.

Note that clause 2 is more appropriate for an Alliance rather than a non-agression pact. One must also consider Sun-Tzu's advice:

"We cannot enter into an alliance until we are acquainted with the designs of our neighbors" -- In practice, before agreeing to a NAP, nations should share information on their plans. Only the shared plans should be considered "protected" by the NAP--If C'tis stated during the NAP that it was planning to cast WOM and Caelum did not so state and subsequently agreed to the NAP, Caelum's casting of WOM could be considered a violation. If C'tis knew of Caelum's plan to cast WOM, it may not have agreed to the treaty on that basis. Of course "All warfare is based on deception" is also a good one, so in the stating of your plans, you might do well to indicate a plan which is deliberately designed to "lock out" your adversary. For example, a turn-15 NAP between Arco and Pyth with Arco laying claim on "Mother Oak by turn 35"--neither nation has a specific claim to the spell, but Arco's uncontested claim to it will lead to Pythium's plans being steered in a direction away from MO since, by the NAP, it is not allowed to cast it until turn 36. This allows Arco to plan for attacks against Pythium under the assumption that Pyth will keep it's word.

[FrankTrollman]

Putting up globals or taking them down is in no way a violation of a non-aggression pact. If I put up Wrath of God or Burden of Time, that's going to kill a lot of people who work for the guy I have a NAP with. That's not a violation of the NAP because it's not targetted against them.

Similarly, if my NAP buddy decides to save his own worshippers by dispelling my enchantment, that's not a violation of the NAP either.

Both acts are entirely self-oriented and not "aggressive". You're well within your rights to be annoyed with an "ally" who puts up Darkness or Foul Air, but they didn't actually violate any treaties by doing so. You're welcome to be ticked off at an ally who steals your Lure of the Deep - but again they didn't violate treaties by doing that.

-Frank

[Verjigorm]

That is your opinion of a NAP. Thus the reason I stated that a standard NAP "form" should be decided upon rather than simply assuming that my NAP is the same as yours I certainly would consider your casting of BoT to be a violation esp provided you were Ermor and I Man... If I cannot counter via Dispulsion, my only recourse is to destroy you, but you necessitated the destruction by casting a spell which hinders me and not yourself

This is why treaties are generally designed on a situational basis (as I suggested). Simply spamming "NAP" into your opponent's message screen and assuming you're both on the same page is disingenuous.

[The_Tauren13]

Speaking of the Well of Misery, does it heal battle afflictions all over the world or something? My tartarians are mysteriously losing afflictions... not that im complaining

[Verjigorm]

WoM increases all provinces income. It is not stated that it does anything like that. Are you sure you didn't "forget" that you built the Chalice?