NAP Breach?

[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.

[Baalz]

Xietor said:
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.

Spoken like a true lawyer Xietor.

I'm not a lawyer and my NAPs are simple: if you attack me you breached it. "Attack" is an ambiguous term that I reserve the sole right to interpret in light of the particular circumstances - as I expect you to do on your side. Thus is the joy of being a sovereign power.

[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.

[K]

Xietor said:
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.

Show me the wording of the NAP agreement, and I'll argue the precise wording. Considering that most players' agreements consist of "wanna NAP-3?", we have to address what is "Aggression."

Let's take a vote. Which ones do people consider aggression?

-Taking provinces behind a third party's attack, so that regardless of whether an attacker is successful or not in his attack, you have lost provinces.

-Cutting off your attack on an aggressor by taking enemy provinces in your way, blocking your attack or movement.

-Attacking Bogus if he pops in your provinces.

-Dropping ritual spells onto provinces you are likely to enter.

-Giving gems, gold, or items to your enemy.

-Dropping anonymous spells into your provinces.

-Sending stealthy SCs through your territory to be "caught"

-teleporting in an army into a province you suspect they will enter.

-casting a global that injures you.

-pushing their potentially harmful dominion into yours by
A. Temples
B. Sacrifices/prophets
C. Stealth preachers/stealth heretics

-holding large armies next to your border.

[Foodstamp]

A NAP is what you and the person you make the agreement with perceive it to be. If you both have different views on what it is, that is great stuff because that means it is going to lead to conflict. Dominions is not a game of obtaining world peace.

Last night I introduced three of my buddies to the game through a demo game blitz. None of them had ever been to this forum and not a one of them could tell you what a NAP is. Consequently, they attacked anyone and everyone that did not have the same flag as them . In the end everyone had a blast, and it reminded me of how fun this game can be when there are no player created restraints.