NAP Breach?

[Tyrant]

I would consider it a NAP breach if it were done without communication. Whether i would actually do anything about it depends on the rest of the situation.

[Foodstamp]

Chad and Sudan would be the experts on:

[vfb]

Xietor said:
Nation A and B have a 3 turn NAP. Both are experienced MP, so no definitions of the terms are given.

Nation A has high misfortune and loses a province to barbarians. Nation B after 2 turns and his scouts not seeing any army coming to reclaim the province, takes it from the barbarians.

I do not think this action is a breach. To me a nap means you will not attack the other player and will not cast hostile spells during the duration of the nap.

In this example Nation B took a province from independents.
Yes, it was formerly owned by Nation A, but technically Nation B did not attack him. A typical nap does not guarantee boundaries.

If player c had invaded A, took 5-6 provinces, then I think player B could go to war with Player C and take provinces from him that Player A formerly owned.

Of course an outraged Player A may be very unhappy and give notice of termination to B if he took the barbarian province. But I think that is his only recourse. I do not see Player A as having a good faith basis to state publicly that player B violated the NAP.

Thoughts?

Just post the details in the game thread. And be sure you are ready to go to war with A. Some NAP agreements explicitly state no reclaiming territory from barbarians/3rd party invasions. If your NAP did not have precise conditions attached, the other nations should understand that you did not act dishonorably. Nation A will not understand, so they'll probably attack you.

Next time, you could always ask him if he's planning on taking the province back from the indies.

Even now, you can probably avoid a war just by giving that province back to him. If you want to, that is.

[Xietor]

Oh, i am not one of the nations. I was just bored and threw out a question to see the responses.

Typically I have good communication with nations with whom i am friendly.

[Cheezeninja]

I think it could easily be argued either way, but that's not what really matters; what matters is that you now have control of the province and can justify your actions so you don't appear to be someone whose word cannot be trusted. Of course the other nation can justify attacking you immediately as well (I for one, wouldn't judge him for it) so you should have been prepared for that before taking the province. If you saw it as an opportunity to snag a free province in an underhanded way and then expect to be able to hide behind the all too obscure letter of the law, then you might be in for a world of hurt. There's no small claims court in Dominions.

I would honestly only do what you did from a position of power when I was pretty much looking for an excuse to attack that neighbor anyway.

[capnq]

thejeff said: 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.

This statement reminds me of my real life experiences with "standard" contracts. To me, "standard" is a warning sign that I'd better read it even more closely than usual.

[vfb]

Foodstamp said:
Chad and Sudan would be the experts on: 3 Turn NAP

Man, every time I look at your Chad and Sudan 3-turn NAP image, I crack up laughing. Then I feel terribly guilty.

[Tyrant]

Xietor said:

Typically I have good communication with nations with whom i am friendly.

This is a very serious understatement. I had to get more bandwidth last time we played together.

[thejeff]

I try to communicate, but real life often hampers anything but the necessary minimum. People in my current game seem particularly uncommunicative, though.
Maybe they just don't talk to me.
That's it! They're all just plotting against me!

[Foodstamp]

vfb said:

Man, every time I look at your Chad and Sudan 3-turn NAP image, I crack up laughing. Then I feel terribly guilty.

Don't feel guilty, this is not the same Sudanese situation you read about in the media, although it does trigger the peace/war cycle between the two nations.