MP: Asia Twist - Wraithlord Wins!

[WraithLord]

Well, I plan no further excursions into the gray area of our NAP, so to speak. I am willing to stand by the terms of our NAP until it expires, to the word and to the spirit. My actions mean no disrespect to you, there's no violation of our NAP and these lands were uncontested for at least one turn before I took them. I already told you that if you want you can answer with the same coin.

However, If you have come to the decision that an immediate termination of our NAP aligns with your interests then I would not force you to wait anymore. We can then agree to give the attack orders next turn.

You see, I'm willing to play it as you will, taking a serious risk that you have a hidden reason for breaking the NAP earlier. I would say this, and being so close to winning puts you quite far from being a poor chump

[WraithLord]

[quote=archaeolept;706270]

Originally Posted by WraithLord

...
Yet if you can decide to interpret NAPs as you wish due to the situation (as well you should)...

That claim is flawed. NAP stands for no aggression acts which by consensus include acts of war, attacks, remote spells and so forth. Attacking independent or 3rd party provinces is not a breach of NAP and is not a matter of interpretation.

[archaeolept]

Of course it is, as you yourself put forward. How else could it be considered a "grey area", something you "wouldn't normally do", except under the pressure of the situation (namely that I was about to match you in VPs and thus "close to winning the game"). If barbarians attack your province, it is not open to me, conventionally under a NAP, to take it while your attention is elsewhere (and then be defended from any counteraction by the supposed NAP), nor is there any "one turn rule" for dibsies. If this were not so, it would be possible to siege someone's cap w/ whom you supposedly have a non-aggression pact, or block paths of retreat in a war with a third entity (or interdict pursuing forces, as could have happened in the Eriu situation, as I almost sent forces into two of those territories to finish him off). No NAP could hold under such circumstances. Somewhat similarly, as you implied, no NAP can really hold under a situation of imminent victory, either ("force majeure").

But, as I said, I basically agree with your right to do so, though you could well have cleared up this question in advance before taking action, as that would have allowed me to operate under equivalent conditions

[WraithLord]

I see your points.
And well, they are not worth all the hassle. I can give 17 back to you this turn, 304 next turn and a province of mine in exchange for 282. There you go, I am stepping out of the gray and into the light
Would that work for you?
I'm off to sleep now, please answer here or PM me if you wish to discuss different amendment. I suggest we come to an agreement before the turn hosts.

[archaeolept]

that's a fair offer, WL - but I don't really mind you setting up to contest that VP - I think it would be better if we are free to contest and counter-contest all the vps, as we are both at 5 and sieging others. Maintaining the NAP in these conditions will just lead to further lawyerly discussions ;p

keep the territories, and have our actions free next turn?

also, I'll refrain from jumping on those tarts

[archaeolept]

edit: oic, 282 is the province next to the cap. still a reasonable proposal.

[WraithLord]

Immediate termination of the NAP puts me at a disadvantage since I haven't planned for it. If you like to end it earlier than I suggest we end it on turn 77 - i.e give hostile orders that turn. I think we should have plenty of time to brawl then since it's not likely any of us would get that last VP by then.

[archaeolept]

neither have I planned for it - it is not like I was expecting you to teleport tarts in to territories in active dispute. The status of the NAP is highly questionable due to this being the end-game, and due to your own actions.

I will consider those territories as a legitimate target, as well as any VP area, in accordance w/ necessity, and following your own prior justification, though I am also willing to wait until next turn before any action. I certainly cannot trust that you will not decide to do something similar again, and so cannot deny myself from acting in a like manner.

If one desires to maintain the "technical" sense of a NAP one should perhaps consider the results of pushing a NAP to its limits. Either your anonymous rituals, or your interjection into the eriu territories, could reasonably be considered aggression and so proper casus belli, not even counting the fact that we are now fighting over game-winning VP's. Potentially game-winning VPs trump any prior agreements, anyways, through the logic of necessity. Trying to win behind a technical assertion of a NAP would be inane, IMO. "it's not likely any of us would get that last VP by then" is not sufficient guarantee.

I figured it would be best to discuss this in an open and clear manner. NAPs are not rules internal to the game, but dependent upon mutual consent and understanding.

In passing, it is also a good reason why such long NAPs are best avoided, as they are much more prone to lead to such issues.

[archaeolept]

It is the end-game fight for the final VP's. Clearly, we are already at war. Let us stop pretending otherwise, then.

[WraithLord]

Thank you for giving me a clear warning before violating our NAP. One thing is obfuscated though - whether or not you are willing to wait until next turn before you take action. You say you do but in the same sentence you say you will attack my VPs and disputed territories. Since you are obviously intent on breaking our NAP can you please at least state clearly when you intend to do so?

Pasha, I will need to modify my turn according to Archae's decision. Can you please grant me time for that before hosting?