"A Song of Ice and Fire", veterans-only game, MA. In progress, midgame...

[Dimaz]

Metagaming is a bad habit. I didn't say a word about coalitions or such. Just that some players tend to help each other more than in-game situation requires. Just keep in mind that "avenging" for one player can be "breaking the fun of game" for another. And your answers just show that I hit the point, to anyone who can read.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by Dimaz

6) Pyth patrolled one of my vans who managed to kill his patrollers. I don't think this can count as nap violation as we hadn't a point about disallowing stealthy armies on each other territory.

Speaking of which, on ganking/diplomacy unrelated note - that sneaking van had cost me a lot of money and killed 40 or so longbowman this turn, not to mention he is now besieging one of my high income castles. Also that van could easily and safely retreat after being caught, if he would be been scripted to do it, being in the border province. But he didn't, despite the fact that you were aware (or should be) that my castle was heavily patrolled (bunch of your spies were caught there recently).

I feel it is pushing our NAP agreement a bit too far. I will not call it a direct violation, and I will not ask for money compensation (which would be significant) but I reserve the right to get that van if I can. Fair?

[Dimaz]

Hm, but using stealthy vans is my only chance in the upcoming war. I hope you understand that I have to put some of them in the position before war starts to make a decent surprise attack. He clearly wasn't supposed to be found that early, and I switched him to hide instead of siege immediately after I saw the turn. Of course you have the right to do anything you want on your own territory, including massive MH.
I regret the damage caused by him, but still I think my actions were within the agreement. If you feel otherwise, I'm ready to give the compensation.

[Corwin]

Originally Posted by Dimaz

Hm, but using stealthy vans is my only chance in the upcoming war. I hope you understand that I have to put some of them in the position before war starts to make a decent surprise attack. He clearly wasn't supposed to be found that early, and I switched him to hide instead of siege immediately after I saw the turn. Of course you have the right to do anything you want on your own territory, including massive MH.
I regret the damage caused by him, but still I think my actions were within the agreement. If you feel otherwise, I'm ready to give the compensation.

Sure, I understand Dimaz. I have no problem with stealth armies in general, my only issue was with not having him scripted on retreat when approaching border castle with strong patrols.

It's not a big deal. I intend to try to mindhunt that van. But if you are attached to him I can let him live, in return for the compensation to cover price of the killed archers and lost one turn of income from that castle.

Although personally if I would be in your shoes I would rather risk him having killed in mindhunt(there is a chance that he may escape although not very high). IIRC that van has no misc slots available due to using cursed blood items and no has MR boosting items, so he would be mindhunted anyway sooner or later, if you intend to use him as a raider/assasin. That's why I was going to try to kill him rather then ask for compensation - I figured out it would be less expensive and preferable option for you, and I didn't want to push you into paying for something that technically does not violate letter of our NAP.

[Dimaz]

I'm not attached, so you're free to play with him

[Lingchih]

Originally Posted by Corwin

Speaking of which, on ganking/diplomacy unrelated note - that sneaking van had cost me a lot of money and killed 40 or so longbowman this turn, not to mention he is now besieging one of my high income castles. Also that van could easily and safely retreat after being caught, if he would be been scripted to do it, being in the border province. But he didn't, despite the fact that you were aware (or should be) that my castle was heavily patrolled (bunch of your spies were caught there recently).

I feel it is pushing our NAP agreement a bit too far. I will not call it a direct violation, and I will not ask for money compensation (which would be significant) but I reserve the right to get that van if I can. Fair?

On a similar note, caught a Vanadrott equipped thug sneaking into one of my heavily patrolled provs. I drove him off, but lost a few hundred gold worth of units. I would say this is definitely pushing the limits of an NAP agreement, and have never seen it done to me before. He was not scripted to retreat, and so I see that as an attack. But since the NAP is almost over, I'll let it pass I guess.

[Dimaz]

Sorry. I regret the damage caused by him. Again, if you feel I have to give you compensation for this incident, just ask. About not seeing it before, well, I've definitely seen such things. I recommend clearing such points during NAP negotiation when dealing with stealth-heavy nations like Pangaea or Vanheim.

[Dimaz]

Also, if anybody is interested (for this or future games), here's my default policy regarding stealth during NAPs (of course it applies to both sides):
Moving stealthy commanders and armies is allowed.
Stealth preaching is allowed.
Bane venom is not allowed.
Spy sabotage is not allowed.
Attacking province taken by indies during random event is not allowed.
Patroling is allowed.
Maybe there are some more, but these are what comes to my mind immediately. So if you want to change some of them for your NAP, please state it directly.
In my case, when I was in similar situation (ending the NAP with Vanheim), I either didn't patrol at all or patrolled with forces enough to kill the assumed targets (adding some mage support if necessary).
But, as I said, I'm sorry for your losses. That wasn't my plan definitely.

[Meursy]

(apologies for jumping in out of nowhere)

So patrolling is allowed? Like, in your own territory?

That's considerate

[Dimaz]

That was meant as a kind of joke