Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

A question of honor

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Show only dev responses
unmerged(6147)

unmerged(6147)

Banned
Oct 22, 2001
8.242
0
Visit site
As Aladar gets sick just from seeing my long posts I will make this a short one ;)

Assume A and B have a NAP. Their explicit agreement was that they have a NAP until the year CCYY - and that year has nnot yet been reached. But the agreement was not more specific than that.

Further assume B is in alliance with C.

Now A DOWs C and C calls B to join the war which B does.

Q1 Has the NAP been broken?

Q2 If it has been broken: then who broke it?
 
If B had any sense of honour he wouldn't dow A back, or at least would sign a WP with A. And of course the nap was broken and obviously it was B who broke it. At least in my opinion. :cool:
 
Id say an NAP is still valid even if an ally is dowd. That is unless the NAP was more specific.

The attacker though shouldnt assume he can be sneaky like this and that he can get away with it.
 
BurningEGO said:
If B had any sense of honour he wouldn't dow A back, or at least would sign a WP with A. And of course the nap was broken and obviously it was B who broke it. At least in my opinion. :cool:
Click to expand...

Well, I dont see it that clear. :)

One could argue that attacking C is the same as attacking B due to their alliance. Then it was A who broke the NAP.
 
It can get a bit murky due to the nature of the alliance and the NAP but in general I'd say the one who attacks the ally of the nation he has an NAP with is the one who is dishonourable scum.

Really now, imagine a France with ai Cologne, the ai Palatinate as vassals and Holland (player nation) as an ally. These 4 nations are allied. There is a strong Austria on the other side of the Rhine. France and Austria conclude a NAP. Then in session Austria DOWs Holland or Cologne and it'd be France who is dishonourable for honouring the alliance call of its ally or vassal? I very much think not.

(Of course as for getting murky, say that France and Austria get an NAP with Austria during negotiations saying it wants the NAP to attack Brandenburg, then France proceeds in session to ally Brandenburg just to piss of Austria ...)

(Also, if through some sort of weird alliance play two nations with an NAP end up at war with each other - to not lose stab or anything - but an immediate WP is offered, I'd not constitute that as a broken NAP either.)
 
If someone attacks my ally and has a NAP with me, he is the one who breaks the NAP.

A NAP includes your allies and vassals, especially if they are AI.

However, it's always wise to double check before session what both parties mean with a NAP.
 
And what if they ally after the NAP is signed?
Technicly B breaks the NAP, as the NAP only cover A and B.

Something similar happend in Sunday game. I (Poland) dowed Brandenburg and had a simple NAP with Russia. Russia and Brandenburg allied against me before and Russia argue that by dowing Brandenburg the NAP is unvalid.
First after some heavy talking Russia agreed that the NAP was still valid.

The main reason why people sign NAPs is to avoid fighting a two front war.
In this situation Daniel describe, B breaks the NAP by indirectly attacking A.
Why? Because the NAP didn't cover alliances or anything else for that matter.
 
What you say, an alliance signed AFTER the NAP is covered by BiB. It gets murky then. Talks are then needed before a dow if the NAP is still valid.
I would then propose that the parties who signed a NAP confirm with each other if the NAP is still valid, now there's a alliance formed.

But if I am Spain and am allied with Austria and I have an AI vassal somewhere BEFORE the NAP is signed, and someone signs a NAP with me, I take it that he also won't attack Austria or my vassal. If he does, I will of course always honour the alliance call and of course protect my vassals.

Alliance & vassals > NAP.
 
Non-Aggression Pacts are overvalued. If I ever sign one, there always is a clause that the pact is void if the other country does something which directly threatens my interests.

Like attacking an ally of mine or an AI in my sphere of influence. Annoying things like that.

In Daniels example, the sneaky bastard is country A, and they are the ones who act without honour, unless it has been separately specified that the NAP holds even if an ally of country B is attacked. B has merely been stupid, and has to choose between two contradicting actions.
 
Which such a clause there isnt much use for naps since you can always claim that the country you have signed NAP with did something against your insterests (like competing your merchant for example or colonized rich province) ;)
Generally its best to assume that any alliance overrides the NAP, unless the NAP specifies that its valid in any case and what should be done in case when an ally attacked (immediate WP, refusing to join or abstaining from fighting for the course of war).
 
Because people so obviously beleive different things it must be stated when you are signing the NAP that it includes vassals/allies.

That way there is no room for someone to wriggle out of breaking a NAP with no consquences.
 
dowing a ally or vassal is a act of agression simple as that
 
I would consider a non-aggression pact formulated that vaguely nullified, if not explicitly broken. Often NAP's are not formulated to incorporate all future allies, and thus cannot be valid for them as well, since that might not be at all what the other part had in mind. In this case B is in his full right to defend C.
 
FAL,

That is not what he said and thus it cannot "sum it up nicely".

-------------------

If, however, we assume the statement included a "versus you"-clause, we can conclude that for the clause to be true the following axioms must be true

1. The DOW is an act of aggression
2. All aggressions constitutes a break of a NAP

Note: So far this is not an opinion but an application of the laws of logic.

While we of course agree about number 1 our number 2 presents grave problems.

I believe we are quite a few that would consider quite a number of actions, like breaking a TA or embargoing, or colonising the other player's natural area of expansion etc etc, to be an aggression.

Thus I believe it is quite easy to state that the statement in question did not sum it up nicely. It was simply too generalised and thus incorrect.
 
Daniel A said:
As Aladar gets sick just from seeing my long posts I will make this a short one ;)

Assume A and B have a NAP. Their explicit agreement was that they have a NAP until the year CCYY - and that year has nnot yet been reached. But the agreement was not more specific than that.

Further assume B is in alliance with C.

Now A DOWs C and C calls B to join the war which B does.

Q1 Has the NAP been broken?

Q2 If it has been broken: then who broke it?
Click to expand...
Rules should be interpreted more black and white.
Q1: yes
Q2: B; one should be careful when signing NAP (with 1 nation, with an entire alliance, ...) and alliances. There is no room for discussion about defending alliance, vassal, whatever.

There is no margin for discussion. A has an advantage with the NAP it has with B (and no NAP with C), and A used it to it's full extent. Either B breaks NAP and joins against A (no matter what the reason), or it honors the NAP. This means that B is guilty as charged.

Period.
 
Nagel said:
Rules should be interpreted more black and white.
Q1: yes
Q2: B; one should be careful when signing NAP (with 1 nation, with an entire alliance, ...) and alliances. There is no room for discussion about defending alliance, vassal, whatever.

There is no margin for discussion. A has an advantage with the NAP it has with B (and no NAP with C), and A used it to it's full extent. Either B breaks NAP and joins against A (no matter what the reason), or it honors the NAP. This means that B is guilty as charged.

Period.
Click to expand...
This is the strict interpretation, I agree. The rest is added by player assumptions and from judging by custom behaviour.
 
FAL said:
Alliance & vassals > NAP.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily,
it depends how the terms for the NAP is written, of course.
But say that a NAP is forced through a war, the terms of the NAP mostly gain the winning party. Would a NAP in the same situation as Daniel described be considered "disshonorable" by Nation A? I think not.

If the NAP itself doesn't include any specific agreements the NAP automaticly cover everything between the two nations.
Anything else would severely undermine the importence and power of a NAP.

If you're foolish enough to sign such a NAP in the first place, it's your duty to honor it to the end.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back