GoW, you guys are the best allies ever!

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by BigFree
Tioberious, do you really think it needs to be wrote out like that?

Yes, I do. But that's just my personal opinion.
(on a sidenote, where did you get all those "o"-s in my name from? )

[asleepathewheel]

The fact that RP would leave such simple language out of the agreement (in a multiple page agreement!) borders on malpractice. GoW found a loophole and exploited it, I have no doubt that RP would do so (and in fact, didn't you do something similar during the lux war?) themselves if they needed the opening.

[BigFree]

Originally posted by Tiberius
(on a sidenote, where did you get all those "o"-s in my name from? )

See, I was eating some Oreo's and some of the o's must have fell out. I thought a few of them tasted a bit odd.

[BigFree]

It is not a "loophole."

You cleary can not have a MPP with a party AND declare war on the same party. The game does not support this. Therefore, it is not a "loophole." Else GoW would have to decalre war on itself (to protect RP) and, again, the game does not support this.

[Hot_Enamel]

I find it highly amusing that RP is complaining about loopholes.



And to continue this theoretical debate ... is a 20 turn luxery trade therefore considered a NAP ?
Any declaration of war would void the luxery trade.
Therefore, a team may not ever declare war while luxeries are traded ?

My personal opinion is
A luxery trade is not a NAP
A MPP is not a NAP
A NAP is the only thing considered a NAP. (Unless you insert a loophole )


{edit - sorry BF .. we cross posted .. I see you are not complaining about loopholes }

[Tiberius]

The declaration of war voids any previous agreements so GoW shouldn't declare war to itself. Once they declared war to you, they voided the MPP. Besides, did you have an ingame MPP with GoW? If not, why do you keep using that ingame example?

This is about an agreement made by men. As such, it means nothing more and nothing less than what is
written in your contract. Does is say is your contract that they can't attack you? If not, it is a loophole.

Important note: I'm not in any way defending and/or attacking anyone here. This is just my personal opinion based on my logic. It has nothing to do with who's who. I'd say the exactly same thing if RP had attacked GoW.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by BigFree
It is not a "loophole."

You cleary can not have a MPP with a party AND declare war on the same party. The game does not support this. Therefore, it is not a "loophole." Else GoW would have to decalre war on itself (to protect RP) and, again, the game does not support this.

To me a MPP is only with regards to third party actions.

Even you must think that there is a significant difference in the two aggrements, since earlier in this very thread you stated "But RP was in fact trying to secure NAP's with both ND and GoW for the longest time, but to no avail".

So what's the story Bigfree? Why bother with the NAP if the MPP encompases all that a NAP is?

[Master Zen]

Oh boy, these people just don't get it...

1) In MP games we do deals which are not permitted by the game. A NAP is one of them. There is no way to have a NAP in a single-player game. Therefore your excuse that we did something not allowed by the game is moot since a NAP itself isn't allowed by the game, thus this gives us even more legitimacy in doing what we did.

2) Since you seem to be sticking to what in-game deals can be done, A WAR VOIDS ANY OTHER AGREEMENTS MADE. Simple as that. We declare war on you, all treaties including our MPP are void. Notice the difference between the words void and violated.

You're just pissed because you got caught in your own loopholes... which by the way for the record, it was your team who wrote the MPP, not us. Face the consequences, and never, NEVER, imply things that should be made more than explicit in writing.

[BigFree]

You are saying it yourself: You said you voided the MPP.

"...exactly, it was voided by our declaration of war. But there's a difference between voided and violated."

When you declared war you voided the MPP, true.

Voiding an agreement with out the consent of both sides nor a condition being met that allows it to be voided, as worded in the agreemnt, is breaking the agreement.

To RP, GoW voided(violated) our MPP with out pretext. The had no legal rights to do so. GoW is guilty of illegally voiding an agreement.

MZ: We never put any "loophole" in any agreement with GoW

asleepathewheel:
"So what's the story Bigfree? Why bother with the NAP if the MPP encompases all that a NAP is?"

I misspoke there, the NAP was with ND and an extension of the MPP AND an Alliance proposal was put forth to GoW. We never asked GoW for a NAP because we knew they would have to void the MPP in order to attack us. It's the same to RP; whether GoW "voids" a MPP or a NAP.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by BigFree


asleepathewheel:
"So what's the story Bigfree? Why bother with the NAP if the MPP encompases all that a NAP is?"

I misspoke there, the NAP was with ND and an extension of the MPP AND an Alliance proposal was put forth to GoW. We never asked GoW for a NAP because we knew they would have to void the MPP in order to attack us. It's the same to RP; whether GoW "voids" a MPP or a NAP.

I understand. I would be quite pissed as well if they did that to GS.

[Darekill]

Just for clarification our NAP with RP run out about 100BC if I recall it correctly. We currently had neither a NAP noe a MPP nor any Trades running.

I still do not think that a MPP necessarily includes a NAP.

A MPP is needed if you fear that a third Party might attack one of the Nations that have a MPP.

A NAP is to make sure that you don't get attacked by the Nation you have a NAP with.

Of course you would think that you are at good terms with a Nation that has a MPP with you but that can change like the weather. Even in singleplayergames you are often forced to break an MPP. That happens a lot.

[BigFree]

ND has been very forthcoming. ND is a respectable Civ, after the war we hope to find ourselves at peace with them. Bob can become a peaceful environment once again when the "Warmonger's" are gone.

Perhaps ND would like to consider a future Bob with themselves in the North and RP in the South.

BTW, how do GoW and ND plan to try and split up Bob among themselves?

Just my personal opinion, but it would make more sense for RP to ally with ND or GoW against the other. How it is now makes for re-distrubuting a mess. If ND and GoW win this thing completely; ND gets 3/4 of Bob and/or GoW gets some very corrupt cities in the South of Bob. Very confusing situation to say the least.

[Darekill]

Uh, don't you worry about us and our trusted ally the Glory of War?
We know what we want and we know what to do. We even know that this alliance may look strange and unusual. that is why we belive it will work

[vondrack]

BF, don't worry, I believe they would do it somehow...

And as for the MPP/NAP discussion... I think there is only one thing that needs to be said: "GoW unilaterally voided an MPP with the RPers." Whether it was 'legal' or 'illegal' is not all that important (at least not to me) and very much depends on how one understands the mechanics and logic of MPPs/NAPs - even though I would probably consider an NAP 'implied', there certainly are very good reasons against such an implication. What if A has MPPs with B and C... and B attacks C? A will have to attack B, voiding the MPP with C - but in this case, I'd hesitate a lot whether there was a 'breach' of any 'implied NAP' involved. And if not here, why anywhere else?

This just reinforces my belief that - just like in the real life - all 'treaties' are worth less that the (virtual) paper they are written on. As long as they are beneficial to both parties, they are valid. Once one of the parties becomes unhappy about the deal, *snap* and the treaty is gone. Who cares if the action was legal or illegal...

That's why I say that the only thing that matters here is: "GoW unilaterally voided an (outgame) MPP with the RPers." It is my understanding that GoW admits that. Every one of us can use this information as he/she sees fit. No point in debating over the 'legitimity' of the action. I doubt it could make anyone change his/her opinion.

And the usual disclaimer : I am not siding with any party, just speaking about the very principle. I do not mean to defend or attack anyone's actions.

[Hot_Enamel]

Originally posted by BigFree
BTW, how do GoW and ND plan to try and split up Bob among themselves?

Just my personal opinion, but it would make more sense for RP to ally with ND or GoW against the other. How it is now makes for re-distrubuting a mess. If ND and GoW win this thing completely; ND gets 3/4 of Bob and/or GoW gets some very corrupt cities in the South of Bob. Very confusing situation to say the least.

I thought RP would have other concerns than worrying about how ND & GoW plan to split the continent..