GoW, you guys are the best allies ever!

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Panzer32
Did you sink the boat!?

No. We did not sink the regular boat with our veteran boat, we didn't even attack it (yet). Hell, RP Team has never attacked a single unit of any nationality other than barbarians the entire game to my knowledge.

Your faithful allies,

Spain

[Master Zen]

Please indicate to me where and when we had a NAP

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Master Zen
Please indicate to me where and when we had a NAP

MZ, you're a great guy and honestly no hard feelings at all (hell, I'm a Diplomacy player from way back, this type of thing happens), but only you would consider declaring war on an MPP-partner completely above board

So what are you proposing Glory of War should do, declare war on themselves as well as Neu Demogyptica?

Come to think of that... we probably wouldn't mind

[Nuclear Winter]

Oh thanks for pointing out this loophole mr zen, this clarifies everything... now your reputation is safe! Applause! To the rest of the world, no, you have to fear GoW no longer!!!They found a loophole! you guys are really sooo righteous...

[Hot_Enamel]

We aim to please

[Darekill]

Just one Question how often did you atack in a single player game a Nation with whom you had a MPP?

Sometimes you are forced to do that.

A MPP is not a NAP.

Come to think of it. one of most used Phrase in cotracts with spain is :"This Contract superseds all other Pacts with other Nations". What if GoW had such a contract with us so the MPP is superseded.
Just a question.

Anotherthing that i want to clarify. Neu Demogyptica has declared War after GoW has declared War on you. I can not belive that any pact is still active after a war has been declared.

[BigFree]

Hmm...

So it's ok to declare war on your MPP partner?

Who else agrees with this?

So lets say you declared war on us, but the MPP is still in effect. We did not attack anyone nor declare war on anyone; so according to the MPP GoW must declare war on ND now.

Then GoW is at war with it's ally against RP while being at war with it's MPP partner...sounds reasonable for a team named the "Warmonger's."

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Darekill
Just one Question how often did you atack in a single player game a Nation with whom you had a MPP?

Sometimes you are forces to do that.

A MPP is not a NAP.

Come to think of it. one of most used Phrase in cotracts with spain is :"This Contract superseds all other Pacts with other Nations". What if GoW had such a contract with us so the MPP is superseded.
Just a question.

Hey, if you guys want to debate what the meaning of is is, be my guest.

I'm just glad it's been made clear that ND and GoW don't see any problem with attacking an MPP-partner. That's all we really needed to know.

[BigFree]

Darekill, the pact is still active of course, but GoW is not honoring it, that is our point.

As far as attacking a MPP partner; you are one of few who find that reasonable and justifiable in this situation. Remember, we are not the aggressors here. ND and GoW are. If RP had done something to provoke this, that would be different. But RP was in fact trying to secure NAP's with both ND and GoW for the longest time, but to no avail.

[Hot_Enamel]

We found too many loopholes inserted by RP in the NAP you wanted us to sign

[nbarclay]

Speaking purely theoretically, suppose Civ A has a MPP with Civ B. Civ A then attacks Civ B. But, since a MPP is in place, Civ A has to defend Civ B against any attacker. Therefore, it is incumbent on Civ A to attack itself in defense of Civ B. The quickest and most efficient way to do that would be for Civ A to disband all its military forces, or at least all its forces in a position to attack Civ B. (Of course with the MPP still in place, Civ B would have to take care not to take advantage of the situation to attack Civ A or else it would have to declare war on itself too. ) Considering the ridiculousness of the alternative, it only makes sense to me that MPPs should be viewed as carrying implicit NAPs unless there is a clear understanding to the contrary.

Note again that this consideration of the issue is theoretical, partly with an eye toward possible future agreements. I don't know enough about the specifics of GoW/RP negotiations and agreements to attempt to judge that situation at this time.

Nathan

[notyoueither]

Oh, and GS has no position on this matter, other than the fact that we have no position.

Is that a position? Damn.

[Tiberius]

Continuing the purely theoretical debate, I think that a declaration of war voids any previous agreements and treaties, including MPPs. (just like in the game itself).

So the only question IMHO is wether the declaration of war itself is a violation of the MPP treaty or not. Since this is debatable I'd add to any MPP treaty the following sentence: "neither party shall declare war on the other". Simple as that.

[BigFree]

Tioberious, do you really think it needs to be wrote out like that?

And, yes, a declaration of war with a party in which you have a MPP is a violation of that MPP. The game even supports this. If you have a MPP with someone,go ahead and declare war on them, then check if you still have a MPP active with them. You will not. The MPP was voided by the party who declared war. If you decalre peace, the MPP doesn't come back into play, in game, you must make another.

So long story short, if you have a MPP you are violating it by decalring war on the party you have it with.

[OliverFA]

Now we finally know what happened with Lux. They where attacked by their allies!