Foreign Policy: Apolyton

[2metraninja]

I would assume that a defensive alliance would supersede a NAP - that's the point.

WOW! That's absolute absurd. We gave our word and nothing in this game can change that.

 

[Bowsling]

It's a contradiction, not absurd. Say that RB, out of the blue, declares war on CP. We've given our word to RB that there would be no aggression until turn 170. We gave our word to CP that if anyone attacks them, we will be there to defend them.

Either way, we are breaking "our word". How would we proceed? Well, we would choose the lesser of the two evils - in this case the NAP with RB.

 

[RegentMan]

No in that case we stick by our older deal, the NAP with RB. CP knows we have an NAP with RB- in fact we asked them to excuse us from parts of their alliance offer that contradicts our RB NAP.

 

[Bowsling]

I just re-read our treaty with RB, and it turns out I'm wrong, and there is no contradiction:

Section 3. Non Aggression

3.1. The members agree not to conduct actions which will lead to a declaration of war between the members of this pact for the duration of the pact.

Instead, it is clear: RB, by attacking another team with which we have a defensive alliance, is conducting actions which will lead to declaration of war. They would be violating the NAP by attacking our allies.

 

[2metraninja]

It's a contradiction, not absurd. Say that RB, out of the blue, declares war on CP. We've given our word to RB that there would be no aggression until turn 170. We gave our word to CP that if anyone attacks them, we will be there to defend them.

Either way, we are breaking "our word". How would we proceed? Well, we would choose the lesser of the two evils - in this case the NAP with RB.

That's why, we are careful what we give our word for. CP asked us for defensive alliance, but we explained them our situation and they agreed to simple NAP.

 

[Bowsling]

Right, I have seen that now. However, my second point is still valid: if we sign a defensive alliance with somebody (Apolyton), and we inform RB of that, they would be conducting actions wich would lead to a declaration of war by attacking an ally.

 

[2metraninja]

I thought about "in-game defensive pact" and this is indeed a back-door in the spelling of our agreement. And it is different from "superseding" our NAP with RB by signing defensive alliance with Poly.

 

[YossarianLives]

Section 2.3 of our agreement with RB states

The members of this pact cannot enter into agreements with third parties which interfere to any of the clauses of this pact.

The purpose of this amendment was to prevent exactly what we're talking about, so even if we do come up with a technicality, it would still be going against the spirit of our agreement.

I think the only thing we could do is try to help Poly before RB DOWs them.

 

[talonschild]

Well, then, let's get helping.

 

[Aivoturso]

I think that clause 2.3. prevents us entering defensive alliance without exception for RB (or breaking our word). But IMO, it does not prevent us from entering an in-game defensive pact. That one is part of game mechanics and should be treated as such and it is public information. So if a team that we have NAP with attacks a team that we have in-game pact with, they will be ones violating the NAP.

 

[2metraninja]

I think that clause 2.3. prevents us entering defensive alliance without exception for RB (or breaking our word). But IMO, it does not prevent us from entering an in-game defensive pact. That one is part of game mechanics and should be treated as such and it is public information. So if a team that we have NAP with attacks a team that we have in-game pact with, they will be ones violating the NAP.

I think the same. The in-game DP is tricky when it comes to keeping NAPs. I've been in similar situations already few times. Someone - Nation A - I made written out-of-game agreement to not declare war to each-other, signed such in-game Defensive Pact with a third party - Nation B in attempt to deprive me from the right to declare war to this third nation - Nation B. I declared war to this Nation B and automatically the Nation A with which I had agreement to not declare war against each-other declared me a war. In this case I had the right, because the written agreement said: "No one will declare war to the other" and in this case in fact Nation A declared me a war - the log says: "Nation A declared war on you".

With our current agreement wording (which is btw originally RB wording I think), technically we can use in-game DP mechanics to prevent RB declaring a war to someone, as strictly looked at, us signing DP is not in contradiction with any clause of our agreement. Signing DP with third party does not - and if it happen that RB declare war to a nation we

conduct actions which will lead to a declaration of war between the members of this pact

. It will be RB's action of declaring war to this third party we have DP with, which will trigger the war between us, thus "conducting action which will lead to war between the two parties" Us signing DP at first place is not causing the war, nor it contradict with

2.2 The members of this pact cannot enter into agreements with third parties which interfere to any of the clauses of this pact.

because it is passive action. It need active action - declaring war to this third party - by someone to lead to war between us and RB.

If the wording was: "No one will declare war to the other" then we clearly cant use this backdoor, because it will be us who will declare war to RB if we sign in-game-DP with third party and RB declares war to this third party.

This leads me to think why was this exact wording from RB? I usually word it: "No one will declare war to the other" and this covers this back-door Is there a possibility that RB wanted to be able to use this against us? For example by signing DP with Spaniards before our forced 10-turns peace with Spaniards are over?

 

[YossarianLives]

I'm pretty sure that is our wording in the pact, Not RB's. It was basically copied from the Amazon pact that you guys were using in the last game. We'd have to ask SilentConfusion why he worded it that way.

If RB were to sign a DP with SpAp, I would absolutely argue that they broke our agreement clause 2.2 and that we have every right to DOW the Spaniards as we see fit.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I think that the wording of the clauses can be interpreted either way. That is to say that:

1. One team signing an in-game or out-of-game DP violates clause 2.3

2. Signing in-game DPs are fine but DoW on a country that you know has an in-game DP with one of the pact members violates clause 3.1

Also, I think that clause 3.1 can be interpreted even more loosely to say that:

1. DoW on a team you KNOW has an out-of-game DP with a pact member violates clause 3.1 because you KNOW that they will be forced to DoW you in response.

Interpreting 2.3 even more loosely, you can say that:

1. Taking ANY actions that are intentionally designed to frustrate, obstruct or undermine the purposes goals and intents of the treaty violates clause 2.3 (like say for example, getting Marble from somebody else, thereby frustrating/nullifying our attempt to hold up our end of the bargain... Or for instance, entering into some sneaky DP to try to find a backdoor way out of the prohibition on DoWing each other)

My point is that contracts are tricky... They can always be interpreted and loopholed to death to do what ever you want no matter how long and complicated you make them. Goodwill is the backbone of any deal. Once there is no more goodwill then all that is left is to hand the contract over to the lawyers (barristers) and say "Here... figure out some way out of this. Find this or that clause that allows me to cheat this poor bastard!"

Now that the Goodwill between us and RB is obviously gone, we need to just keep in mind that they can come up with loopholes just as fast as we can. Keep that in mind.

 

[YossarianLives]

Well, I think we definitely have the advantage if the contract goes to the lawyers!

Do we know exactly when RB's NAP with Poly expires? We need to figure out what all our options are to help out. I am pretty sure that RB will not buy our argument that they are not allowed to DOW Poly if we have a DP with them. So, what is our move if we sign an in-game Defensive Pact with Poly, then RB DOW's them and we automatically declare war? Do we declare our own out-of-game pact with them null and void at that point? Do we send our own troops into the mix? Do we continue to support Poly with money / intellegence / resources / etc? Or do we try to stay out of things and maintain our NAP with RB as much as possible?

What can we do preemptively before a DOW takes place? We've got lots of cash to burn. Obviously we want to spend that on a research spree during our GA, but can we spare a little to help Poly pick up some quick military techs? If they can stock up catapults and longbows, they can mount a very cost-effective defense. It might not be a horrible thing if RB's army is spread out and bloodied in Poly lands when we are ready to attack with CP.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I actually like the idea of giving Poly some help with siege now before RB declares to frustrate any attack plans they might have. The only problem with that is it delays our attack on SpAp which we can not afford. We need to kill off SpAp AND stabilize their lands (including a strong defensive contingent) and get our main Army back to Westeros BEFORE the NAP ends with RB or we are toast.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Another thing to consider is to (DoW SpAp, then) go to RB and tell them we are planning to enter into a DP with Poly. In that letter, we explain to them why we don't think this violates the treaty. That way, we have not actually broken the treaty, but instead just given them an opportunity to try to argue why they think it violates the treaty.

Of course they will be reluctant to do this (argue that we cant make a DP with Poly), because it is basically showing all their cards, ie. admitting that they intend to attack Poly, otherwise why would they care about us having an in-game DP with them? (BTW do we even have the tech needed for in-game DPs? I forget)

So if they do want to argue about it, which they might, then we can tell Poly that we have confirmed RB intends to attack them and decide how best to help them. Meanwhile we can come up with endless arguments to dispute and contradict everything they say about why we cant have a DP with Poly.

I think they will be very reluctant to DoW Poly with this issue unresolved and their collective honor hanging in the balance. So we can probably delay them for a long time while Poly goes into full War footing, whips, drafts, chops, whatever. By the time they give up on debating us Poly will be ready for them. The best part, is that with Poly in full whipping mode, RB will have to do the same to keep pace and they will tank their beautiful GNP, allowing us to take a tech lead.

Thoughts?

 

[Sommerswerd]

I forgot to add that the reason we MUST DoW SpAp before any of this is to prevent RB from using the same tactic against us, ie DPing with SpAp to prevent us from attacking them.

 

[Bowsling]

Agreed.

The requisite tech is Nationalism I think. Obviously, both us and RB have it.

 

[vranasm]

military tradition and I think they will beat us to it.

actually MT is one of the best techs to get with Lib in SP...keep that in mind.

 

[2metraninja]

I think that the wording of the clauses can be interpreted either way. That is to say that:

1. One team signing an in-game or out-of-game DP violates clause 2.3

2. Signing in-game DPs are fine but DoW on a country that you know has an in-game DP with one of the pact members violates clause 3.1

Also, I think that clause 3.1 can be interpreted even more loosely to say that:

1. DoW on a team you KNOW has an out-of-game DP with a pact member violates clause 3.1 because you KNOW that they will be forced to DoW you in response.

Interpreting 2.3 even more loosely, you can say that:

1. Taking ANY actions that are intentionally designed to frustrate, obstruct or undermine the purposes goals and intents of the treaty violates clause 2.3 (like say for example, getting Marble from somebody else, thereby frustrating/nullifying our attempt to hold up our end of the bargain... Or for instance, entering into some sneaky DP to try to find a backdoor way out of the prohibition on DoWing each other)

My point is that contracts are tricky... They can always be interpreted and loopholed to death to do what ever you want no matter how long and complicated you make them. Goodwill is the backbone of any deal. Once there is no more goodwill then all that is left is to hand the contract over to the lawyers (barristers) and say "Here... figure out some way out of this. Find this or that clause that allows me to cheat this poor bastard!"

Now that the Goodwill between us and RB is obviously gone, we need to just keep in mind that they can come up with loopholes just as fast as we can. Keep that in mind.

I am ready to argue here

The current wording of our agreement

3.1. The members agree to not conduct actions which will lead to declaration of war between the members of this pact while this pact is in effect.

speaks absolutely clear to me that if someone have in-game DP with someone the nation who declare war to this third nation will be the one who causes war between the two sides of the agreement. For me it is clear that signing an in-game DP is just passive action. Just like moving a scouting warrior in the outside of our borders. It will be RB fault if they move a unit over our unit and when asked "are you sure we start a war with Indians" they click "Yes, I am sure" instead of "Lets reconsider". Simply because there was our units we cant be held responsible for the war. It is clear who is the reason for the war. And this is the one who performs the active action i.e. moving his unit over ours and choosing to declare war instead of "reconsider". By the same logic us signing an in-game DP is passive action, just as sending the scouting warrior in the no-one's land. Active action would be if RB declare war to the one which we have DP with.

Also, for me out-of-game defensive agreement signed after the NAP agreement with third party will be violation of

2.2. The members of this treaty cannot enter into agreements with third parties which interfere or may cause interference to any of its clauses.

If our clause was worded "the two teams agree to not declare war to each-other" then the in-game-DP backdoor would have been useless, as when an in-game DP is triggered, it is the one who is in DP who declares war to the other.

I forgot to add that the reason we MUST DoW SpAp before any of this is to prevent RB from using the same tactic against us, ie DPing with SpAp to prevent us from attacking them.

I think buddy you forgot the lesson we taught to our enemies in DoE about in-game DPs Remember how easy is to go around such loophole if you have dedicated ally?