Turns 175-200

[talonschild]

Ooo, I don't like that backlash.

 

[vranasm]

not worth our ally...

 

[YossarianLives]

Agreed that we should not use that trick to get out of the NAP.

 

[2metraninja]

I actually spoke with MZ and turned out his feelings against it were because he thought we will get the most of WPC cities, but he calmed down greatly when I said to him we have claims to only the 2 cities closest to us - the one we allowed WPC to settle on our land and the next closest which is clearly in our sphere of influence now with the ex-RB lands under our control. He could not even believe: "only 2 cities?!?"

I did not asked WPC to declare us a war, and I am OK with waiting to t200 before we attack them, but if they are going to declare war to all their neighbors, I think we will be handicapped if we are the only who dont take that opportunity.

Bistrita said Uciv are already massed troops on the border.

 

[Sommerswerd]

We dont need those 2 cities so desperately, especially since 1 of them we will get for sure no matter what. I say just wait for the NAP to expire, regardless of what WPC (or the other teams) does.

Let us use this as an example to show how honourable we are. There is so little at stake.

 

[RegentMan]

Seems a little gamey to get those cities this way.

 

[Arkipeller]

Seems a little gamey to get those cities this way.

and it is a game, so I don't count it as a problem

 

[2metraninja]

In other news, Ot4e poisoned the water in Indira. -7 from poison We wont lose population if they dont make another mission, but that was nasty.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Poison water? Pretty random I wonder why he chose to use his points on something so trivial?

Also, I dont think poison water stacks (as in a second mission will not add additional faces. But if they run an unhappiness mission together with the poison then you almost gurantee lost population instantly... we crushed Merlot with exactly this tactic in BTSMTDG II

 

[2metraninja]

Can someone confirm it cannot be repeated until it is in effect? If it can be repeated, we are then in big big trouble. We need a spy in our capitol ASAP to at least decrease the chance of ot4e succeeding in making the mission. We also need missioneries to convert few of his cities to our religion while we have forced OBs so we can use there a counter-espionage mission. Anyone knows for sure which turn Ot4e ran counter-espionage on us? Good thing is we play before him in the turn order, so we can run the COunterespionage the turn his wears off before he could re-run it.

Damn, I should had included "no active espionage missions" to add to the "no more than 100 espionage stacking".

Hmm.. I am not 100% sure though that it is completely legal what he is doing. If it was "not spending more than 100 espionage points against each-other" then Ot4e is in trouble. He spent way more than 100 points. He is acting as if the treaty is "not to have more than 100 EP at any time". Will check this.

 

[2metraninja]

Section 5. Espionage

5.1. Both members agree to not exceed 100 espionage spending against the other before the beginning of turn 160.

This is the exact wording. How you guys read it?

 

[cav scout]

He doesn't care what the wording says. Either he thinks he can get away with it without us declaring the NAP broken and attacking or he wants us to attack.

 

[2metraninja]

He is not prepared for our attack at all. It will be devastating hit on him.

So I assume he reads the agreement as he wants. Intentionally or not.

 

[cav scout]

He is not prepared for our attack at all. It will be devastating hit on him.

So I assume he reads the agreement as he wants. Intentionally or not.

Well if we can land a devastating blow then OT4E seems to have made a serious mistake. Poly and UCiv wouldn't be upset if we attacked as CP has already alienated them (we would need to be able to explain our actions of course but these teams would readily accept our explanation). What about CivFr though?

 

[vranasm]

I would consider CivFR joining CP as given fact, unless Poly attacks them "soon".

We really should look out for 2-front war...

 

[Sommerswerd]

Section 5. Espionage

5.1. Both members agree to not exceed 100 espionage spending against the other before the beginning of turn 160.

This is the exact wording. How you guys read it?

Sorry for not responding to this, I have been very busy with new job.

Bottom line: CP has blatantly broken the NAP. There is no defense they can raise to say they have not violated. We can attack them without mercy or remorse immediately if we choose with not even a slight smudge to our honor.

Explanation: "not exceed 100 espionage spending" can mean 1 of 2 things:

1. That you can't build more than a total of 100 points on the other team; or
2. That you can't run espionage missions that cost a total of more than 100 points on the other team

If it is #1, then you have violated as soon as the total amount of points that you have built is more than 100. It does not matter if you build up 50 points then sabototage a tile to spend them, then another 50 then spend them, then another 50 and again spend them. It is no defense to say "my espionage ratio with you never read more than 100" because your "spending" (ie, your slider usage/ points allocation) caused you to build up a total of over 100 points. Therefore you have violated the NAP.

On the other hand, if it is #2, then you have violated as soon as the total amount of points that you have used (by running spy missions) is greater than 100. In that case, you could theoretically "build up" thousands of points on the other team as long as you never "spend" them by running spy missions. But once you have run a total of 100 points worth of spy missions, you have violated the NAP, regardless of what the espionage ratio says your current point total is.

So either way, CP has broken the NAP and we can attack them at our pleasure

Additionally, CP has broken the spirit of the NAP, because the whole point of setting the limit so low is to allow demographics reading, and maybe tech choice knowledge, not to allow constant spy mission attacks. CP knows this, so again, any way you slice it, they have broken the NAP. If they try to say

"Well we just disagree on the interpretation... we interpreted the NAP to mean that we just needed to keep our number on you below 100 at all times

then we can reply

"There is no way that you can expect us to believe that you interpreted the NAP to mean that we were allowed to run poison water missions on each other. Our NAP was an alliance of friendship. You know that, so don't waste your breath trying to say you thought that our alliance NAP allowed you to poison our water and starve our cities. There is no reasonable way you can say that."