cRPG

Strategus => Diplomacy => Topic started by: Tanken on December 13, 2012, 01:48:56 am

Title: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tanken on December 13, 2012, 01:48:56 am
So, before I begin with this, I want to clarify, I don't care enough about Strategus or this Mod anymore to really go forward with a big war for this. So, with that said, here's the skinny.

Back on Nov. 20th, Remnants and KUTT agreed to the purchase of Bhulaban and with it came a 60 Day Non-Aggression pact. Yet, today, (as I write this) we are fighting over Bhulaban since we have been  attacked by Al Qaeda. I look at the roster and I see..

visitors can't see pics , please register or login



Now mind you, we did have 2 Remnants on our side (thank you).

Along with this, you can see the agreement, http://forum.meleegaming.com/diplomacy/sale-agreement-between-kutt-and-remnants/ It clearly states 60 day NAP and that this will stay in place even with changes to the clan's name or structure or banner--so do not bother with the argument of "KUTT is no more."

To add more to this, KUTT is apart of TAMDA, the Tundra Area Mutual Defense Agreement which is signed by HG_Elindor with a subtext of signing on behalf of Remnant.

visitors can't see pics , please register or login


So, I beg to ask the question--If we are in a NAP and you agreed to Mercenary Support, why is it you guys are dishonoring it by signing for someone whom is attacking the same fief in which you sold to us not even 22 days ago?
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tanken on December 13, 2012, 01:51:41 am
inb4 Chestaclese calls someone a nerd or bitch.  :lol:
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tears of Destiny on December 13, 2012, 01:54:50 am
Any and all agreements are worthless with 90% of NA given that most clan leaders simply won't care if it no longer becomes convenient.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Weewum on December 13, 2012, 01:55:50 am
visitors can't see pics , please register or login


Edit:Admins gonna Admin(Hate)
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tanken on December 13, 2012, 02:06:50 am
Just want to post before this escalates into a shit-fest, which was only partially my intention  :twisted:, that Sauce clarified with me that Remnant is apparently not apart of TAMDA, as I suppose I misunderstood from Elindor's writings. The NAP, while the merc support for the opposition seems questionable has been written off as nothing more than mercs just wanting xp.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tears of Destiny on December 13, 2012, 02:11:33 am
Eight people signing up against you is not considered aggression?  :rolleyes:  I'll remember that for the future.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tanken on December 13, 2012, 02:17:07 am
Eight people signing up against you is not considered aggression?  :rolleyes:  I'll remember that for the future.


Well, sometimes you just gotta pick your battles and let the words said be the words you choose to hear :/

Unfortunately as small as we are, there is no sense in really pushing the matter further. All I can do is accept what is said and lay out on the table what I have to present.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Bronto on December 13, 2012, 02:19:36 am
Eight people signing up against you is not considered aggression?  :rolleyes:  I'll remember that for the future.

wasn't the war between hospitaller and chaos started over the above reason at the end of strat 3?
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tears of Destiny on December 13, 2012, 02:20:30 am
wasn't the war between hospitaller and chaos started over the above reason at the end of strat 3?


I have no idea, that "above reason" has started too many wars for me to count.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Sauce on December 13, 2012, 02:23:30 am
Yeah this was my fault. We all got on crpg and my guys just wanted exp.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tanken on December 13, 2012, 02:33:42 am
Allah just gained himself a bunch of Virgins after that fight. Sucks I have to spectate it while working.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Kelugarn on December 13, 2012, 02:47:33 am
Allah just gained himself a bunch of Virgins after that fight. Sucks I have to spectate it while working.

Oh SNAP.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tanken on December 13, 2012, 02:50:58 am
Cmon Berenger, quit pulling a Miley and -'ing all my posts. It's all in good fun.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Chestaclese on December 13, 2012, 03:02:17 am
The Battle Pity Party of Curaw

So Muffy threw a party but didn't want to invite Kelly because Kelley was friends with Heather and no one fucking liked Heather. No one liked Heather because Heather's a little bitch that spreads rumors about everyone, you can't trust Heather. Problem was Muffy invited Kelley to the party before she knew she was friends with Heather and now it was too late to uninvite Kelley because the party was only a day away and that would be rude. Uninviting Kelley the day before the party is something Heather would do. So Muffy threw the party and Kelley showed up in her purple dress and we all tried to be so nice to her because this would probably be the last party she ever went to and tomorrow at lunch she'd have to sit with Heather because we wouldn't let her sit with us because fuck Heather.

Fuck Heather.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tanken on December 13, 2012, 03:02:56 am
Fuck Heather.

I was wondering when you would show up chap!
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Chestaclese on December 13, 2012, 03:07:58 am
I was wondering when you would show up chap!

They told me not to. I did sign up for both sides. Apologize. They didn't have any good hoplite gear anyway so I didn't offer any advantage.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: MURDERTRON on December 13, 2012, 06:17:11 am
HG didn't sign up against KUTT.  I don't see how TAMDA was violated.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: kinngrimm on December 13, 2012, 07:42:02 am
HG didn't sign up against KUTT.  I don't see how TAMDA was violated.
While i have to agree there, that the clan didn't show up so it is still confusing having a crpg clan signing a strategus treaty while in another strategus faction together with another crpg clan so to speak. So you could even argue that signing TAMDA by HG in the first place would be invalid as they couldn't/didn't speak for the complete Remnant faction.

Clarification there would be nice for the future. And if HG is doing separated treaties from remnants then for the love of god or any entity care to listen, make a separated strategus faction, you still can be allied and there are also some disadvantages but all this grouping up into bigger and bigger factions like "The Coallition/Velucan Empire/Apostates/Crusaders etc is what then leads in the end to mega alliances and big blobs of one color on the map.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tanken on December 13, 2012, 07:42:22 am
Read the fine print Murdertron, it was confusing because HG signed as apart of Remnant, so we assumed Remnant was in it. But also Remnant had a NAP with us so apparently we didn't view the NAP and Merc Agreements as the same thing or somewhere the line was fuzzy.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Molly on December 13, 2012, 09:12:26 am
This is not even close to the Grey Order Strat Annoucement... so I just gonna leave again.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: MURDERTRON on December 13, 2012, 10:57:33 am
Read the fine print Murdertron, it was confusing because HG signed as apart of Remnant, so we assumed Remnant was in it. But also Remnant had a NAP with us so apparently we didn't view the NAP and Merc Agreements as the same thing or somewhere the line was fuzzy.

Well then you have to look under what constitutes "non aggression."  At least, what "non aggression" means in your TAMDA and sale of fief contracts.  And keep in mind it could be seperate answers for either.  FCC has a free mercing policy, so merc support should not be assumed as aggression by others.  But clearly, and we have seen this in the past, others believe merc support is aggression.  It has to be outlined in your agreement.  Neither party threw troops at you, but Remnant did merc.  Those are the facts.

If you take the VE and Hosp treaty as an example, it stated a NAP.  However, Hospitallers merced, in force, for Chevaliers during that Invasion.  Did they break the NAP?  I have no idea because the terms of the NAP were not outlined.  No one complained, so I would just assume that NAP means strictly faction on faction action.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: CrazyCracka420 on December 13, 2012, 05:43:58 pm
IMO, a NAP means you don't send resources against the other parties of the NAP.  It has nothing to do with signing up against them in battles.

Also, as Murder said, HG is in TAMDA, not REMNANT. 
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: kinngrimm on December 13, 2012, 07:10:20 pm
IMO, a NAP means you don't send resources against the other parties of the NAP.  It has nothing to do with signing up against them in battles.

Also, as Murder said, HG is in TAMDA, not REMNANT.
I think it is upto how detailed the NAP is defined by those factions included in the treaty, players/mercing can be seen as resources of man power.
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Lemmy_Winks on December 13, 2012, 07:21:05 pm
If KUTT was disbanded isnt your contract(s) null and void?
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: oprah_winfrey on December 13, 2012, 07:41:11 pm
If KUTT was disbanded isnt your contract(s) null and void?

Quote
It clearly states 60 day NAP and that this will stay in place even with changes to the clan's name or structure or banner--so do not bother with the argument of "KUTT is no more."
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: Tanken on December 13, 2012, 11:03:57 pm
Pretty much my intentions for writing this thread was to find out what the community thinks the general idea of a NAP entails. Had it been merc support for a random fight, sure, not a big deal, but it was the same village they just sold to us.


With that said, this has been resolved between our two parties and no harsh feelings are kept, but the question does remain, what is the general expectation of a NAP agreement and what are some base-line ideas to draw from that?
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: arowaine on December 13, 2012, 11:27:33 pm
Pretty much my intentions for writing this thread was to find out what the community thinks the general idea of a NAP entails. Had it been merc support for a random fight, sure, not a big deal, but it was the same village they just sold to us.


With that said, this has been resolved between our two parties and no harsh feelings are kept, but the question does remain, what is the general expectation of a NAP agreement and what are some base-line ideas to draw from that?

rule 1 never do paper with other faction
rule 2 do stuff with only people you are sure you can trust....
rule 3 do not care to much about strat
rule 4 keep in mind the past of the other faction
rule 5 never count on other people but just your own!

I feel your pain tough tanken and you are part rigth but well it is what it is now you can carry on and know better....
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: partyboy on December 13, 2012, 11:44:53 pm
so was it a nap or a slap?  I lost track when this thread became about ~me~
Title: Re: NAP or SLAP?
Post by: kinngrimm on December 14, 2012, 12:13:20 am
Pretty much my intentions for writing this thread was to find out what the community thinks the general idea of a NAP entails. Had it been merc support for a random fight, sure, not a big deal, but it was the same village they just sold to us.
...

definetly it includes
to not support or engage a war against you in terms of
- gold/goods
- gear
- troop tickets

making trade with enemies is not hurting NAPs!
Having additionally a defense treaty with enemies of yours also wouldn't hurt NAP aslong you wouldn't be the aggressor, then by that action the NAP would be canceld and the Defense treaty would beat the NAP on the other Hand if the dude i got the Defense treaty attack you which i would have a NAP with out of my perspective nothing needs to be done that is up to you both to solve the issue at hand.

as the biggest part of the fun in strategus is fighting the battles people should be free to join whatever faction aslong the roster is evenly spread. It would be only fair if one faction lacks half the people that a quarter of the enemy team would instead sign up for them. But i wouldn't give too much onto who in the end signs up against you, still it can heat things up. I for myself as leader of a faction stay out of fights where i either don't have a war against a faction. Wars on NA for my guys i only tell them they shouldn't go all on the same roster, but spread evenly, it is over all a source of big xp boost for them. If i have a NAP with someone, i myself normally wouldn't sign up against him and wouldn't let like more then 2-3 people onto enemies roster if i am informed about that situation, which can happen that i wouldn't be .. got shit to do.