NAP or SLAP?

[Chestaclese]

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.

[MURDERTRON]

HG didn't sign up against KUTT.  I don't see how TAMDA was violated.

[kinngrimm]

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.

[Tanken]

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.

[Molly]

This is not even close to the Grey Order Strat Annoucement... so I just gonna leave again.

[MURDERTRON]

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.

[CrazyCracka420]

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. 

[kinngrimm]

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.

[Lemmy_Winks]

If KUTT was disbanded isnt your contract(s) null and void?

[oprah_winfrey]

If KUTT was disbanded isnt your contract(s) null and void?

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."

[Tanken]

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?

[arowaine]

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....

[partyboy]

so was it a nap or a slap?  I lost track when this thread became about ~me~

[kinngrimm]

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.