Beamup Wrote:If instead you meant to argue that any "objective" view is irrelevant because it'll have the same impact on how individuals view each other's trustworthiness, then that I would agree with.
This you got right. So here we have an agreement
Beamup Wrote:I misunderstood your position then. You appeared to be arguing that Speaker and Sullla were objectively wrong to consider Nakor/DMOC/Whosit to be breaking their word, and should not consider them less trustworthy because of it.
Oh it is my position that the MDP is not wordbreaking.
A NAP is just an agreement of non agression but none of those NAPs (with the exception of the first Greece/India NAP) define what is considered as agressive. Thats completly up to those involved. So everyone is free to state: 'If you settle within 5 tiles of my capital I consider this as agressive move and the NAP for null and void'.
And this would be correct as is. The same counts for proclaiming that attacking Civ C would be considered an act of agression and so forth.
The one thing I didn't mention before is: In my POV the other Civs that have NAPs with Rome and HRE are free to declare that Rome/HRE had changed the NAP and so they consider the previous NAPs null and void. similar as you have to agree to EULA again after they altered something
. So if those that have NAP with HRE/Rome don't protest but continue on they can't protest later if Rome/HRE honor their MDP.Additonal Note: In SP an MDP ends as soon one of the involved declares war against someone. So from a gamemechanic point HRE would be free to declare the MDP ended once Rome attacks Inca
(I doubt they will do that but the look at Whosit' face would be priceless )