World War 1

  • Thread starter Thread starter alphabonkers
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was under the impression that if a tribe goes to war with your tribe and you have a NAP with another tribe, that that tribe helps you because your not the aggressor.

Or you can not do anything because you're not the aggressor.
 
I was under the impression that if a tribe goes to war with your tribe and you have a NAP with another tribe, that that tribe helps you because your not the aggressor.


Sorry to say, I have to disagree with you on the definition of a NAP. In some cases, yes a NAP can mean helping out people you have one with, however, it usually just means you are agreeing not to attack someone, not that you will agree with them all the time.

Ex
 
This mean nothing. I guess all the tribes stay neutral until some other tribe start to endanger them. We made that statement because there was questions about it. That's it.

Neutral tribes doesn't count in an war. So either remove it, either put all W6 tribes in there.

Also true, there is always an possibility of movements if some conditions are met, but then bring to the neutral zone all the tribes surrounding those involved in war ;). We are not less neutral then others :lol:

Because RFG is the only tribe till now who said they will be neutral with stipulations, hence RFG has been put on that section..
Other w6 tribe has not publicly said anything, and so they are not in the list.

Neutral tribes really does count on a war.. specially when there is a possibility of a world war. Look @ real world history and you will know what I am referring here.

Quite frankly, I am surprised RFG didn't back up their NAP with KoD... Especially since KoD got declared on by GU and STONED. Maybe this gives some indicatoin to RFG's allies of how they do. Or is RFG simply waiting for their cannon fodder STACHE and *LH* to declare?

KV don't stir up something on here :lol:

I have seen the RFG diplomacy list... they have CHE!!! and GU as NAP too...

So is this mean they will declare on KoD ?? no...

I think they have made it clear that they want to remain neutral until their tribe is in threat...
 
C'mon KV? You think CHE!!! would support RFG when we had a NAP if we declared on someone else.

I think that answer would be no. Stop trying to get us to join the war.
 
Sorry to say, I have to disagree with you on the definition of a NAP. In some cases, yes a NAP can mean helping out people you have one with, however, it usually just means you are agreeing not to attack someone, not that you will agree with them all the time.

Ex

NAP is as openly definable as the term refugee is.
 
KV don't stir up something on here :lol:

I have seen the RFG diplomacy list... they have CHE!!! and GU as NAP too...

So is this mean they will declare on KoD ?? no...

I think they have made it clear that they want to remain neutral until their tribe is in threat...

Then their diplomacy list is out of date because CHE!!! atleast, has no NAP with RFG. :)
 
I was under the impression that if a tribe goes to war with your tribe and you have a NAP with another tribe, that that tribe helps you because your not the aggressor.

NAP = Non-Aggression-Pact

And no KV, this happen when you have an alliance with one of the tribes involved.

Having a NAP just means that we agreed to leave in peace :icon_wink: .

P.S. RFG has no NAP with CHE!!! either.
 
C'mon KV? You think CHE!!! would support RFG when we had a NAP if we declared on someone else.

I think that answer would be no. Stop trying to get us to join the war.

First thing first, I am not trying to stir up trouble here. What could CHE!!! do to RFG? Own your K53 cluster? Well yah, but thats pretty much it. Hardly a profitable war. :icon_rolleyes:

Second thing, yes. We helped you with DCT, correct? :)
 
Second thing, yes. We helped you with DCT, correct? :)

Still haven't held up your side. You were supposed to take out the leaders. Still have to see evidence that you have done so.

And let it be known that RFG's definition of NAP is not KV's definition of a NAP. There you go, clarification.
 
Okay, if you want so bad... *B.S* will stay neutral! Even though we could do nothing even if we weren't.
 
Still haven't held up your side. You were supposed to take out the leaders. Still have to see evidence that you have done so.

And let it be known that RFG's definition of NAP is not KV's definition of a NAP. There you go, clarification.

Errrm... Sorry? We'll get right on that. :icon_rolleyes:
 
At the start of this thread I said, world war... why ?? because every one will be dragged into this :icon_wink:

What makes you so sure?

I don't see any reason why the entire world should care enough to jump into this war.
 
The Diplomacy of World 6 is basically a mess..
The Title of this Thread clearly states what we are about to witness.

This is a good chance for some Tribes to rise and for some other to re-form, change their diplomacy list.

Take into account that there are many other wars going on at this time.They are less significant(probably), that includes tribes like UM./DCT/B.A/=GLR=/War Family/Core/Stanche/*LH* and I believe more will join soon...
That's why Alpha's statement is true.
 
The Diplomacy of World 6 is basically a mess..
The Title of this Thread clearly states what we are about to witness.

This is a good chance for some Tribes to rise and for some other to re-form, change their diplomacy list.

Take into account that there are many other wars going on at this time.They are less significant(probably), that includes tribes like UM./DCT/B.A/=GLR=/War Family/Core/Stanche/*LH* and I believe more will join soon...
That's why Alpha's statement is true.

Deathless appears! And with such wisedom :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top