Alliance Treaties: Basic Definitions

Discussions about everything, SMR related or not.
Post Reply
Warlock
Quiet One
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 3:12 am

Alliance Treaties: Basic Definitions

Post by Warlock »

Over the past couple months, I have observed that a common ignorance or confusion on what different alliance treaties mean has taken root in the SMR community. False meanings and incorrect powers are attributed to the different treaty types, if people know of different treaty types at all. The following is a basic listing.

pNAP: Planetary Non Agression Pact

A pNAP is generally considered the least of all treaties, because it is the closest to full allowable hostilities. pNAPs forbid the assault by members of the bound alliances from firing on or participating in the attack on the planets of the other alliance. These treaties are often accompanied by an agreement to remain out of the claimed territory of the signing alliances, so as not to destroy forces. Under such a treaty, mine clearing for another alliances attack is most definitely considered an act of hostility, and uno guarding for another alliances attack shady. However, ALL ship to ship combat is authorized and not inhibited in any way. You see em, blast them.

pNAPs are generally designed to limit hostilities, not end them. Often they are granted by warring alliances who would like to keep 1 less alliance from trying to kick in their door.

NAP : Non Agression Pact


A NAP, also occassionally referred to as a fNAP (full) is a complete cessation of hostilities between two alliances. No ship to ship, ship to planet, or (as it is considered bad form and a sign of ill will) intentional ship to force combat is authorized. However, no cooperation between the alliances is written into this treaty, though occasional favors and sharing of information may occur if the two treatied alliances are on good terms. NAPed alliances are NOT allies.

MDP: Mutual Defense Pact

MDPs, not to be confused with MOPs, are the first of the 2 'true' allying treaties. Signers of a Mutual Defense Pact agree to enter into war against any alliance which proves to be an agressor against the other signer. A NAPED ALLIANCE ATTACKING AN ALLIANCE WITH WHICH THE SIGNER HAS A MDP WITH WILL BE GROUNDS TO END THE NAP. MDP's are a greater commitment, and thus considered a more powerful treaty, than any NAP. MDPed alliances ARE allies. Information sharing, regular assistance, shared chat rooms are all common and to be expected. However, assistance by MDPed alliances IS dependant on the other alliance being the aggressor in the overall conflict.

MOP : Mutual Offensive Pact

This is the big daddy of all treaties. Anything goes along the terms of cooperation under this treaty. The terms of all of the previous treaties apply, with one addition. MOPed alliances do not need the enemy alliance to be an agressor. The signers agree to fully assist with any attacks upon and war upon any enemies of the other signers, even if the attack is totally uprovoked and a war of agression. Thru thick and thin, right and wrong, MOPed alliances blast everyone together.

Oh, and one final note. If you ever want to get any respect as an alliance in this game, stick to whatever treaties you make. If a treaty must be dissolved, set a point in time approximately 48 hours after notification for the expiration of the treaty.
Image
Ardbeg
Beginner Spam Artist
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 2:23 pm
Contact:

Post by Ardbeg »

Useful clarification, and definitely needed. In the current game, DC signed a limited time pNAP with Crusaders because we had other targets, and suddenly started hearing that we were apparently allies (certain people will make up any old fact that suits their personal agenda - you know who you are).
Blum
Chat Troll
Posts: 1170
Joined: Fri Apr 12, 2002 2:13 am
Location: Here
Contact:

Post by Blum »

While all those definitions are good and usefull, full conditions of each treaty should be discussed in every case to avoid problems.
Image
yamo
Quiet One
Posts: 96
Joined: Sat Sep 21, 2002 3:36 pm

Post by yamo »

i love the uncertanty...uncoded treaties exist only in the minds of the players...alliances can fracture over them...enmitiess blossom from their ashes...events go wildly spinning out of control....wheeee!
Old Soul. Newbie Skills!
Ardbeg
Beginner Spam Artist
Posts: 2532
Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 2:23 pm
Contact:

Post by Ardbeg »

Blum wrote:While all those definitions are good and usefull, full conditions of each treaty should be discussed in every case to avoid problems.
I couldn't agree more, the clearer the definitions the less likely there are to be misunderstandings. For example, the DC - Crusaders pNAP specified (among other things) the following:

- The exact server time at which the treaty ended, and the exact conditions required for that time to change.
- That alliance members could not take part in planet attacks while members of any alliance.
- That assisting operations against planets by clearing, UNO sitting, or in any other way was not allowed.

If you negotiate a treaty, take the time to sit down and think of borderline situations that may arise, and write clauses for them.
Post Reply