Confused

[Vane]

I agree that players need to pay attention, but I think it doesn't make sense that an allied nation or a nation with whom has a peace treaty shows up as a target in missions. They are your nations allies, and last I checked allies typically do not fight each other. So it would make sense that missions would not set these nations as a target, and instead go for nations whom are at war as top priority, and neutral after that.

Allies don't typically fight each other you are absolutely correct. However there are always free radicals that hold citizenship with a country and yet still do not follow their own countries diplomatic stance and attack. How do you suppose a national "ally" was at the top of the enemy list to be attacked in the first place?

Either
"A" the player doing the mission used urban legends and made a grave error selecting an ally
"B" the "apparent" ally already broke such a treaty and attacked your nation which is why he is on the list
"C" its a new nation, no hostile enemies so fame is used, in which case no diplomacy pacts were made and this is not an issue

I am going to g with "B". Therefore, I agree with Admin and Dez on this. An perceived ally should show on your mission enemy list as they would have already broken such a pact by gaining hostility with your nation in some way.

I was more referring to the top 5 nations that you get assigned to fight, rather then the individual hostility list, since for example if a person in Tokelau wanted to rank up, St. kitts would be the top of the list since its the largest nation, despite being allied with Tokelau. Which I think doesn't make sense. But for the individuals on the hostility list things are a bit different, since as you mentioned players can be on that list with high hostility despite being in an allied nation. I think perhaps an edit should be made, or a new law that states that any player with X amount of hostility with your nation, is declared an enemy, despite any nation they may be a part of, and will incur no hostility penalty.

I know , I caught myself and edited the post. My apologies.

EDIT: I rarely use NPC's so I automatically assumed this was regarding the generated list of enemies in which case my point still stands. On the NPC side I do see a slight issue. It should be coded that nations with peace or alliance do not show up on the "5 national flag list". This list is default to the top 5 famous nations. If one is an ally they should be removed and the next nation on the fame list is used. Continually until 5 are selected with the highest fame of which none have a friendly diplomatic stance.

Or

The general flag list changes to being first the most hostile "countries" with your nation just as the individuals are selected, and then secondarily the most famous while again going through the list only using nations with no friendly stance.

[Meliva]

No worries, I didn't exactly explain myself very properly in my first post anyway. I do think that a new law or an edit to the hostility law to set players with a certain amount of hostility as enemies no matter their nation and incur no hostility penalty hitting them. That way those on the hostility list will be fair game.

[DezNutz]

I disagree that any change needs to occur. Before Diplomacy rolled out, there were some Nations that made Non-Aggression Pacts (NAPs) with each other. The NAP declared what was considered aggressive behavior between the two nations and what was considered acceptable specifically limited actions as a result of Nation Missions. It also provided a means for the two nations to settle disputes on violations.

Having hostility doesn't equate to violating a peace treaty or alliance. If that were the case every nation would be at war with each other.

[Vane]

Having hostility doesn't equate to violating a peace treaty or alliance. If that were the case every nation would be at war with each other.

I disagree. It comes down to the terms of the treaty and what any given nation is willing to tolerate.

I have always been baffled by the acceptance of any nation to any form of attack on its citizens. Everyone has adopted this view or perception that a plunder hit is normal, fair game, lit your hit approach. Well thats the only reason that view is around, because some tolerate it.

How would the USA (in RL) react if one of their naval ships was attacked/sunk/damaged or w/e by another nation? Ah screw it, we were spotted so its fair game? I don't bloody think so.


This game is so open that there are no laws or rules written in stone, only those created based on individual players and what they will tolerate, what they will do, how far they will go, what they can enforce. Hostility can easily equate to treaty violation, especially given the fact Peace and Hostility directly contradict each other.

[DezNutz]

Having hostility doesn't equate to violating a peace treaty or alliance. If that were the case every nation would be at war with each other.

I disagree. It comes down to the terms of the treaty and what any given nation is willing to tolerate.

I have always been baffled by the acceptance of any nation to any form of attack on its citizens. Everyone has adopted this view or perception that a plunder hit is normal, fair game, lit your hit approach. Well thats the only reason that view is around, because some tolerate it.

How would the USA (in RL) react if one of their naval ships was attacked/sunk/damaged or w/e by another nation? Ah screw it, we were spotted so its fair game? I don't bloody think so.


This game is so open that there are no laws or rules written in stone, only those created based on individual players and what they will tolerate, what they will do, how far they will go, what they can enforce. Hostility can easily equate to treaty violation, especially given the fact Peace and Hostility directly contradict each other.

In real life you don't need to attack others to earn new ranks.

As well, BD attacks are hostile attacks on a nation. You can't complete nation missions without doing so. As well, there are some that think that influence purchases are declarations of war, but those are also required for nation missions. Are you going to declare war just to complete a nation mission.

[Vane]

So everyone should just accept an attack because the other was simply earning a rank in their nation?

I never said no one should attack, my view is quite the opposite especially given my past. "My point" is the level of acceptance here is shocking. I took another players MoW a while back because they cast a disfavor on my fleet, hit me twice and lost both times. I didn't lose but I still took their ship simply because I don't like any form of voodoo cast on me. I would react similarly to any situation.

[DezNutz]

So everyone should just accept an attack because the other was simply earning a rank in their nation?

I never said no one should attack, my view is quite the opposite especially given my past. "My point" is the level of acceptance here is shocking. I took another players MoW a while back because they cast a disfavor on my fleet, hit me twice and lost both times. I didn't lose but I still took their ship simply because I don't like any form of voodoo cast on me. I would react similarly to any situation.

I didn't say that everyone should just accept an attack or at what point they should consider it acceptable. I said that hostility (which at minimum an action would cause 10 hostility) doesn't mean a violation has occurred. You can't treat hostility as a violation. Perfect example: What happens when play X who may have 100s of hostility with your nation joins a nation you are at peace with. That hostility follows the player. Are you going to declare war on the other nation because a player who had hostility against your nation joined a nation that you were at peace with.

That's funny. You don't like any form of voodoo cast on you, but I'm sure that you have pulled the trigger first on a number of players.

[Stan Rogers]

I could be wrong but I think Rag's nation mission just started before St Kitts enacted Hostility laws making him more susceptible to getting the boot.

[DezNutz]

I could be wrong but I think Rag's nation mission just started before St Kitts enacted Hostility laws making him more susceptible to getting the boot.

That's likely or the reverse. The law was enacted a few hours before he became a "Captain".

[Stan Rogers]

I'll bet Rag won't let it happen again