Alliance affilation and war tactics

[US of Europe]

This is something which already happened several times, and I thought I remembered an article about this. The scenario is as following:

Alliance X orders nations A, B and C to change their affilation just moments before the outbreak of a conflict, while nations D, E... Z are supposed to keep their original affilation. The first three nations are ordered to use another affilation, until their alliance leaderships tells them to engage their targets if the war is ongoing for a couple of days. So basically an alliance hides nation with a false affilation.

The question is, is this allowed? I thought to remember something about people getting banned or warned for this during GW II, not sure though, and that's why I ask about it. To be clear, this is not something for the current ongoing war or a way to get my enemies banned, as I'm neutral during this one and I'm not expected to participate anytime soon, as there are no reasons to engage in the current conflict for me. Or is this just something other alliances may have to deal with?

(nvm the messy topic title... damn typo's)

Edited September 11, 2007 by US of Europe

[ponster]

I haven't been around long enough to know the correct answer but I thought it'd be ok.

Imagine that GPA want to help one of the Unjust War sides but want to remain neutral. Could they just send nations to join the fight but onder a different alliances flag/colours ?

[US of Europe]

I haven't been around long enough to know the correct answer but I thought it'd be ok.

Imagine that GPA want to help one of the Unjust War sides but want to remain neutral. Could they just send nations to join the fight but onder a different alliances flag/colours ?

I can't remember it precisly anymore and that's why I asked if there are any policies on this, I can recall some trouble out of GW II though. What I meant was that, for example, NpO orders nations to go into peace mode (nothing wrong here) and to change their alliance affilation to 'None'. 5 days later, these member switch back again to the affilation of NpO and strike upon targets.

I think a moderator would know the answer to this question, or an admin.

I imagine if the GPA sends fighters to fight under a different mask to other alliances, it can be considered of a slightly similiar action, though in reality I guess these nations simple join an alliance at war during the war, and after the war go back to the GPA once the peace terms have been met.

[Dr Suave]

I THINK it's OK by the admin and guys, but frowned upon by many alliances, as dishonourable.

[Azaghul]

I can't remember it precisly anymore and that's why I asked if there are any policies on this, I can recall some trouble out of GW II though. What I meant was that, for example, NpO orders nations to go into peace mode (nothing wrong here) and to change their alliance affilation to 'None'. 5 days later, these member switch back again to the affilation of NpO and strike upon targets.

I think a moderator would know the answer to this question, or an admin.

I imagine if the GPA sends fighters to fight under a different mask to other alliances, it can be considered of a slightly similiar action, though in reality I guess these nations simple join an alliance at war during the war, and after the war go back to the GPA once the peace terms have been met.

There is a big difference between using it to hide members during a war, and having members switch AA's so your alliance can fight a war without declaring or getting all your members involved. Both are of course legal within the game (not subject to moderator intervention), just like ghosting and ghost rouging is.

The GPA never would engage in, encourage, or condone such an act and breaking of our neutrality. Nor would we readmit a member if we knew they had left so they could temporarily fight a war and then come back. I know this is all hypothetical, but I just wanted to make sure that everyone knows that this would never happen.

[ponster]

Sorry Azaghul, I didn't mean to use GPA as an example

[x Tela x]

Pretty sure this is allowed, since it's a "tactic" that's being employed in the current conflict.

[JustinCox]

I believe this tactic adds more to the game. If an alliance is tracking nations effectively, that alliance should have no problem distinguishing between enemies, friends and (in Ponsters example) nations whose alliance is not actually at war. Of course, that does not change the sentiment that AA change tactics are seen as dishonorable. It seems fairly reasonable that any alliance would use this tactic. The underlying question is what alliances see as honorable and dishonorable, and the situation an alliance may find itself in.