Definition of "Hostile" as it pertains to "Double Hostile"

[jmiedema]

Out of my own curiosity what is the definition of a kingdom being in hostile?

Example: Kingdom A attacks Kingdom B. Kingdom B does not retaliate. Kingdom A tags up as "Hostile to Kingdom B". Kingdom C attacks kingdom A.

Did Kingdom C commit a "double hostile" on kingdom A?

I would think that a kingdom isn't double hostiled unless 2 kingdoms are hostile to them. In the case above only kingdom C was hostile to kingdom A, because kingdom B did not retaliate. HOWEVER if then Kingdom A sees kingdom C attack kingdom B, and Kingdom A decides to take some revenge on kingdom B, that would make Kingdom A the culprit of a double hostile, correct?

[Palem]

I would say no.

However, there are as many definitions of hostiles as there are players of utopia.

[jmiedema]

yea that is why i want to put it in the open, maybe as a community we can come to a standard definition. just because a big kingdom full waves a smaller kingdom (that doesnt want to retal them) doesnt mean the big kingdom can tag up as "hostile" and claim protection against being double hostiled while they farm out the smaller kingdom.

If the kingdom being relentlessly hit asks a 3'rd party kingdom to come in and hit the aggressive kingdom instead of them doing it, that should be totally legit as far as im concerned. As long as 1 kingdom is only being hit by 1 kingdom at a time I dont think it should matter who does the hitting. I do think the 3'rd kingdom should check with the defending kingdom if they are OK with them hitting the aggressor kingdom first though, in case the defending kingdom wants to declare on them for instance.

[Goodwitch]

yea that is why i want to put it in the open, maybe as a community we can come to a standard definition. just because a big kingdom full waves a smaller kingdom (that doesnt want to retal them) doesnt mean the big kingdom can tag up as "hostile" and claim protection against being double hostiled while they farm out the smaller kingdom.

If the kingdom being relentlessly hit asks a 3'rd party kingdom to come in and hit the aggressive kingdom instead of them doing it, that should be totally legit as far as im concerned. As long as 1 kingdom is only being hit by 1 kingdom at a time I dont think it should matter who does the hitting. I do think the 3'rd kingdom should check with the defending kingdom if they are OK with them hitting the aggressor kingdom first though, in case the defending kingdom wants to declare on them for instance.

I totally agree. Waving a kingdom and giving them hostile should not give you hostile protection. It should be much more about letting 2 kingdoms go to war "in peace" than the stance showing on the hostile meter. When in doubt ask both kingdoms if they are planning to war and if one of them says no, there is no relations protection imo

[khronosschoty]

I totally agree. Waving a kingdom and giving them hostile should not give you hostile protection. It should be much more about letting 2 kingdoms go to war "in peace" than the stance showing on the hostile meter. When in doubt ask both kingdoms if they are planning to war and if one of them says no, there is no relations protection imo

I do not think its that black and white.

[lampost]

Out of my own curiosity what is the definition of a kingdom being in hostile?

Example: Kingdom A attacks Kingdom B. Kingdom B does not retaliate. Kingdom A tags up as "Hostile to Kingdom B". Kingdom C attacks kingdom A.

Did Kingdom C commit a "double hostile" on kingdom A?

I would think that a kingdom isn't double hostiled unless 2 kingdoms are hostile to them. In the case above only kingdom C was hostile to kingdom A, because kingdom B did not retaliate. HOWEVER if then Kingdom A sees kingdom C attack kingdom B, and Kingdom A decides to take some revenge on kingdom B, that would make Kingdom A the culprit of a double hostile, correct?

I see why you have come up with the question ;)

Sticking strictly to the question, I would suggest in an 'ideal world' you are correct on both accounts. However my perhaps limited experience of reality is not like that. Most kingdoms seem to want hostile protection for kingdom A at least for 1 wave and possibly more if there is some reason such as a history between Kingdom A and B.

Perhaps this is why A should get 1 wave with DH protection. Assuming no protection, it does get a little messy if Kingdom A waves B. C waves A. Then kingdom B are pushed into a heavy advantage over kingdom A and declare. That would basically mean C has softened up A pre war for B which is also a little unfair. Maybe, it is for this reason that kingdom A usually gets 1 free wave with hostile protection. Now, if A waves B a second time they are crossing the bully line and even if C waves A, it will not give B an unfair advantage.

So, in sum. 1 wave of hostile protection. If no retal then kingdom C can wave.

omg that was so confusing to write, hope it makes sense.

[jmiedema]

that makes sense to me lampost. the kingdom should get 1 wave where they are protected from a double hostile, but if Kingdom B does not retaliate once Kingdom A can go for a second wave, then kingdom A is fair game for another kingdom to come in and wave them.

[Goodwitch]

But then kingdom A assuming they have compatible return times could wave B have hostile protection, wave C have hostile protection, wave d have hostile protection and so on. You could never ever hit A.
If you then throw a few days fort in between that would be absolutely doable and utter bull.

[Korp]

I would say it depends on what timeframe we talk about. Lets say just a 6-12 period if its within that it should be considered a double hostile. But lets say if Kingdom B didnt attack and sent a CF then it would be fair game imo cause then intentions are clear. (Some would probably argue that it would be a "double hostile" as long as Kingdom A has armies out as well.

[StratOcastle]

I'm not into the rule of hostile because ops/sabotage have negligible effect on mechanical hostile.
For instance, we are UF in 2 kingdoms and hostile in a 3rd. Now I'm not asking for protection just because we lack restraint, but we have a variety of discouragements that don't register on a diplomatic wavelength.

Everybody wants to know if it's ok to attack someone and I'd have to say it's ok for everyone to attack. Beyond that it's about common curtesy. Anything written is subject to the twisted logic of lawyering. Being nice is harder than it looks but it's the best way.

You can ignore this as useless, but it's fundamental. In any CF agreements I've ever done it's as simple as that. I'm not going to toy with someone and I expect the same. We'll know when it's time to talk. No need for petty negotiations.

[faegan]

Out of my own curiosity what is the definition of a kingdom being in hostile?

Example: Kingdom A attacks Kingdom B. Kingdom B does not retaliate. Kingdom A tags up as "Hostile to Kingdom B". Kingdom C attacks kingdom A.

Did Kingdom C commit a "double hostile" on kingdom A?

I would think that a kingdom isn't double hostiled unless 2 kingdoms are hostile to them. In the case above only kingdom C was hostile to kingdom A, because kingdom B did not retaliate. HOWEVER if then Kingdom A sees kingdom C attack kingdom B, and Kingdom A decides to take some revenge on kingdom B, that would make Kingdom A the culprit of a double hostile, correct?

IMHO: hostile is when two kingdoms exchange hits for a certain period and are committed to eachother. A single kingdom can never claim "Hostile".

Example: a couple of ages ago with PyroManiaCs we waved 1 kingdom and randomed some others OOP and Cromulent Republic decided to wave us the tick after. We had "Hostile" relations and all troops out... Was that a double hostile? Nah...

[Korp]

IMHO: hostile is when two kingdoms exchange hits for a certain period and are committed to eachother. A single kingdom can never claim "Hostile".

So if a kingdom waves you straight after you finished your wave you would have no issue with it?

[texn]

So if a kingdom waves you straight after you finished your wave you would have no issue with it?

So when Hitler waved Russia, the rest of the world should chillax? :)

(Bad example, but im tired)

[Korp]

So when Hitler waved Russia, the rest of the world should chillax? :)

(Bad example, but im tired)

Very bad, better go get drunk instead. .)

[jmiedema]

So if a kingdom waves you straight after you finished your wave you would have no issue with it?

imo I would have no problem with Kingdom A being waved immediately by kingdom C even with armies out, but only if kingdom B does not retaliate at all (I would even put ops in this, though harder to moderate) and desires CF. In that situation I would think Kingdom C would be in contact with kingdom B to ensure their intentions are not to hit back or go to war.

Kingdom A was expecting hits anyway from kingdom B (or they should be), why would you have to wait 6-12 hours before kingdom C hits you? Because maybe kingdom C is bigger than you and you aren't prepared for them, but that isn't really a viable reason as kingdom B probably wasn't really ready for Kingdom A either (seeing as they wouldn't be retaliating).