Clan A
Clan B
Clan C

A has FDP with B
A has uNAP with C
C attacks B.
What should A do (can A break uNAP and attack C)?

basically no

Yes if C declared on B not the other way around thats why there is a clause in uNAP to let you break pact if they hit a clan with a higher pact with you.

If you dont have a clause to let you your fluffed.

simply asking what the u stands for answers your question meh

If you have a clause in the pact stating that the uNAP can be terminated if they attack an FDP of yours, then yes.

Otherwise no.

the "u" stands for unbreakable. Hence, if you cannot activate a voiding clause in the uNAP then you cannot attack them on behalf of an FDP.

Tan, if uNAP has this clause, isnt its just NAP?

No.

A NAP is breakable no matter what's in it. There are no voiding clauses because it can be voided whenever you feel like it for any reason you want.

In order for a uNAP to be voided, there needs to be specific clauses with specific conditions in order to do so. In order for it to be voided, those specific clauses and conditions need to be satisfied. Otherwise, it is completely binding.

I thought that uNAP can't contain any conditions.

Sorry, if I write not clearly. I Russian, in English speak badly (

lol if a 'U'NAP can be broken then it is a NAP

From wiki:

"Defence Pact (DP)

A defence pact is signed between two alliances who decide to come to each others defensive aid in times of war. These pacts may not be used against a uNAP alliance."

Im pretty sure DP has a different meaning :O

technically aint they all breakable? :-p

The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact certainly was breakable. Silly Stalin, he should have signed a uNAP, not a NAP.

Well, technically it was a FOP and they both proceeded to FS Poland...

Just call it a vNAP, christ

NAPs are basically worthless and no1 signs those.

UNAP is unbreakable but many have clause terms on those saying if alliance pacted with unap declares war on ldp/fdp pacted alliance then that unap-pact can be called void.

naps are a waste of time imo
I don't know how people can sleep during the day anyway

All the various terms for pacts are just boxes we use to make it easy to understand relationships. There's no "rules" about what must be in one or another. What a pact is is defined by the terms within it, not the name given to it for the sake of convenience.

Personally, if I signed a pact with an FDP assistance voiding clause, I'd call it a uNAP. This is because, in most circumstances, the pact will function in the manner people expect a uNAP to function. The situation in which it does not function in that manner is a single exception which I can address if necessary. On the other hand, if I call it a NAP, I need to explain that it doesn't function as would be expected except in a single exceptional circumstance. To my mind, this is less clear communication and therefore much less convenient.

Of course, if someone insisted on signing such a pact but wanted to call it a NAP -- I wouldn't care in the slightest.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

PS. I disagree with those who say that NAPs are useless and never signed. They're the most common instrument used for ceasing hostilities mid-reset.

Doesn't NAP stand for Non-Aggression Pact? If so, then if you come to the defense of a FDP, you're not really the aggressor, correct? Thus FDP > uNAP?

Again, the actual words in the name don't matter much Tertius. That's not the common convention.

-Fooglmog
Guy with no clue.

Thank god someone finally got back to the main topic of this thread.

I don't enjoy naps during the day either, fp, I'd rather just sleep through it.

Wont the bottom line be, regardless, strained relations?

If A Breaks the uNAP with C, and attack, Wont the following set, C attack A?

If A upholds the uNAP with C, wont B refuse to pact A?

The way i see it... its a no win situation for A :P

if A have a clause then its all good relation wise.. besides, if they FDP B then when C attacks A cause they "Broke" a uNAP then B will most likely be called in, unless its a fight where Clan B is Imag, and Clan A is SOL..

in junky's example a would just fs b.