Two types of alliances

It took me a while to grasp this concept, I still don't understand the other point of view, but I am willing to accept it. Apparently there are two types of alliance, in one type (Legion XIII for example) an unprovoked attack on one member is an attack on all. In the other type (Monkey Gods, and others I will list as I identify them), only an attack on a member by multiple people in the same alliance counts as an act of war.
Up until now, belonging to the latter group was an advantage, as you can raid members of other alliances, and trust that your alliance will fight wars to protect you. There is only one fair way to counter that advantage.
I intend to list every alliance which follows that rule here, so that members of alliances that defend their members know that members of the other alliances are "fair game." after all, what is good for the goose is good for the gander.
If an alliance is on this list, and feels that it is in error, or they have changed their policies, they can pm me or post it on this forum. I will only edit my list if I believe the statement represents the beliefs of the leader/leaders of the alliance and that the alliance will not defend unprovoked raids by their members.
I will post a separate list for alliances which do defend their members against any unprovoked attack so that there is no confusion. If an alliance is on neither list, I do not know their policy, if you would like to know PM me and I will ask their diplomat.

The following message will be sent to diplomats to determine which category an alliance belongs to, I post it here so there will be no confusion.

"Hello, I have discovered that there are two types of alliances in this game, and am attempting to create a list of which alliances follow which set of rules. I would like to ask you your opinion.
If a member of alliance A raids a member of alliance B without a provocation (provocation includes leeching, but not having a lot of resources and too little defence), should alliance B attack the member of alliance A that attacked their member? Or should it be regarded as a 'one-on-one battle' regardless of outcome and comparative scores?
For further questions please reply or go here:
https://xmob.forumotion.com/the-cloakroom-f18/two-types-of-alliances-t63.htm#529"
I will clarify the question as needed, but the answer to this question will determine which list a person falls into until dis-proven by action. If someone tries not be be on the list of raiders by lying, I welcome proof that they lied to me.

Legion XIII
VI (As long as retaliation attack only recovers resources lost in raid)
Virus
EDMW (Will allow one member of alliance attacked to retaliate, 2 or more is war)
SBK
Lamda Force
Integrity
TAX
Royalty
SRB (Will allow one member of alliance attacked to retaliate, 2 or more is war)

Monkey Gods
YAG* "If someone doesn't have a proper defence, he's a valid target. Unless he asks for cease fire and starts improving his army. If someone attack one of us without reason, it's like he has attacked the whole alliance. So, having no army is a good reason to be attacked." AKA if they attack you it is because you don't have enough military, and if you attack them, it should only be because their defence is insufficient (or leeching, etc.).
Red Wings (tentative, clarification requested).
Hell's Disciples

You might want to add their subsidiary alliances as well.

The red wings and the white wings are essentially one group.

Also in INT if one member is attacked we seek retribution. We are currently at war with O rly... hes got a damn good general's score of 15,000

Howard wrote:You might want to add their subsidiary alliances as well.

The red wings and the white wings are essentially one group.

Also in INT if one member is attacked we seek retribution. We are currently at war with O rly... hes got a damn good general's score of 15,000

Actually I had a long and interesting discussion with the diplomat from TAX about how he thought it was nice that TAX and EDMW had a war and the wing alliances were kept out of it. I do suspect that the wings share policies with their parent alliances though. I will ask them just in case, and when I get an answer I will post the answer for the wing next to the parent (an exception to my current rule of first reply, first listed).

As i mention to PM, our approach is slightly different.

Any attack by more than one player is good path to war with us.

Any attack by one member to any of our one member is simple raid, and that's the game.

to elaborate:
if player A from ally 1, attack player B from ally 2 once a while (not more than 2 times per week it's a raid, and not reason for war)
if player A from ally 1, attack player B from ally 2 more than 2 times per week (3 attacks on 3 different towns from same player A is act of aggression), and we will retaliate and consider that player A declare war, by himself on our ally.
if player A from ally 1, attack player B from ally 2, and player C from ally 2 come to help in defense... not a war
if Player A from ally 1, attack player B from ally 2, and player B retaliate... not a war
if player A from ally 1, attack player B from ally 2, and player C from ally 2 retaliate (solo)... simple retaliation, not a war
if player A from ally 1, attack player B from ally 2, and player C and player B retaliate... it is a war
if player A from ally 1, attack player B from ally 2, and player B or C (solo retaliate, and player A receive help from player D from ally 1, that's simple defense help ... not a war

WAR with SRB... We will never declare war (it's pointless, because for that we need board access and we don't have it anymore), so we will start internal war, but not bashing our enemies. Who need bashing anyway. who really need more than 6 attacks on one city per day, except greedy fools. If we are in war, we don't fight for resources. So we don't need more attacks than 6 per day.

I hope that you understand this.

Actually... 6+ attacks per day doesn't just take resources away... it destroys the enemy troops while they're still small in number. What would you rather face? 70,000 slingers or 10,000 slingers?