Why do you associate maturity with peace in a game

Le Roux wrote: The true path for a "pacifist" in Illy seems to logically be one where they have a NAP with every alliance. perhaps somewhat akin to a training alliance that is hyper efficient at "NAP"ing.  It would be an terrible lapse in judgement for any "pacifist" or someone seeking to forever be a neutral (aka Switzerland) to join a Confederation, since doing so would indicate "taking sides" in conflict (even it it were only a hypothetical one).     Becoming a confed member has its benefits and its obligations, the benefit of a common defense and implied obligation to help those in the confed are decidedly non-neutral and at least passive aggressive. (as I guess some are finding out in the "Great Trovian War" ).  No matter what a parties stated intention may be,  an at-arms-length 3rd party will judge based on their own perspectives, and likely react to concrete facts (ie. the act of joining a confed ) rather than the intangible statement "we are non-militaristic neutrals".      Actions will always speak louder than words, and a "pacifist" in Illy would have to make their intentions very evident through their actions.  Certainly a possible, albeit a potentially challenging path.  (although it does seem that training alliances manage to pull it off to at least some degree, although I do not think I would ever call them pacifists, just striving to remain neutral..)

This is a superb summary. And for those alliances whose mission is to do something universal in the future that requires neutrality (like build roads or gather knowledge), you'd be wise to pursue this path. I don't see any alliance that strictly follows this path being successfully attacked. It's worked extremely well for training alliances and I imagine that most in the community would embrace other forms of truly neutral alliances...

Kumomoto wrote: Le Roux wrote: The true path for a "pacifist" in Illy seems to logically be one where they have a NAP with every alliance. perhaps somewhat akin to a training alliance that is hyper efficient at "NAP"ing.  It would be an terrible lapse in judgement for any "pacifist" or someone seeking to forever be a neutral (aka Switzerland) to join a Confederation, since doing so would indicate "taking sides" in conflict (even it it were only a hypothetical one).     Becoming a confed member has its benefits and its obligations, the benefit of a common defense and implied obligation to help those in the confed are decidedly non-neutral and at least passive aggressive. (as I guess some are finding out in the "Great Trovian War" ).  No matter what a parties stated intention may be,  an at-arms-length 3rd party will judge based on their own perspectives, and likely react to concrete facts (ie. the act of joining a confed ) rather than the intangible statement "we are non-militaristic neutrals".      Actions will always speak louder than words, and a "pacifist" in Illy would have to make their intentions very evident through their actions.  Certainly a possible, albeit a potentially challenging path.  (although it does seem that training alliances manage to pull it off to at least some degree, although I do not think I would ever call them pacifists, just striving to remain neutral..) This is a superb summary. And for those alliances whose mission is to do something universal in the future that requires neutrality (like build roads or gather knowledge), you'd be wise to pursue this path. I don't see any alliance that strictly follows this path being successfully attacked. It's worked extremely well for training alliances and I imagine that most in the community would embrace other forms of truly neutral alliances...