Major Mitchell- thank you for your response. I made each of the agreements for a specific purpose. The alliance was made with the player to the west to combat a common foe to the north. The non-aggression pact with the player south of me, to buy time while I battled a player to the east. When the pl...

Yavuzovic - thank you for your response. Your conclusions are correct. I suspect one of the reasons player”B” is upset is that is they do not want war with both of us. I should have made clear when creating the non-aggression pact that player “A” and I had an alliance. An attack on player “A” that c...

Crazy Anglican - thank you for your response. My logic was in line with your comments, although not as elegant. I felt a “move” or “support move” was an aggressive act and would violate the pact. But a “support hold” is a defensive move and did not. Player “B” was unimpressed with my logic and felt ...

Thanks for your response.
Player “B” was afraid that I would tip off player “A” of their plans to attack.

Thanks for your response. I tend to agree that specific clauses are very helpful in non-aggression pacts. What placed me in a difficult spot was that I had an alliance with player “A”, where we were fighting shoulder to shoulder against player “C” on the other end of the board. When “B” attacked “A”...

I agree that the terms have no clearly defined meaning. That is why I posted the question, to see where other players come down on their meaning.

To answer your question, player “B” was not happy.

Diplomacy players routinely enter into alliances (working with another player toward a common goal) and non-aggression pacts (agreeing to leave each other alone). So assume you have an alliance with player “A” and a non-aggression pact with player “B”. Now “A” and “B” go to war. Player “A” (who you ...