Ok here's the situation:
1) A is at war with B and at war with the alliance consisting of C and D.
2) B joins the alliance of C and D and since it is already at war with A maintains its separate war status for negotiations with A.
3) A makes peace with C, the alliance leader, thus ending the war with C and D but not with B because it's a separate war. A 5-year truce is signed.
4) A makes peace with B. A 5-year truce is signed.
5) When the truce from 3 ends, C declares war on A; B and D honour the alliance of C and join war against A. However B still has a truce with A since its peace was signed at 4, after the peace at 3. B however does not suffer the -5 stability hit it would suffer if it had declared war outright because it is honouring its alliance.
In a nutshell, if a country declares war on another by honouring its alliance whilst having a truce with it, it loses no stability. In addition, the existance of the truce does not discourage the country from honouring the alliance.
1) A is at war with B and at war with the alliance consisting of C and D.
2) B joins the alliance of C and D and since it is already at war with A maintains its separate war status for negotiations with A.
3) A makes peace with C, the alliance leader, thus ending the war with C and D but not with B because it's a separate war. A 5-year truce is signed.
4) A makes peace with B. A 5-year truce is signed.
5) When the truce from 3 ends, C declares war on A; B and D honour the alliance of C and join war against A. However B still has a truce with A since its peace was signed at 4, after the peace at 3. B however does not suffer the -5 stability hit it would suffer if it had declared war outright because it is honouring its alliance.
In a nutshell, if a country declares war on another by honouring its alliance whilst having a truce with it, it loses no stability. In addition, the existance of the truce does not discourage the country from honouring the alliance.
Upvote
0