We had been in the hiking travel for 3 weeks and I suggest about having any water as a possession... If we had no water we would die... OR... If we hadn't had any water we would die... When should I use past perfect in the condition clause or past simple tense?
Ok. Those are two different questions. The answer to first is neither. The first is hypothetical but implies you already have water and that it doesn't need to be suggested. The second is ungrammatical since the tenses of its clauses don't match. The second question is pretty broad but we can cover the basics.
You can't change the past, so conditionals that look like the past tense are actually thinking about how things could be different. That contrary-to-fact idea kicks everything into the subjunctive mood. It usually looks like the simple past although it's talking about an alternate reality for the present.
If we had water, we wouldn't die.
We don't have any water and, because of that, we will die.
If we had water, we wouldn't be dying.
We do not have any water and, because of that, we are already beginning to die.
If we had water, we wouldn't be dead.
Same as before, but more pessimistic. You can't actually speak once you are actually dead, but it's a common English hyperbole to say "I'm dead...", "I'm so dead...", &c. in seriously unpleasant situations. It's of a piece with expressions like "Mom's going to kill me when she finds out..." Here, though, it's rather literal and looks at death as the inevitable outcome of having no water. It's a form of the future tense that skips over using will, similar to "John leaves tomorrow".
If we had had water, we wouldn't be dying.
(American): If we'd've had water, we wouldn't be dying.
We did not bring (any/enough) water earlier and now we are dying. I'm thinking about how things could have been different, a contrary-to-fact idea that kicks everything into the subjunctive mood. Since the subjunctive usually looks like the simple past, you have to use the pluperfect ("past perfect") to talk about the actual past.
If we hadn't had water, we would have died.
(via @userr2684291): If we hadn't had any water, we'd be dead.
We did bring some water, so we didn't die of dehydration as we otherwise would have.
Having read through your comments, I think this is what you were really getting at, but I'm still not sure. You clarified that you're looking for a counterfactual statement but still are vague about the timing of the event and the statement.
If we had had water, we wouldn't have been dying.
We did not bring (any/enough) water earlier and we began to die. It didn't actually happen, though, and we're safe now... especially since I'm never going camping with you again, you hydrophobic bastard.
If we had had water, we wouldn't have died.
This is just weird. It states we are, in fact, already dead because of our previous lack of water. Unless you're talking about a game or to a Hindu, it may indicate the person suffers from some form of depersonalization disorder. Conditionals of the form "If we have/had water, then we didn't die", suffer from the same problem given the subject matter. They suggest someone is looking for a way to verify whether they're deceased or not.
If we had no water, we'd be dying.
If we didn't have water, we would be dying.
We do have water. We're not dying. I'd just like to point out how important our water is so that you will finally shut up about having to carry it. Things could be worse. The pluperfect ("past perfect") form works the same way, but talks about the importance of our earlier possession of water.
I mentioned that the subjunctive usually looks like the simple past. The major exception is that was turns into were, which shows up in expressions like if I were you... That doesn't affect we so much but it has led to some set phrases that show up in conditionals:
If we were to have water, we would not die.
Were we to have water, we wouldn't die.
We don't have (=possess) or aren't having (=drinking) water at the moment or in the scenario under discussion, but it's available. In the alternate realities where we have (=either sense) water, we don't die. That may be a serious risk at the moment or in that situation you mentioned. It's probably a good idea to make this one of those other realities by actually getting and/or drinking some water. "If we were having water..." only covers the drinking sense, which isn't what you mean.
Some speakers of ESL will use continuous forms like had been having water but they don't work with the sense of have meaning "be in possession of; own; be able to access freely". In that sense, have is a stative verb. Treating it like one that isn't kicks it over into its sense of "consuming; using up; eating or drinking" which isn't what you mean here.
"If we'd have water...", an alternative to "If we had water..." in American English, is similarly limited by its phrasing to the "drinking" sense of have.