(Official poll of the Foreign Minister) Sneak attack vs. Reputation

[Ninot]

There are some plans brewing for a possible sneak attack to begin Plan Eagle.This would be by moving in troups and ignoring Abe's requests for them to leave... and only declaring war once we are next to his cities.

My question to you is, should I allow this sneak attack?

IF I do.. it will hurt almost as bad as a broken ROP. All neihgbors civs will remember this, and this will hurt trading till the end of the game.
IF I don't (as has been argued) there is a good chance USA will be able to fend off our attack easier, and possibly defeat us.

but, since we dont have any fortune tellers, we have no clue whether the sneak is neccesary or not. It might be imperative, it might be the worst thing we could do. No one has a way of knowing.

But I must ask you, the people, Should I allow a sneak attack, even at the cost of long term reputation? I will follow this poll with faith.

1: Yes
2: No

My current position is that a sneak attack is more hurtful than it should be bountiful. But vote you conscious.

[MrWhereItsAt]

GREAT GOOGLY MOOGLY YES!

Where we are we need not worry about reps - we won't last long where we are. We need that land - and then we worry about what ppl think.

Survival first, and then friends.

[Harovan]

No.

There is absolutely no need to do this. Our forces will not be quicker there. The only bad that might occur is, that the AI succeeds to poprush one more regular archer. That's not really a bad, because even if the attack fails, which is highly unlikely, the poprush caused unhappiness will cut in the AI productivity.

Never break treaties, unless you want to give up diplomacy for the rest of the game.

[notyoueither]

Is one infraction that severe Sir Ralph?

I've done it before and still bought tech, and had ROPs offered to me.

Trip is thinking that moving next to Washington and New York and declaring war as Abe demands we leave is the best way to ensure the capture of the cities and the least possible damage to our small forces.

[Spiffor]

NO, NOT AT ALL
If we lose reputation now, we won't be able to deal correctly with foreigners for the rest of the game.
We play at emperor level. Reputation is either spotless or tainted. If our reputation is tainted, we'll have :

- more enemies, because people will get more pissed at tus
- worse trade proposals, and it will be impossible to trade gpt for anything else than trading goods. (with a bad reputation, my tech whoring project would be impossible)
- far lower likeliness to find allies in a tricky war.

Basically, allowing our reputation to be hurt would be suicide. This game is hard. Don't make it even harder by making the whole world our enemy.

Edit : and NYE, yes, one spot in our reputation is that hard.

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, and this is why I think so.

There are two major advantages of striking on the first turn, as opposed to two turns, or three turns later.

First: the Americans may have offensive units positioned in their borders cities. If we do not strike on the first turn and take these cities, these offensive units will leave the city, then pose a much greater problem. However, if we strike the same turn, then we hold a strong chance of utterly annihilating the defensive forces, then leaving the offensive units (Archers) bare and vulnerable.

Second: The enemy may be producing defensive units in their cities. They may be one or two turns away the turn we would normally have declared war. That could possibly mean up to 2 extra units to defend cities. With twice as many losses for attacker as opposed to defender in most cases against an entrenched defensive unit, that means four extra Veteran Archers lost. That would cripple the offensive, just taking this problem into consideration, and not the other one.

What are the possible minuses to 'sneak attacking'? Only reputation. That's all. This can be dealt with various ways later on. We have no wiggle room now.

We must not stray from the plan at any cost. Our only advantages are early numbers, speed, and surprise. If this offensive fails, then Apolytonia will go with it.

[Spiffor]

Trip :
You're talking with worse situation theories, while I'm talking with sure facts.
You're sacrificing long term certitudes for for short term conjectures.
Sneak attacking will not make Plan Eagle to win or fail, it will merely make it swifter. The size of our army will be the deciding factor, not sneak attacking.
However, if we sneak attack, we're sure to be diplomatically isolated during the rest of the game. If we want to be crushed by a big alliance against us (we're on Emperor), we should go and sneak attack. If we want to have chances to win this game, we MUST keep a spotless reputation.

Except giving loads of gifts to the AI until the modern era, without doing anything bad, we have no way to struggle against a bad reputation. Sneak attacking is extremely irresponsible.

[Verto]

I concur with the Minister of Trade...

Keep the reputation spotless...until our nuclear weapons render world opinion useless!!

I mean, let us befriend all..

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Trip :
You're talking with worse situation theories, while I'm talking with sure facts.
You're sacrificing long term certitudes for for short term conjectures.
Sneak attacking will not make Plan Eagle to win or fail, it will merely make it swifter. The size of our army will be the deciding factor, not sneak attacking.
However, if we sneak attack, we're sure to be diplomatically isolated during the rest of the game. If we want to be crushed by a big alliance against us (we're on Emperor), we should go and sneak attack. If we want to have chances to win this game, we MUST keep a spotless reputation.

Except giving loads of gifts to the AI until the modern era, without doing anything bad, we have no way to struggle against a bad reputation. Sneak attacking is extremely irresponsible.

You're right, I'm talking about worse case scenarios... that have a good possibility of coming true. A highly productive city like Washington can produce a unit in 3 or 4 turns. That is easily enough time to produce a unit if there are enough shields already produced. That's 1 extra unit right in front of our advance. By the time we get to Philadelphia and Boston that's an extra 2 units for certain from those cities. We want to eliminate as many American reinforcements as we can before they get a chance to fight. Like I said, in an offensive war, ever 1 unit of theirs destroyed nearly always costs 2 units of ours to destroy it... we do not have the production capability to take those kinds of losses.

As you said, this is Emperor. We will eventually find ourselves in wars anyways. We will have to find a good ally, and stick with him, even if it's not in our best interests. However, as I said, this can be dealt with in time. If the 1st and 2nd Armies are crushed at the American border it will take twenty or more turns to scrape up an assault wave as strong as that for another offensive. As I said in the chat, unless we can finish this war in 8 to 10 turns, then things will only get worse. A 'sneak attack' is one way to give us extra time, as well as possible profitable advantages.

[notyoueither]

My observations on Emp are that an early sneak does not damn you for all time. I do it regularly, when I see a benefit. I am able to buy tech, and I have ROPs offered to me later.

There is no going back here ladies and gentlemen. I believe that every advantage that can be brought to bear in this, the most crucial situation we will ever face, must be used to full effect.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
My observations on Emp are that an early sneak does not damn you for all time. I do it regularly, when I see a benefit. I am able to buy tech, and I have ROPs offered to me later.

There is no going back here ladies and gentlemen. I believe that every advantage that can be brought to bear in this, the most crucial situation we will ever face, must be used to full effect.

Thank you NYE.

I want everyone to see my point here. If Eagle fails now, then our game is doomed. Either that or we're doomed as a rump power for the rest of our (shortened) game. We must take advantage of every possible advantage that is presented to us. If not, then we may fail. Yes, we will take a repuation hit. Yes, it will hurt us for some time. Yes we can work around it. It won't be the end of our game, like a failed offensive so early would be.

[Spiffor]

It's still possible to trade with the AI after a sneak attack. What is impossible would be to trade something immediate for something of long term.
For example, in my tech whoring project, the French will sell us Iron Working for 58 gold and 3 gpt. If we had a bad reputation, they would completely reject us proposing gpt, for fear we betray them during the deal.

The AI is heavily coded to reject gpts or resources / luxuries from a player with bad reputation :
In a game of your, get a bad reputation. Try to work out a deal (such as "pottery for 20 gold"). Now, turn it into a per-turn trade ("pottery for 20 gpt"). The AI will refuse, even if the trade you suggest is much more interesting.
Another fun example : with your bad reputation, work out a luxury trade (such as "wines for 15 gpt"). Now ask one more gpt to the AI. The AI is likely to accept. Now, ask one lump to the AI instead. The AI will refuse. As simple as that.

Hurting our reputation now is mostly useless, as SirRalph put it. But it will lessen dramatically our diplomatic flexibility in the future, making it impossible to trade, say, luxuries for techs.

This will have also a terrible effect on the stance of foreigners about us, but I wanted to explain how it limits deals drastically.

I stay on my stance : hurting our reputation would be utterly irresponsible and will be our doom. Not sneack attacking will not be our doom.

[Jon Shafer]

I will admit, that this course of action is not without its consequences... it will hamper our deals for some time, yes. However, like I said, I feel we can successfully work around that. Can't get 50 Gold and 3 GPT? Okay, then we'll do without 3 extra GPT. Not the end of the world. Can't get wines for 25 GPT? More annoying than a usual tech trade deal, but still, it can be worked around.

Will this lead to our demise? I doubt it. Will a failed offensive (however unlikey you believe it to be... it's still a possibility) be our demise? I'm sure we all know the answer to that question...

[Robber Baron]

It sounds like sneaking into American territory would buy us a relatively small advantage, at a substantial cost. Let me ask more experienced players:
1) would a damaged reputation make it more likely for France or other nearby civs to declare war on us early in the game, even in the midst of Plan Eagle?
2) would it eliminate the possibility of making tech whoring trades in the near future?

[Harovan]

NYE: One sneak attack probably doesn't hurt much. But if we start this way, it's likely that we start the next attack the same way. And again. And again. The argument will be, "we have done this before and nothing did happen". I am not against breaking treaties. But I prefer to do it when it's necessary, and not at the very first opportunity.