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

[MrWhereItsAt]

Our current priority is to survive and appropriate decent land in which to prosper. If there is even the vaguest inkling this may be prevented, or even delayed with a certain attack plan, we must opt for the path that maximizes the chances of reaching our objective - in this case this path is the "take them by surprise" option.

In future we will not (I hope) be in a case of "conquer and survive or fail and perish", and thus sneak attacks should be approached with considerably more trepidation. At the moment attack is all we have, and we have to get it done as quickly and efficiently as possible, and via the path that is the least risky.

[disorganizer]

We are a great nation! We are no cowards! Do we really have to use these tactics? Are we chicken?
I say NO!

[Harovan]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
At the moment attack is all we have, and we have to get it done as quickly and efficiently as possible, and via the path that is the least risky.

There is no difference. 1500BC, Washingtons borders will expand the 2nd time. Means, we have at least to go 2 turns on enemy ground with our entire army. When the AI sees us come with 8 units, it will immediately ask us to leave or declare war. So we have to declare war. Now, if we first declare war and then move our forces in, after the 1st move will be exactly the same situation, without any danger of a diplomatic penalty. In both cases the AI succeeds to poprush an archer, and in both cases we have another step to go before we can attack. Same, btw, if we attack a smaller city first. "Invade, declare war, AI rushes Archer" is the same like "Declare war, invade (the same turn), AI rushes Archer". No gain here.

So where is the advantage to sneak attack?

[Papa Chubby]

I have to agree with Sir Ralph on this one, whatever small advantage we will gain by breaking the peace agreement in such an atrocious manner will have a much more devestating effect later in the game. Even if only it would only make us more accustomed to blitzing our opponents. We must retain the spotless reputation for as long as possible.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


There is no difference. 1500BC, Washingtons borders will expand the 2nd time. Means, we have at least to go 2 turns on enemy ground with our entire army. When the AI sees us come with 8 units, it will immediately ask us to leave or declare war. So we have to declare war. Now, if we first declare war and then move our forces in, after the 1st move will be exactly the same situation, without any danger of a diplomatic penalty. In both cases the AI succeeds to poprush an archer, and in both cases we have another step to go before we can attack. Same, btw, if we attack a smaller city first. "Invade, declare war, AI rushes Archer" is the same like "Declare war, invade (the same turn), AI rushes Archer". No gain here.

So where is the advantage to sneak attack?

I find myself agreeing with Sir Ralph more and more...

He beat me to the explaination of why it was not needed, however.

[Robber Baron]

Yeah, by now Sir Ralph has convinced me as well.
So bring on your pop-rushed archer, American swine! We're coming in announced (if not exactly invited)!

[Inverse Icarus]

is there any difference between sneak attacking and breaking a treaty and attacking the same turn?

there's no need to damage your reputation if you don't have to.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by UberKruX
is there any difference between sneak attacking and breaking a treaty and attacking the same turn?

No, I believe not.

Also, I believe Ninot said that breaking the treaty would be almost as bad as breaking an ROP, but AFAIK it is the same. In fact, other civs will say that they distrust us because we broke a ROP with the Americans, even though we didn't have an ROP.

I agree with Sir Ralph. There is no advantage to breaking the treaty, the only difference would be that war is declared on their turn instead of ours, and in a TBS game that gives us nothing.

[Inverse Icarus]

well, after 20 turns are up you can break a treaty with little to no hit to the reputation correct?

is there any reputation damage if you declare war, and attack on the same turn? do we have to wait a turn if we do not wish to take a hit?

[Harovan]

Originally posted by UberKruX
is there any reputation damage if you declare war, and attack on the same turn?

No. That's ok and won't lead to RoP refusals and alike. Just the mood of the particular civ will change to furious. But who cares about the mood of an as good as dead AI leader?

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by UberKruX
well, after 20 turns are up you can break a treaty with little to no hit to the reputation correct?

is there any reputation damage if you declare war, and attack on the same turn? do we have to wait a turn if we do not wish to take a hit?

Sorry, I think I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking about the difference between not leaving when asked (breaking a treaty) and attacking their units directly without declaring war. There is no reputation hit if you declare war, though I've heard that other civs will still be slightly more wary of you and consider you a warmonger, though I don't know that this is true.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by punkbass2000


Sorry, I think I misunderstood your question. I thought you were asking about the difference between not leaving when asked (breaking a treaty) and attacking their units directly without declaring war. There is no reputation hit if you declare war, though I've heard that other civs will still be slightly more wary of you and consider you a warmonger, though I don't know that this is true.

yea, sorry i wasn't clear the first time around. thanks punk and sir ralph

[Sheik]

I think it depends on the size of our forces. How big of an army are we going to have when it comes time to attack?

[UnOrthOdOx]

That widely depends on which plan goes forth. Case *insert color* will be 6 archers and 2 spear in one stack. Plan Eagle will have two forces of 5 archers and one spear attacking later.

[YuMMz]

I am definitely against sneak attacking. As our Minister of Trade pointed out it will effect long term gpt trades, and during the middle ages/modern times you can make quite a bit of money trading techs for gpt to other civs. Also the damaged rep will hurt our ability to bring in extra lux resources, which we will be wanting on emperor.