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

[Ninot]

There are roughly 6 and a half days more for voting, so the decision may be far from met.

But currently, I will not allow any form of sneak attack

It WAS my campaign promiss to never hurt our reputation. I will stick to this promiss unless this thread tells me to do otherwise. Currently, it looks like the people who voted me in have not changed their minds

[notyoueither]

Can anyone tell me the difference between:

A/ crossing the border, saying 'OK we'll leave' and then declaring war and attacking on your next turn before they demand you leave and...

B/ crossing the border, saying 'OK we'll leave', move again deeper, and then saying 'it's war' when they demand the immediate (automatic) withdrawal?

If there is a big difference, A would work just as well for Trips thoughts as B.

[Harovan]

The difference is, that if you come with more than 1 unit, they immediately demand immediate (automatic) withdrawal. Our 8-stack has no chance to sneak in more than 1 tile.

[notyoueither]

Hmm. Hadn't noticed that before, but you are right.

[jdd2007]

we can win the war without a sneak attack

[Trevman]

No, we will need to trade with our neighbors for a long time before we can war with them.

[FrostyBoy]

The size of Washingtons culture is going to cause the real problem, you only get once chance to leave the territory, the 2nd time you have to either automatically retreat or break the peace treaty. So sneak attacking doesn't seem possible unless you attack New York first.

[FrostyBoy]

Oh wait Sir Ralph pointed that out already, hehe sorry

I really should read everyones post.

[Puupertti Ruma]

To underline what Sir Ralph has said already:

If we declare war on our turn and move our troops in at the same turn, the result is same if we move our troops in our turn and in the next turn Americans declare war.

So in both case travel to Washington would take two turns in war with Americans ready to launch counterattack, or poprush that archer. With No on this pol, our reputation shouldn't suffer while the results are same.

[Thud]

No.

[Robber Baron]

okaaay ....
"No"?

[Ninot]

Hes just stating his opinion. Does he have to say Why?

keep votin folks! plenty of time left to shift the vote. But I hope ya dont!

[notyoueither]

Ninot, Sir Ralph has already pointed out why it is a moot point. I have looked, tested and agree with him.

With a stack of units, you move in on T1, they say scram or war. That's it. There is no 1 turn 'ok we'll go' then move closer grace period.

Might as well say 'War on You' before the border is crossed and then move. It's the same net effect on movement, without the ROP violation.

[Ninot]

Then we'll do that!

[Donal Graeme]

Sir Ralph has convinced me as well. I have had similar problems with my sneak attacks as well, and they bought me no advantage. In fact, on my latest personal game, at Warlord, I sneak attacked twice to knock of the Indians and Russians,(I needed the space for cities), and when I met everyone else they were PISSED! And this was Warlord.
If we pull a "pearl harbor" on the Americans than everyone else: the French, Germans, Greeks and Persians, will distrust us and use the nearest opportunity to try to knock the warmongering Apolytonians off. The Germans and Aztecs declared war on me for what I percieved as no good reason. I have finally figured it out. They distrusted me so much they figured I would pull another sneak attack, so they wanted to pre-empt me before I had recovered fully.
We DO NOT want the French fighting us while we are recovering with a war with the Americans. Our reputation is the only thing that will allow us to get ahead of the AI. I say, rather to only partially knock out the Americans and keep our reputation, then to kill the Americans and piss everyone off.