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

[Donal Graeme]

Oops, I forget a better in that last sentence, sorry

[Gramphos]

Reputation

[kring]

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

Originally posted by 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.

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.

It is a broken RoP; an unofficial one.

I am against it, even though I haven't read most of the replies. Either we are a nation worthy of our word, or not. We have an implied RoP while we are on their lands if we are not at war with them. even if we don't get the road bonus for it.

While you can get the other civs to eventually RoP and/or trade with you, it is at higher costs and they are more likely to attack you given half a provocation.

[Micaelus]

Yes, we need the up that it will give us. We are plenty early in the game for this to be forgotten. Our reputation will be unstained soon enough and America will have been distant history.

[Ninot]

Well..we have two options

1: close this thread now so that the moot point dies
2: let the argument rage on, why? I dunno..

It has been discovered that we can't do this sneak attack.

If you wanna KEEP voting because you want to change the outlook on future decisions simmiliar to this one, feel free..

[ixnay]

No, for all the reasons outlined above. The loss of reputation can lead to us not being able to do simple luxuries for techs trades among other things.

[kring]

Bump; let's not forget this one when we do go to war.