Questions about spying my way to war

[Turrosh Mak]

I have recently evolved the strategy of spying my way to war as a way of avoiding oathbreaker penalties.

There appears to be no negative effects with other nations when pick a high risk, cheap spying mission which fails, then attempt to reinsert a spy over and over until the target country gets tired of executing my bungling operatives and declares war.

One thing I can't tell is whether me having troops in his territory is counted against me when he declares war. Does anyone else know the true effects?

[vmxa1]

That is a vey expensive way to get a war started. Why not just keep demanding things, sending units into their land and things like that?
Actually why even worry about rep at the point in the game where you have spies?

[Rasputin]

is reputation such a critical thing? i never worry bout it. If i deem war is necessary i take the action i need at the time i think it needed.

what is the consequneces? jusst lack of trade? or war weariness changes?

[bongo]

A reputation hit makes some deals impossible. I you screws someone over in a deal or performs a ROP-rape then other civs won't make such deals with you again.

[vmxa1]

Originally posted by bongo
A reputation hit makes some deals impossible. I you screws someone over in a deal or performs a ROP-rape then other civs won't make such deals with you again.

bongo we are talking about being past the point were spies are available. This means you have most likely had lots of issues with the civs still around and they will make deals if they deal is good, regardless of rep. If you have so much cash that you can send spy after spy on a mission, you have already won. Do as you please.

[dexters]

Originally posted by Rasputin
is reputation such a critical thing? i never worry bout it. If i deem war is necessary i take the action i need at the time i think it needed.

what is the consequneces? jusst lack of trade? or war weariness changes?

Playing in higher difficulty levels, a poor reputation = expensive trades and deals.

If your reputation sucks, no one will sign any deals with you. It's a poor way to play, IMO.

Also to comment on the thread, spying your way into war is an exploit. If there's a civ that's particularly ticked off at me and I I'm reading for war I 1) plant a spy or 2) attempt to out a spy (both options available after espionage) works well and you can usually start an incident without repeatedly spying, which is an exploit of the AI's inability to recognize that you're doing the same thing again and again on the same turn to cause it to declare war.

What vmxa1 said works pre and post-espionage. But you can just declare war too, if you're feeling particularly comfortable that WW won't be a big issue.

[Datajack Franit]

A reputation hit means that no one will want to trade and/or make deals with you, making the current game as hard as the diff.level suggests

[Tall Stranger]

If you have so much excess cash that you can afford to waste it on futile spy attempts, you're better off just declaring war and using the cash to rush combat units or increase your luxury rate to offset the WW you'll experience. As long as you don't break any existing deals with your future adversary (or those it has an MPP with), the rep hit you take is actually not a big deal.

If you do have a deal with your future adversary, wait until it expires, then attack. If they have an MPP with one of your trading partners, the best thing to do is also get an MPP with said partner, declare war on your adversary, but wait for him to attack first. Your MPP will kick in first, and you'll immediately have an ally on your side.

Using the spy approach just seems wasteful and counterproductive.

[Cookie Monster]

The other benefit to this strategy is if you're under republic/demo. They declare war on you causing delayed WW to occur in your civ.