Falco, it is not the same. You can sab someone if you have one single statistic from a recon, you do not need everything. If you send 15 spies to sab, instead of 1, the only change that will occur is a DECREASE in chance of success. Whereas if you spend 15 attack turns, rather than 1, you will have a chance at getting more money, and less randomized attack power. A successful sabotage attempt depends on these factors: Spies sent, (the more, the less chance of success),% of items being sabotaged (ex 1,000 out of 50,000), spy vs sentry, current recon status, and maybe more. A successful attack depends on these factors: Attack vs Defense (the higher attack is over defense, the greater chance of success), Army Size (only changes if an attack is possible or not), Turns used (Raises or lowers % of money gained, raises for more turns; raises or lowers randomization of attack power, lowers for more turns.) For a successful attack you do NOT depend on how many soldiers sent, how many items you chose to sabotage, or your current recon status. Are these the same?! Falco, your current tactic of argument is called inductive reasoning. This means that you are basing your argument off vague patterns. My current tactic of argument is called deductive reasoning. This means that i'm basing my argument off facts. That is not to say your argument could not be true... But what's more reliable at this time?