For which reason you would not surrender?

[RomeoJuliette]

For what I understand, when you're attacked, you know the attacking force, and obviously you know your force...
So you know in advance if you'll lose the combat.
It seems there's no good reason to combat: you lose one settlement in each case, and you can't change cards.

I should have missed something?

[tarongot]

For what I understand, when you're attacked, you know the attacking force, and obviously you know your force...
So you know in advance if you'll lose the combat.
It seems there's no good reason to combat: you lose one settlement in each case, and you can't change cards.

I should have missed something?

If you match attackers strength you don't lose settlement, when you surpass opponent's attack, they will lose settlement. So I would say there are pretty good reasons to do so.

[mennonot]

If I don't have shields to match or exceed my opponents attack icons, the one reason I sometimes fight instead of surrender is if I want to get rid of all my attack cards before my next turn. For example, if I have three warrior cards and would only be allowed to discard two when I surrender, fighting would allow me to discard and replace all three warrior cards.