Conquest or Revolt?

DeletedUser

Guest
Ok, a little bit of a debate, conquest or revolt? I prefer conquest, its easy to understand and can be tactical. I don't know why there was the need for a new system in the first place.

Now hearing the conquest will most likely not make a return, its time to debate a couple of questions:
a) Conquest or Revolt?
b) Why?
c) Should conquest be banished?
 

DeletedUser

Guest
revolt is revolting.

I don't understand why so many ideas of ours are viewed as "just complicating" the game, when they do this to a simple clean system (conquest) which is perfectly suited for a war game.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
yea conquest is more simpler, i havnt done either yet so i cant really judge lollll, conquest just looks simpler
 
Last edited by a moderator:

DeletedUser

Guest
To be fair, I've only read about the "revolt" system.

I have conquered two cities and the system was easy, clear-cut and seemed perfectly suited for the game.

I guess I've yet to see compelling reasons for the change.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
epikness said:
yea conquest is more simpler, i havnt done either yet so i cant really judge lollll, conquest just looks simpler
Click to expand...


wow, did i seriously say "more simpler"

T_T

grammer fail o_O

i shalls punish myself by eating a cookie
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I pick conquest because it more easier and less time consuming to do that revolts. Conquest shouldn't be banished.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I know nothing of revolt whatsoever.

Can't understand why conquest would be changed - it's pretty idiotproof and has worked well (unless your the one getting conquered!)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I prefer Conquest. I've done revolt, but it just seems slightly more time consuming. I'm still getting "timing" down right and switching between Delta and Theta can get somewhat confusing. I wouldn't say I don't like revolt...it's quicker. conquest shouldn't be banished. :)
 

DeletedUser6983

Guest
Revolt for me. I like it because if your the one getting conquered, you at least have a chance to see your city, or biuld more troops. Also u dont have to kill everything to start a revolt, just land units. I wouldnt banish conquest but I would add it in everyonce in a while just to change things up.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I read about revolt and about conquest. To me revolt is somewhat confusing but conquest is more straightforward. I say mix it up with the worlds to give a variety.
 

DeletedUser2663

Guest
i prefer conquest. I dont know why but it just seems more fun to co-ordinate and time your attacks and suport to land within seconds b4 and after you cs.

revolt is ok but conquest should not be banished
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Revolt for me. I like it because if your the one getting conquered, you at least have a chance to see your city, or biuld more troops.
Click to expand...

Interesting point.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Conquest, it is so much easier to brake if you have good alliance or nice cities (Good alliance is the point of the game imo), it is more tactical, defender has more time to act, I love ls and revolt makes breakthrough pretty much useless. Also, it makes game more offensively and naval based, and after all this is war game, and the idea is to travel by sea.
 
Aicy

Aicy

Strategos
a) Conquest
b) I've played with both, and have used both and have had both used against me. Revolt was supposedly added to make the game more tactical when I along with most people think it's much lesstactical than conquest. Besides, it completely ruins hoplites, chariots and tiremes because they are hybrid units and are good in conquests because they attack first and then defend. I have 2 hybrid cities on Alpha, but then in Revolt worlds they're pretty much pathetic in attack compared to slingers and horsies and pathetic in defence compared to swords and archers. As Ciucou says, Revolt was added as a way for the noobish defender to be less easily conquered where I think that Conquest is actually easier.
c) No!
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I prefer conquest since it seems so much simpler then a revolt. Simply wipe out your opponents troops get a cs in and hold the city for 24 hours (12 on speed 2 I think, never played on a speed 2 world) I personally haven't used revolt, however from what I hear about it, I perfer conquest much more. Conquest should certainly not be banished,
 
Aicy

Aicy

Strategos
Yeah, conquest is affected by speed whereas revolt is not.

In that way I think Revolt should be used for speed 3+ worlds as getting your city(s) taken in 8 hours or less is a tad silly.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Jacko0 said:
I know nothing of revolt whatsoever.

Can't understand why conquest would be changed - it's pretty idiotproof and has worked well (unless your the one getting conquered!)
Click to expand...
Revolt is when you clear somebody, you get the chance to declare a revolt, 12 hours later (Depending on speed world) the person being conquered may get support or build up troops to defend from the big thing, when the 12 hours is up the attacker sends a CS within the next 12 hours and when it lands, the city is his.
I like the revolt system because it can be quicker than conquest :p
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I like and understand the conquest system. I have only read about the revolt system to be fair but I cannot see why people complain about the conquest system. You still see the incoming support and defence and enemy numbers. It is a straightforwards system and it make sence. How can you produce anything when you city is occupied by hostiles?
If you only need land troops in a revolt system then it undermines having a navy somewhat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top