DeletedUser
Guest
conquest is way more based on attacking..
conquest is way more based on attacking..
DeletedUser
Guest
revolt is more caveman style (bash, bash, bash) whereas conquest has more tactical variety imo 
i wouldn't say either is more attacking really, it's just that the attacking in revolt is all attack and the defending is all defend, whereas in conquest attacking has attack and defend and defending can have defence or attack (if that makes any sense!)
i wouldn't say either is more attacking really, it's just that the attacking in revolt is all attack and the defending is all defend, whereas in conquest attacking has attack and defend and defending can have defence or attack (if that makes any sense!)
DeletedUser
Guest
Uh yeah, I tried 2 revolt worlds... and they sucked. You have to send AT LEAST 2 attacks! What heck? That sucked for me when I sent a CS before a revolt attack. Conquest is SOOO much more simple. Just send a CS with a bunch of troops and *BAAMM* you got a city in a day.
DeletedUser
Guest
How can you say that ... in conquest you have attacking phase followed by defensive phase. In revolt you have 2 attacking phases
Revolt system is the simplier from the 2 and maybe i like the simple things. A matter of taste probably
DeletedUser
Guest
As the defender in conquest worlds you can defend with sniping the CS (attacking), and also to break this you need to attack it.How can you say that ... in conquest you have attacking phase followed by defensive phase. In revolt you have 2 attacking phases
Revolt system is the simplier from the 2 and maybe i like the simple things. A matter of taste probably
In revolt worlds you HAVE to defend with defensive units. and you can't attack the CS to defend the town.
DeletedUser2524
Guest
I don't like conquest because you can have every city be offense and be fine, which I think is stupid.
DeletedUser
Guest
fixed it for you
DeletedUser2524
Guest
It just it makes the game have less stratagy as every city is an attacking city. You don't need to decided if a city is defensive or not.
DeletedUser
Guest
i disagree with that! you can survive with only offensive cities, sure, but in order to conquer new cities you need to have defence or your sieges will be broken constantly
DeletedUser2524
Guest
You are correct, but it seems conterintutive, using defense to get cities.
I prefer revolt no matter what you say.
I prefer revolt no matter what you say.
DeletedUser
Guest
I prefer revolt because it allows for more confusion to be generated in an opponent, as I understand it cities can only be conquered with a CS that must be landed at the start of the takeover phase (to start it in fact). Therefore there is only one threat, that main CS. There may be thousands of troops guarding it but it is the colony ship that is the threat.
With revolt worlds you can revolt someone in multiple cities with small attacks if you catch them off guard and then fake all of them with multiple CS. They have no idea which city to defend, when they need to defend it or anything. Confusing the enemy and spinning them in knots wins you cities and I like that.
With revolt worlds you can revolt someone in multiple cities with small attacks if you catch them off guard and then fake all of them with multiple CS. They have no idea which city to defend, when they need to defend it or anything. Confusing the enemy and spinning them in knots wins you cities and I like that.
DeletedUser
Guest
i get what you're saying, but i don't see why you can't send multiple fake CS attacks at the cities of an opponent in conquest too? it's not exactly the same as the enemy doesn't instantly lose a city if a CS lands, but it's pretty similar if you send fake CS attacks with fake supports after them.
DeletedUser345
Guest
A) Conquest
B) Requires more skill to defend than revolt, timing attacks to the second before the cs to clear and then timing support just after cs so the defender has to get it right instead of having 12 hours to fill his city with troops from his allaince.
C) No
B) Requires more skill to defend than revolt, timing attacks to the second before the cs to clear and then timing support just after cs so the defender has to get it right instead of having 12 hours to fill his city with troops from his allaince.
C) No
DeletedUser
Guest
I like conquest, because you don't have to read all that dumb stuff to know what to do, if you want to do revolt just send multiple attacks in a conquest world and then send your conquest.
DeletedUser
Guest
I must be a f*^king moron. I can't find where to research "revolt"...
DeletedUser
Guest
Necromancing hella hard
DeletedUser
Guest
The big difference is that in conquest you can take a small number of top players into a world, or even go solo, and stand a chance of taking ground. In revolt is is all about who has the larger number of cities in the alliance that can help.
The other big difference is that in conquest you can get away with spending little or no gold for long periods of time in the game if your tactics are good enough. In revolt you simply can't, due to the lack of tactical possibilities.
The other big difference is that in conquest you can get away with spending little or no gold for long periods of time in the game if your tactics are good enough. In revolt you simply can't, due to the lack of tactical possibilities.
DeletedUser
Guest
I prefer Revolt. I`ve played conquest and just did not like it or understand it. I think the reasoning is because I play a lot of Revolt world it was just hard for me to play a conquest and understand it. I guess its whatever your opinion is but I say they should keep both due to players liking both.