First conquest: points, position or powerfull enemy?

DeletedUser

Guest
Well, now is about the time that we'll start to see more and more conquests.

My question is: what would you go for?

- A city with points (even if it's far and surrounded by red dots)
- A close city regardless of points cause position is what you're looking for
- A city from your declared enemy cause there no time soon enough to engage them.

:pro:
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Options two and three are only priorities which I will look on and in that order. Ofcourse point's have some affect since I'm not going to conquer a city with 500p. :p
 

DeletedUser13729

Guest
first two for 2k each specially in morale world . In non morale i guess bigger is better but position and who the target is should matter the most.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I would go for option one, Also I would take a 1k point city if the Farms where lvl 20 :D
 

DeletedUser15240

Guest
I am gonna say no.1, a large city allows considerably faster troop production, on xi I don't normally conquered a city below 10K unless its an enemy city. Also you shouldn't just conquer near, you should be able to set up a second base nearer the action with the rest of your alliance so you can assist. And on the 3rd option, conqueirng a single enemy city doesnt actually do any lasting damage, cuz they can just take another. However it does cause their morale to drop which is a good use, but ops on a player are much more effective I find
 

DeletedUser

Guest
curly123 said:
I am gonna say no.1, a large city allows considerably faster troop production, on xi I don't normally conquered a city below 10K unless its an enemy city. Also you shouldn't just conquer near, you should be able to set up a second base nearer the action with the rest of your alliance so you can assist. And on the 3rd option, conqueirng a single enemy city doesnt actually do any lasting damage, cuz they can just take another. However it does cause their morale to drop which is a good use, but ops on a player are much more effective I find
Click to expand...

Good post, allthough I have to disagree with you a bit (or maybe not disagree, just few point of view's to add on that) . Ofcourse I don't conquer cities below some point minimum in Mu either, but in here it's a bit different situation since we are making our first conquest's now. So I guess you are not going for 10k city as your first conquest, or are you :p

Where you take your next city depends pretty much from your playing style. Some people likes to build their cities in groups for example and thats where location, location, location is the key. Once you're ready with one group you build another one in closer to action or where ever you are heading. So heading for high point city isn't always the answer.

Ofcourse you want ultimately take down a city where you can just make the adjustment's you need for your purposes rather than building it up instead and that's where the higher point's plays a role. So technically all those options are somewhat the "right answer" and if you can take down a city which fits in all of those categories it's probably the best option :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I would go for "- A city from your declared enemy cause there no time soon enough to engage them."

As i find it one of the main things when you start because as you will grow it becomes to the advantage.

Ex. You wont build a LS nuke on an island with -Wood.

so you need to position your cities in the best way possible as it will make it easier to conquer cities later on.

But as you move on in the game and wars get much, much bigger its not up to the points of the city as the positions of them matter most. I mean really would you go for a city thats ages away and no use to the alliance? or one small but the position of it will give a big advantage in the war?

Of course the more experienced players would see that its best to get the small one.

I would never pick the first one though. Absolutely pointless as its -

- To far for transport of resources.
- To far to support you other cities in case of an attack.
- If there where many enemies round it you would have it taken of sooner or later and you would have no support coming to it as mentioned in the point above.

This is just my opinion but i really hope it helps the new guys :)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I would go for 2. If i could i would get a mix of 2 & 3 but 3 can wait for untill 2 is in place. 1 is good fun and great for getting more vp's but that will come much later in the game as i prefer the slowly slowly catch the monkey technique.

So to cap: 2 or 2 & 3 but 2 before 3 but defo not 1 this early :heh:

Sod this i'm going back to Sim City........
 

DeletedUser

Guest
At this stage of game I would go for #3, single town = rimmed so you got one enemy less to "worry"
If there ain't red dots on map its #2
 

DeletedUser15581

Guest
There isn't a single option of these 3 which I'll prefer... I'll rather rate a city on the criteria you mentioned, depending on state of the world (initial or mature)

city size: of course, the bigger the better; it does matter if the difference we are talking about is big.... like 1500 v/s 3500. If you are talking about 2k v/s 2.5k, it is better to give more weightage to the other 2 points.

position: how close it is to you, how close it is to a bunch of red dots, and the type of island. A 12 hour CS this early in the game is not advisable.

alliance: I'll definitely not like to go for a top player of a good looking alliance right now. No alliance will allow a decent player to get rimmed. Later in the game, when several conquests are happening on each side, I'll like to use my city slots only to snatch cities from the enemy alliances.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
I go for poss and points (no matter who the enemy is)
so it would be close to my city, as-well as close to my alliance members!
and it is always cool to take out a enemy city on your first conquest, but its not a must =)
 

DeletedUser

Guest
fhibner said:
I would go for "- A city from your declared enemy cause there no time soon enough to engage them."

As i find it one of the main things when you start because as you will grow it becomes to the advantage.

Ex. You wont build a LS nuke on an island with -Wood.

so you need to position your cities in the best way possible as it will make it easier to conquer cities later on.

But as you move on in the game and wars get much, much bigger its not up to the points of the city as the positions of them matter most. I mean really would you go for a city thats ages away and no use to the alliance? or one small but the position of it will give a big advantage in the war?

Of course the more experienced players would see that its best to get the small one.

I would never pick the first one though. Absolutely pointless as its -

- To far for transport of resources.
- To far to support you other cities in case of an attack.
- If there where many enemies round it you would have it taken of sooner or later and you would have no support coming to it as mentioned in the point above.

This is just my opinion but i really hope it helps the new guys :)
Click to expand...

i will aswell as your enemies are likely to be strong and it will place you closer to the battlefield.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
Either of these two

- A close city regardless of points cause position is what you're looking for
- A city from your declared enemy cause there no time soon enough to engage them.

Not to bothered for points, for all i know they are all somewhere i wouldn't want it.
 

DeletedUser

Guest
As I am about ready to conquer my 3rd city I see it fitting that I should post here. Right now what you want in a good conquer is,

- Close to you and your alliance. But not so close your not expanding at all.
- A city over 3.5k points and a city that belongs to an enemy alliance.
- Make sure to spy and send fake attacks before launching the real thing or you'll probably end up with your troops killed by them and their alliance.

~Warlord
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top