Unfortunately, I have to disagree with all of you, there are 3 main differences between revolt and conquest, In either case it is stacking or attacking it is just a matter of when and where. But fundamentally their is not much difference. Just subtle changes
1) is of course timing, This effects who does the stacking and when, so in revolt you hide behind a bireme wall as a defender and in conquest you send a bireme wall as an attacker, the difference being you have to time twice as much in a conquest as in a revolt. Unfortunately, grepolis has become more and more unreliable at least for me over the years, In the past sniping via bireme or LS was not so bad. Now I it jumps so badly I find it very annoying. so I have to edge to revolt here. Now if they can somehow fix the lag issues, then I would go back to favoring conquest. side note Defense stacking on front line cities is the norm in both worlds. But I do agree conquest you need to be more diversified with both attack and defense, where as revolt you can be more specialized.
2) City Control. Simple: In Conquest you lose control of your city During the "Conquest" Period, In Revolt you do not. I would say this is personal preference here. However Conquest does lean into requiring more alliance interaction and team work. Although I personally do not think you should ever lose control over your city unless it is no longer your city. I call this a toss up.
3) Ghost Conquers. Conquest requires actually conquesting a ghost, Revolt, Just take the city. Again a city that has no owner? why the need for conquest, what is actually happening here. So Revolt wins here. Conquest should be modified to not be required for ownerless cities.
Either way I like to play both, I prefer revolt because of the bad grepolis servers, or maybe my bad inter connection. Also One side difference is you can revolt multiple cities simultaneously. Keeping your enemy guessing. In Conquest not so much. It is more of a city by city slug fest. Critique away
