revolt vs conquer

[DeletedUser17561]

While we are killing time - I pose the following for discussion:

Which do you prefer? My question is not about the mechanics, which are known to most of us. My question is: do you prefer one or the other because it was the city-acquisition method in the first world you played? I played a revolt world first, and to this day I do not like conquer.

I am very interested in the opinions of those who prefer the one that was not the first world they played, and why.

This is a softball thread - no wrong answers.

 

[DeletedUser42407]

My first world-Psi was conquest but the most of the worlds I played after that (Zakros I believe) Apollonia and Byllis is revolt. I have no major preference there are pros and cons of both of them and I know them both equally well. I think conquest is easier for newer players to understand though.

 

[DeletedUser17561]

My first world-Psi was conquest but the most of the worlds I played after that (Zakros I believe) Apollonia and Byllis is revolt. I have no major preference there are pros and cons of both of them and I know them both equally well. I think conquest is easier for newer players to understand though.

I agree with the statement that conquest seems overall less involved. Or has been historically at least.

What I have noticed is a rapid devaluation in the revolt-defend effort. When I started Lambda, the opening months of the world had a lot of people pouring defense into defending revolts. By the end, the general consensus was "ignore the revolt and defend the CS".

So revolt worlds only defend the CS. As a conquest amateur, is it more productive to defend the CS or break the CS once it has landed?

 

[DeletedUser]

So revolt worlds only defend the CS. As a conquest amateur, is it more productive to defend the CS or break the CS once it has landed?

My first world, Delta, was a conquest. This is how I like to think about it. If you have a CS coming your way, and there's no way you can get any defense in there to break the CS attack, you should send an attack to the CS attack as close to its landing time as possible. Most of the experienced players will send multiple clearing waves before the CS with seconds to snipe it and land def with seconds of the CS landing time. It is very difficult to decide which one to choose.

It's about strategy at this point. Which way will cost less and be easier to break.

In revolting worlds, I have found many strategies of stopping a CS. Sniping the CS attack, stacking the city, or even a city swap if you have multiple revolts. To be honest, I am starting to like revolt better because you don't have to defend the city against attacks, so I do prefer revolt a bit more, though I would like to play on a conquest world again.

 

[DeletedUser]

My first world was Delta, which was conquest, 2nd world was Theta, revolt. I much more prefer revolt.

Delta kept me busy at the latest stages before I quit, being surrounded by so many enemies who could potentially seige me while sleeping and with revolt, I get 12hrs to prep. xD or w/e the time is depending on speed. xD

 

[DeletedUser]

My first world was Beta.. speed one conquest and back then u could get away with a lot of things u cant today ) conquest then was a straight out war,, not using grepo tools to find inactives and stack them during the night. later played a couple of revolt worlds and after that u dont really want to go back to conquest, (btw..skallagrim, i remember you from knossos

 

[DeletedUser23986]

My first world was lambda, being revolt. But now i have developed a certain taste for conquest, even considering it better than revolt because-

(i)you can sneak a cs when opponent is sleeping
(ii)you can use both def and off troops to stop cs
(iii)You get 2 chances to snipe, so we need to plan better

atleast, it is better than giving def 12hrs to stack.

 

[DeletedUser]

Fingolfin moved this to the Acropolis. Remember, the Acropolis is the section for all game-related banter that isn't specific to any particular world!

 

[DeletedUser32498]

I personally like the revolt system. It's good for players who aren't active 24/7. In conquest worlds players just send CS when you aren't online and ramp the city as many dlu. It can be annoying. I used to play revolt, but now in conquest but I prefer revolt the most since there is a good advanced noticed when a guy is interested in sending CS.

 

[DeletedUser38224]

I personally enjoy revolt more because it's more challenging. However, I like both of them, and i definitely wouldn't just play one.

 

[DeletedUser25249]

I love revolt in the first weeks, but after that it's a turtlethon and i hate building walls...my first server was revolt speed 1= boring, but if you have not alot of time it's a great way to still enjoy the game.

 

[DeletedUser24334]

I prefer revolt better. Because once you think you have cleared the city and your CS is on the way people can station 500+ troops there, it makes it way more difficult to take cities which I think makes the game all the more fun

 

[DeletedUser41523]

I like conquest the most. It opens up more options offensively and defensively. Its more than just a game of run the CS down the middle numerous times until an alliance breaks. You can still have decisive victories in the late game if you plan right. Something that you can't have in revolt I feel.

 

[DeletedUser23986]

I like conquest the most. It opens up more options offensively and defensively. Its more than just a game of run the CS down the middle numerous times until an alliance breaks. You can still have decisive victories in the late game if you plan right. Something that you can't have in revolt I feel.

I agree with it. IN revolt, in the end, you can't take any city, as they are ought to get stacked. but in conquest, the fun doesn't end so fast.

 

[DeletedUser39166]

I perfer revolt conquest is broken.

 

[DeletedUser21389]

I agree with some of it. They both have their points. I personally like conquest a ton better, but I just now started in a revolt world. I think, though, that it really depends on what kind of person you are as to what you like better. I know, you are probably saying "well duh!" but hear me out! I think the difference is in whether you are a team player or a Han Solo. Also I think it depends on how much time you have. FOr conquest you have to have a lot more time to play (as has been said you can sneak CSs in while the other person is offline) thence in my opinion it is for more.... Hard Core players (no offense).

As for my reasons for liking conquest... Well I started on a conquest world and have played that solely for almost 3 years now (with the exception of Appolonia) and the fact that it bugs me how many simmers there are on conquest worlds! It seems like their everywhere! And the bad thing is is that there is no way to stop them really.

 

[DeletedUser31552]

Revolt seems far too favoured in the direction of the defender for my tastes, but then again I haven't played it to the same level as conquest which- imho is a much more evenly balanced system where bp's are able to be generated with some good old hard graft.

 

[DeletedUser]

Conquest all the way, Revolt leaves too much time to stack a city

 

[DeletedUser42407]

I like them both equally but I haven't played a conquest world since Psi which was a few years ago lol so I am dying try it out again.

 

[DeletedUser]

Conquest is the way to go in my view, speeds up the game however revolt does allow people with busy RL to still play the game.