what changes have you all done for conquest?
I still play my decks which worked best in destruction
and they work in conquest too... but I feel I have to slightly tune them
come one? what are your gadgets and tools for breakin through?
I see a lot more mlrs, medium tanks and napalm these days
destruction vs conquest decks
-
- First Sergeant
- Posts: 245
- Joined: Wed 10 Oct 2012 17:26
- Location: Italy
- Contact:
Re: destruction vs conquest decks
more mlrs, more mobile AA, more CVs! 

Solty wrote:Have you ever played ALB btw?
-
- Sergeant Major of the Army
- Posts: 350
- Joined: Thu 16 May 2013 14:19
- Contact:
Re: destruction vs conquest decks
As I play in a team, I take a CAT B NATO mixed deck. Reservists in cheap transports, lots of AA and mortars, cheiftans 2's, starships etc and napalm. I take large towns where reservists are useful when combined with napalm and cheap tanks.
Re: destruction vs conquest decks
Tommoscimmia wrote:more mlrs, more mobile AA, more CVs!

anything else different?
WTF?
- [EUG]MadMat
- More than 10 000 messages. Soldier you are the leader of all armies!
- Posts: 15499
- Joined: Thu 30 Jun 2011 13:31
- Location: Paris, France.
- Contact:
Re: destruction vs conquest decks
I find that more resilience is a good thing, hence early-era decks may be a good idea, especially in teamplay.
Re: destruction vs conquest decks
Making conquest deck you can simply count have points of income you ll have and put proper amount of units in Your deck and rest activation points use for backup AA, buratino, mlrs, napalm tanks more recon helis or just more jets.
- praslovan
- Major-General
- Posts: 3939
- Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011 21:56
- Location: Slav inhabited Alps
- Contact:
Re: destruction vs conquest decks
Jeep CVs (because there are more of them) and a tad less supplies.
Re: destruction vs conquest decks
Yeah Cat B/C are good - if you're NATO that is. CAT B actually doesn't lose all that much compared to C. It's hellfire and the top heavy armor primarily. Much of everything else is actually "better" (as in heck of allot more of them)-
For conquest. Consider Command tank, extra defensive (=infantry, MLRS, ATGM vehicles/IFV's) units if you're faction is capable of taking ground early on (like west Germany), or extra offensive units (tanks with good stab, reliable & cost-worthy planes, MLRS still and good, cheap smoke units) if your faction is inherently very strong on the defense (Sweden for instance). But all this is very map/format dependent...
For conquest. Consider Command tank, extra defensive (=infantry, MLRS, ATGM vehicles/IFV's) units if you're faction is capable of taking ground early on (like west Germany), or extra offensive units (tanks with good stab, reliable & cost-worthy planes, MLRS still and good, cheap smoke units) if your faction is inherently very strong on the defense (Sweden for instance). But all this is very map/format dependent...
Re: destruction vs conquest decks
[EUG]MadMat wrote:I find that more resilience is a good thing, hence early-era decks may be a good idea, especially in teamplay.
yes in a 3 vs 3 or 4 vs 4 its usefull if one goes early era
so you have cheaper stuff with higher vet and so u get that resilience too
I always forget to put in flamethrower inf... they do so good in forrests around spawns etc
WTF?
Re: destruction vs conquest decks
I put in much more aggressive units in my conquest decks (AA helos, helo inf, napalm, spam tanks), since attacking in the early game becomes much more important in conquest. I also generally forgo jet fighters in conquest since they are not as versatile as a card of OSAs or HAWKs.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 23 guests