why don't YOU play conquest.

[IIIHunterIII]

Hello everyone,

Whenever I play online and look at the lobbies there are much more destruction games than conquest. And therefore I believe there are more people playing destruction than conquest. Since the new conquest mode is much better I wonder why?... Please enlighten me.

Reasons why I think conquest is much, much better than destruction:

- Conquest gives more incentive to attack because losses don't matter, only zones gained
- Every player has an equal amount of income
- Gameplay is usually much more dynamic as opposed to the static destruction campfest
- Good micro is less important than in destruction (making the game easier)
- Having a good overall strategy is more important than in destruction (let me explain: usually the sectors NATO and PACT can easily take in the beginning cancel each other out. So you have to decide carefully which sector to attack and how)

If you haven't tried conquest yet: go and play conquest, it's awesome!

If you feel like you want to add another reason to the "why-conquest-is-so-awesome-list" feel free to post it

[DoktorvonWer]

I do. Conquest V2 is awesome.

I don't get why the entire lobby is full of destruction and no conquest - I suspect people are so accustomed and feel so safe just playing the usual 'sitzkrieg stalemate' type of game, that they would rather not go outside their comfort zone and play the much more active and mobile conquest v2 because they've all got good at early rushes and then sitting and camping in destruction.

[FLX]

I think it's because destruction is more noob friendly : if you don't know what to do, do nothing and gain points.

[Hob_Gadling]

Destruction resembles war. Conquest resembles a retarded game of tennis.

[spyker92]

I play roughly 50/50 conquest/destruction. I enjoy conquest because of the dynamic game involved, and its much more skill and team work oriented.

Destruction? Particularly TD, has this wonderful little thing that pops up whenever I destroy an enemy unit though. And regularly reminds me of how cost efficient my attack and defense tactics are going. I mean, who doesnt love to see a pair panzerjager kill +200 points of stuff in a matter of seconds? Or a mig 23 fly over a clump of enemy units and watch your score rise by 400 or 500 from a single bombing run.

[501stJFW]

I play both but both have advantages and disadvantages.

Conquest is certainly more dynamic but at times feels spammy and doesn't encourage good practices such as micro. Also large amounts of heli cheese.

Destruction is more balanced but can end up being a turtlefest if two sides are VERY evenly matched. Though in public team games you will usually find at least player with gaps in defenses to exploit. When coordinated with your teammates properly to exploit this destruction is much more fun.

[deadnation]

I think that conquest is much more away from realism than destruction. If you just can take over half of the map you win by camping. If you play destruction without points to achieve and time limit or long time limit (60 min) you have to kill your enemy for fast win. And in reall war you don´t get points by sitting, only true way to win is win which you achieve by destroing all enemy cvs.

[Elder Forest]

Destruction resembles war. Conquest resembles a retarded game of tennis.

Be interested to hear your reasons for saying this Hob - you normally have a well reasoned viewpoint

[Luzertof]

On my preferred map there's only one heavily contested sector. We tried conquest and found out in destruction games both players can have fun on their sides and do some unusual moves but in conquest 1,5 players are contesting the one sector. That's boring and games tend go forever without timelimit and give lucky wins with timelimit.


Conquest on bigger maps often doesn't allow tactical and strategical advantage. Fast and hard pushes, fast organized, are required. This shifts Wargame more into an Arcade game than a Simulation and I personally dislike this. However, I play with my group and I'm the spare player defending the middle or something as tactical and strategical as possible and support others while they can arcade push around.

[Hob_Gadling]

Destruction resembles war. Conquest resembles a retarded game of tennis.

Be interested to hear your reasons for saying this Hob - you normally have a well reasoned viewpoint

I firmly believe whatever flaws exist in destruction exist because of unit balancing. WEE did not suffer from the same sort of passivity: it was common to see special forces do long-range flanking attacks at backlines, a somewhat more fluid frontline and players attempting to wrest control of sectors for strategic reasons.

Conquest limits the game a lot by forcing the players to concentrate on the sectors. Freedom of strategic movement is severely limited by the fact that if you don't manage to hit a CV it's not very useful. I also dislike the fact that once you have one sector more than the other guy you can switch to strategic defensive: I'd rather give the underdog the benefit of being on the defensive.

I think people like Conquest mostly because it demands at least some sort of activity from both sides, whereas Destruction as it stands rewards passivity too much. That said, I think fixing the unit pricing would make both game modes a lot more enjoyable.

On my preferred map there's only one heavily contested sector.

This is why I think Conquest is a "retarded game of tennis". Back and forth over a tiny piece of ground.