why don't YOU play conquest.

User avatar
IIIHunterIII
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun 17 Mar 2013 14:44
Location: on the hunt...
Contact:

why don't YOU play conquest.

Postby IIIHunterIII » Thu 5 Sep 2013 19:50

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 :D
No trees were killed in the posting of this message, but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced...

User avatar
DoktorvonWer
General
Posts: 5883
Joined: Sun 12 Feb 2012 11:24
Location: Yorkshire, UK
Contact:

Re: why don't YOU play conquest.

Postby DoktorvonWer » Thu 5 Sep 2013 19:56

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.
Image

User avatar
FLX
Lieutenant General
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri 16 Mar 2012 10:43
Location: Paris
Contact:

Re: why don't YOU play conquest.

Postby FLX » Thu 5 Sep 2013 20:01

I think it's because destruction is more noob friendly : if you don't know what to do, do nothing and gain points.
Image
Be nice or I nerf your favorite unit !

User avatar
Hob_Gadling
Captain
Posts: 1621
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 00:15
Contact:

Re: why don't YOU play conquest.

Postby Hob_Gadling » Thu 5 Sep 2013 20:02

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

User avatar
spyker92
Lieutenant
Posts: 1358
Joined: Fri 31 May 2013 08:14
Contact:

Re: why don't YOU play conquest.

Postby spyker92 » Thu 5 Sep 2013 20:03

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. :lol:

User avatar
501stJFW
First Sergeant
Posts: 248
Joined: Thu 5 Sep 2013 15:14
Contact:

Re: why don't YOU play conquest.

Postby 501stJFW » Thu 5 Sep 2013 20:08

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.

User avatar
deadnation
Command Sergeant Major
Posts: 349
Joined: Fri 9 Nov 2012 14:56
Location: Finland
Contact:

Re: why don't YOU play conquest.

Postby deadnation » Thu 5 Sep 2013 20:12

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
Sergeant First-Class
Posts: 123
Joined: Sat 14 Apr 2012 23:36
Contact:

Re: why don't YOU play conquest.

Postby Elder Forest » Thu 5 Sep 2013 20:20

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
First Sergeant
Posts: 207
Joined: Wed 5 Jun 2013 18:11
Location: Pyongyang, North Korea
Contact:

Re: why don't YOU play conquest.

Postby Luzertof » Thu 5 Sep 2013 20:29

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.

User avatar
Hob_Gadling
Captain
Posts: 1621
Joined: Tue 14 Feb 2012 00:15
Contact:

Re: why don't YOU play conquest.

Postby Hob_Gadling » Thu 5 Sep 2013 20:45

Elder Forest wrote:
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.

Luzertof wrote: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.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests