|
| 23 Aug 2013 11:25 PM |
| Which RTS game is better Territory conquest or The Conquerors? |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 23 Aug 2013 11:27 PM |
neither
play a real game for once |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 23 Aug 2013 11:55 PM |
| Conquerors. I like the idea of having a actual strategy using different types of troops and setting up armies to take out someone else, in comparison to seeing who can spam lots of troops to every area, so you can in turn make more troops with which you can spam to every area. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dknj11902
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Jan 2012 |
| Total Posts: 34 |
|
|
| 24 Aug 2013 02:27 AM |
Territory Conquest. The simplicity of the game makes it enjoyable to play. The Conquerors is too complex. Also, the rounds usually take faster than The Conquerors (30 min ~ 1.5 hrs usually) and the rounds are more fast-paced, so people can grow faster and more easily. The alliance system in Territory Conquest is more challenging unlike The Conquerors, because there is a chance of betrayal between your allies (except Permanent Allies), which puts more suspense and cautiousness. The game also differences solo wins and allied wins, so if you have more solo wins, it shows you have beaten everyone in a round without allies (except when you can betray them) by your self, which is why people have much more wins in The Conquerors (winning with your allies counts as a win) than solo wins in Territory Conquest. In Territory Conquest, there is something called Fog of War, which restricts you from seeing your enemy's land (if your land doesn't touch the land). In The Conquerors, you can easily see everything your enemy is doing, which makes the game too easy, although I understand there is no way to block your sight of your enemy. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
ShimHaGi
|
  |
| Joined: 25 Mar 2012 |
| Total Posts: 145 |
|
|
| 24 Aug 2013 02:29 AM |
neither
people always raid when you first join |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 24 Aug 2013 09:13 AM |
| I like both but i like territory a little better than the conqures and it's a little more user friendly then the conqures. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
| 24 Aug 2013 10:10 AM |
| Territory Conquestis quite nice, I love the simpicity. but I prefer the Conquerors because of how many ways there are to bend other peoples strategies and there are multiple ways to play each mode. It's truly a great game. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Andrius77
|
  |
| Joined: 15 Nov 2012 |
| Total Posts: 29 |
|
|
| 24 Aug 2013 10:12 AM |
| conquerors for sure. because there are much much much more strategies then territory conquest but i still like territory conquest too. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
virco1996
|
  |
| Joined: 13 Apr 2010 |
| Total Posts: 45 |
|
|
| 24 Aug 2013 10:32 AM |
| The conquerors also takes that amount of time (30min -1.5hrs.) if you actually know what you are doing. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
dknj11902
|
  |
| Joined: 18 Jan 2012 |
| Total Posts: 34 |
|
|
| 24 Aug 2013 10:45 AM |
| The round ends quicker in Territory Conquest because you don't have to kill the teams that have no player in order to end the round. |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Aug 2013 12:04 PM |
| Territory conquest wins >:D MUHAHAHAHHAHA |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
cbika12
|
  |
| Joined: 30 Oct 2008 |
| Total Posts: 1189 |
|
|
| 24 Aug 2013 12:51 PM |
I'd say that...
I'm happy that both of the games are made.
<3, cbika12 |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
|
| 24 Aug 2013 12:53 PM |
Both games have their fair share of ignorant players, in terms of community, neither? Try taking something over, or being offensive when everyone else wants to truce. "NOOOOOOO WE ALLL SAID WE R TRUCE I WILL KILL U NOOB" |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
Zalthulu
|
  |
| Joined: 24 Oct 2012 |
| Total Posts: 1451 |
|
|
| 24 Aug 2013 12:59 PM |
| they're both really well made |
|
|
| Report Abuse |
|
|
| |
|
| |
|