No, conquest favours the attacker and the defender is defenceless if they have only 1 city with no one to back them up. I agree with everything you said there except Conquest, Revolt is much better in my opinion. It requires more skill for the attacker which i love
The revolt system favors the passive game play that makes a lot of players sim city type players.
And even in the revolt system, the 1 city player is screwed without an alliance.
If someone can clean someone out and stir up a revolt and not have enough troops in 12 hours to take the city without the defending player receiving support, then the attacker is doing something wrong.
The revolt system does this.
It rewards the defender for getting wiped out. (I.E alliance mates provide defensive troops) So if the player sucks, then he earns a bunch of DBP off of his alliance.
It makes no logical sense.
Its passive gameplay.
The conquest system rewards aggressive gameplay, which is how it should be.
My only complaint about conquest system is the fact its too easy to friendly fire. They could fix that fairly easy I think. If someone was under siege it should show on the map as under siege.
If you know who owns the city before the siege and that information shows up on the map, logically you would know who would be sieging the same city.
