Conquest and Bounce casualty/military loss and kills.

[Rissoto]

I've tried finding information about this but it comes to nothing.

1)We all know conquest causes an increased military loss for the attacker's army but does anyone know how much you lose or what is the modifier? Does increasing from 51% to roughly 70% increases defender's army casualty or reduces military loss for the attacker?

2) In the same case, does bounce causes an increased casualty for the attacker's army and does varying offence sent modifies the casualty or kills.

3) Comparing bounce with conquest, which one inflicts more military casualty for the defender's army?

[s0830887]

I don't know any numbers but we tried playing around with conq last age and we found that it gives higher attacker losses and lower defender losses. Sorry, that's all I know!

[protector]

1) The closer you are to breaking your target, the more troops you kill. Sending 70% on a conquest will kill more than 51%.
2) The number of kills depends on the offense that's being sent. The more you send, the more you kill.
3) Bounce kills more but rewards you with nothing. Conquest also makes a target loose acres, once the acres lost gives the target GBP, the troop kills drop. Bouncing does not give any kind of GBP

[goodz]

It is usually better to bounce then conquest if the bounces will open the target up / when you're not in war but are in hostile.

On conquest you lose so much offense and gain so little land that it often just isn't worth while.

In war having 0 incoming is pretty terrible, and losses are reduced in war so then conquest becomes better. Also bounce uses less meter.

[Nightmare_]

From what I know, conquest has increased losses. I think it's 2x, but that seems high.

One thing sometimes people forget is to make sure they're razing and not TM-ing. Raze ignores NW for losses also.

[Rigid]

what is the max conquest net range for a warrior? so warrior are better for conquest?damn this is suicidal...