Hi Devs & Players,


Why not add a retreat button in conquest wars?

Players are stuck in a war for 22h + so they can exit BUT IF THEY DO,THE TILE/TERRITORY/TOWER,MINE/LIBRARY/VILLAGE will be for the enemy…


I like the no-retreat feature, it gives lazy players like me the excuse that we r stuck in a battle for the next 20 hours …hi hi


…I know   I know I m a horrible person

People have answer me when I have do this idea last year but that was about the War. This idea is ridiculous and you have just not to participate. Nothing force you to participate in Conquest,War or else

Its your leader who decide if his team will do the Conquest or not. i found that ridiculous to stole 1 spot free if your alliance don’t want to participate. its ok I guess everyone is free

About a retreat button during a battle well maybe can be useful maybe not I don’t know

I have to say, that, in a way, I agree with @megatheo. Getting stuck in a battle is sometimes refreshing…you don’t have to constantly be online lol. The retreat option does sound like a good idea though. I think that the other penalty for retreating would be that all members in that war are put all the way back to the HQ. Because retreating means losing, and so not only should the enemy get the tile, but the players should get penalized as if they lost the battle, because, well, they did! Just my thoughts

I feel there could be avenues for misuse in this, retreat to get a troop refill which saves energy and time while also undermining the pinning system, might be good on the flipside, but I’m not quite in favour of it.

Love this idea.





Thank Friends For Replying To This Topic…

Let me add one or two things…

1.If there is suddenly a change in the conquest strategy or plan for players to move to another tile(urgently) then players will have  to wait for the war to end(which will be a waste of time and too late)…Thus with retreat button they can execute it   But as a result,the tile/territory/library/special tile/library/village will be won for BY enemy…

2.If players on the war tiles know that they are going to lose anyway because 

-many opponents are coming to the war tile (e.g: 2vs3[with more opponents joining]= losing)

  • if their opponents have more skulls than them

**THEN THEY ARE STUCK FOR 22H+(also waste of time) **so with retreat button,they can exit and have more time…


A leader or general can send retreat permission to the players to exit the war so that no player can make an excuse because of their laziness…


Here a real visual example…



see i am stuck for 15h

useless to fight

i can retreat and join my alliance for a new strategy






Thanks :slight_smile:

Dont be a Hater DarkEagle!!! …lazy people have rights too :-P 

I hate stating the obvious but isn t this retreat feature contradicting …the supreme victory feature???

…which (kind of) makes the whole suggestion non-feasible!!! 


You have right. this idea will make Supreme victory useless

The supreme victory feature works as a motivation to rush more alliance members to get involved to finish the battle quickly. So I fear the retreat suggestion will move to the “non-feasible category” pretty soon…sorry DarkEagle!!!

The whole conquest event is AWKWARD!!! u go on a quest to claim land and when u face an opponent in the wilderness u miraculasly appear raiding his/her castle just like in the war event. Why am raiding the castle? Am I not facing the enemy in the wilderness? If a conquest event is scheduled after a war event, then it is like fighting 2 war events, one after another, which is kind of boring!!! and makes players (like me)… LAAAAAAAAAAAzzzzzzzzzzzzyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!

It isn’t the same caste, look the castle gate it is different. 

There isn’t conquest just after war or reverse, there is always ninja in between. And you can’t compare war and conquest.

oh yeah the castle gate is different…how could I miss that!!! I stand corrected, that makes the conquest entirely different from the war event

R U kidding me Alumbri??? when u attack an enemy on the map isn t it the same as in the war event?

As for the ninja event, I guess u r right, maybe FG realised that the conquest and the war event are pretty much the same and placed the ninja event in between.

 I just think we need something more to play for in the Conquest. @Dena4 had a nice suggestion to get players more involved in the Conquest and to make the overall event much more exciting!

You can find his topic here:


Well it is indeed the same path. And i don’t see the problem here. Why? you want a complete rework of the path design, this will never happen. And yea conquest is intirely different just attacks is the same but that is as in the whole game…

Dena4’s suggestion resembles the old-school war event, where the alliance with the most skulls was winning…too much grinding…TOO MUCH!!! Thank God FG changed it to what it is today :slight_smile: besides it still makes conquest follow the same war event format so I guess it doesnt solve the problem at all, conquest is still a war event with a small variation, offering nothing new to the game.

I think the the problem with the conquest map is that it is too empty. The conquest mode in general lacks content BIG TIME!!! FG has to add new staff to it and make it exciting.

Should introduce mini-bosses (special units) guarding special tiles/dungeons that if u win u get extra gold, unique alliance boosts or even unique units.

Should scrap the energy and the cooldowns all together. We should only get respawn time when we lose a raid. 

Conquest points should be based on points earned by occupying tiles AND also from succesful RAIDS!!! 

We should all have same level troops and spells and fight on equal terms, our choice should be on which spells and troops to bring in battle…conquest victory should based ONLY on skill!!!

…and most important…when we raid a player we want the gold earned to REALLY worth it (like in seasonal events) and if FG also adds bonus gold for each consecutive succesful raid that d make things even cooler :slight_smile:

Check my post below for more info on conquest mode :-) 


Nope, my suggestion isn’t even in close to old-school war event. During war season one general or leader declares war and members have 23:30 time to do raids in all wars declared by or against the team. It doesn’t matter when you do raid, as long as it fits in that time block.

I suggest to make wars more interesting by adding conquest points for reaching war milestones (total skulls scored is a good indicator), including a small reward for team members per war milestone that is reached. Those scores should be only represent a small factor of total conquest score, in other words, it should not have major impact on conquest score.

Otherwise a team will not invest in watchtower building (that should be major factor in scoring) and just raid other teams for fun with intention to score as many skulls as possible. So I meant that wars should become more interesting and worth to fight during conquest, but it should be designed in such a way, that deals like, let’s have fake wars still will be very risky (losing watchtowers by one of the other teams on the map).

That’s absolutely not my intention. My intention is to stimulate wars and make them part of conquest, they should not be avoided. Lack of action on the map is reason why a conquest is boring and that needs to change. So adding rewards for wars should make them more attractive, but also more risky. 

As far as I can remember old-school war event was about getting the most skulls in a specific period of time, and according to what u stated:

 “members have 23:30 time to do raids in all wars declared by or against the team. It doesn’t matter when you do raid, as long as it fits in that time block.”  

…then I assume that it is pretty much the same.

The way u reward the conquest points is a new addition, however , I still have to insist that even with this cool new addition your recommendation resembles too much the HORRIBLE old-school war event, which THANK GOD FG changed.

Do u like my recommendation ???

During war season (Major part of what you quote is meant for war seasons!), you indeed try to do all possible raids per war in that specific time block (23 hours 30 minute) with all members and hope it’s enough for the team to win wars. 

During conquest however you don’t know exactly how long a war ends, you only know it max ends on moment x, but when opponent or you send in more players (plus troops), the tide can quickly change and SV can give it a twist at moments you at least expect it. Conquest wars can even be won in a matter of minutes, when the team doesn’t expect it or has no backup members at that area with energy. And since troops, terrain type, number of heroes and so on, plus winning or losing a war can make a lot of difference in conquest I think we can’t compare it with war season wars. Players blocked, send home for the losing team and winning team, it all becomes part of conquest strategy.

Joining an almost lost war by SV to give members time to get closer to defend important areas and respond on a lost war, or even starting a war to lure in opponents or saw panic amongst them, it all matters during conquest. So it is all about taking more or less risks and making important decisions.

During conquest there is more at stake. Say you were assigned as watchtower guard and you lose a war where you were part of. You have no troops at that moment and especially then such a watchtower is vulnerable and… an easy target. It even can cost you that tower pretty fast, since you have no troops! So entering many wars can be tricky. Even while you win a war, when you lose a lot of troops and have no watchtower nearby to reload, it can influence even other wars worst case. 

So it is also a matter of tactics that is important during conquest, most even don’t realize it can get pretty complicated. (To use it in your advantage, knowing watchtower guards of opponents is smart, when they are part of a lost war, you know which tiles are vulnerable to raids, especially when the opponent runs out of troops or forgets to give priority to watchtower guards that are in jeopardy). 

During conquest I want to promote wars, but of course not to stimulate teams to blindfolded raids with all members participating. You need to be defensive to protect your claimed tiles so need to make decisions who raids where at which moment, if you have extra members with enough energy or not, that all belongs to tactics. Like striking at places where opponents don’t expect it or for whatever kind of reason. 

So actually war season wars and conquest wars differ a lot. It sometimes needs even a quick response from teams, take necessary actions without panic. A wrong decision can be costly, especially when wars are more important (war milestones should not give a lot of conquest score, there should be some rewards per milestone). 

Main issue is that I want to change is boring conquests. Of course teams can decide not to declare wars, that’s up to them. Only to stimulate teams, some team milestones for total skulls scored could be made, sure a few conquest points would help aggressive teams to get a few points for the risks they take. but main scoring system should be claimed land.


I appreciate your effort to explain to me your suggestion in detail but still it involves A LOT of grinding!!! …and grinding is a killjoy