Qk Conquest vs Destroy Units

[lparkh]

As a newbie play does it behove me to go for a quick conquest over destroying units? In particular I wonder if by destroying units as a focus I prevent the country from having those units once surrendered? If that were the case and I gained experience I begin to think maybe destroying units over quick victory is best. Thanks for thoughts...

[SlickWilhelm]

I'm a newbie, too, having just purchased this last week. Did you try either method to see which works better? 

[xriz]

I've been playing for a while;

Over all you want to go for conquest but you do need to destroy a decent percentage of the opposing army's units to be able to conquer a country. Plus the cost to replace a man in a damaged unit is much less then the cost per man to create that unit.

When you first start an invasion/campaign go for destroying units, especially Artillery and Calvary units if the opportunity presents it’s self. Once you have the enemy army whipped, you can ignore the units left and go for conquering the country, then the left over units are gone the next turn after you take the last capital.

On regular setting, manpower can be a problem if you take too many casualties over the course of a game you make it more difficult for your self, so destroying units cost you casualties (typically) and you need keep an eye on your manpower or suffer being only to create lower quality troops in the future.