The msg.to checks were useful, and you should at least keep the != -1 part, as in those cases entities are created or destroyed and you will maybe run into warnings, or at least try to keep state that is useless.

Also those add/remove comments don't seem very useful.

Did you test it? I did say maybe, but I presume checking explicitly is nicer anyway.

Yes, I did test, I should've phrased that as "The checks do fail anyway...".
We don't store gaia either so msg.to > 0 should be all we need to do. (Testing and it's fine.)

(In fact this definition is global for all conquest types, thus could be moved to conquestCommon, planned to do that in the combine vc, can be done here to idc)

Is this what we really want? what if a player builds a cc foundation, all ppl get killed and ally can finish?

we lost some debugging, but this code route seems odd already so meh

got wondering if some sort of thing in here would help me in the combine vc (victory condition), but concluded it won't :/
Still I agree on the change, but wouldn't "Unit+ConquestCritical" be more accurate?

probably the same counts for buildings dunno

I kept it like this because that's how it was done. You make a good point of course, and I considered that too. The problem I see is that foundations don't show on the minimap, and that would get frustrating for an enemy who can't find the last house or dock foundation.

So I'll agree with your change if we can show foundations on the minimap.
(Note that sheep don't appear in the player color on the minimap, so that's a reason why they shouldn't count in "conquest units".)

I don't think I ever play with conquest units or structures. But maybe the joy of those game modes is hunting down every last trader and razing down every last storehouse? (Neither of which are conquest critical.)

(Buildings will revert to gaia anyway unless connected to an ally, but my plan after D840 is to change that so buildings don't decay and people have to explicitly capture or destroy them.)

I believe that is why they were added, so it proofs more that +ConquestCritical is more accurate, since then traders and storehouse are excluded from the list, so players can't survive with them

Remove TerritoryDecay? :-l

I think I would keep units and structures as is, unless we get some feedback from players who use those modes. In the json's:

		"Description": "Destroy all enemy structures to win.",
		"Description": "Kill all enemy units to win.",

That's pretty explicit, whereas conquest says:

		"Description": "Defeat all opponents to win.",

"Defeat" could reasonably mean destroy/kill the important things, not all things. (We could change the name to "Conquest Critical" or something to be more precise.)

On the other hand, the defeat messages aren't quite right, so let me tweak those.