Ok, say you were to identify a system in a state of current famine.
The population is say, 1 million.
Assuming no one else is draining or adding to the food supply, what amount of non mission based food delivery in your estimation, just a guestimate, would be needed to fill the food bucket enough to end the famine?
Another angle on the trade impact question; Just ones best guesstimate, how many units of meds for instance would equate to 1 mission impact on reducing outbreak of the same magnitude on that bucket?
the problem with those question is - how do you want to test any quantities.
think through it. first you need a no traffic system with a faction in outbreak.
you need to wait till the state is ended, so you can be sure that all buckets are emtpy.
then you need to quantify the number of missions with outbreak effect it needs to bring the faction into outbreak, which requires not to play any other missions (so the faction gets into another state, which will half the outbreak bucket) - but state effects aren't known nefore hand.
you need to wait again, till the state is ended.
than you need to run the same missions, while trading against the outbreak, to quantify the number of trade transactions or tons.
assuming that transactions and tons aren't linear .... etc. pp.
so basically i don't think anyone can give you a good estimate on those numbers. especially not with outbreak/famine.
if a faction is in famine you want to end, you'll import food as much and as long as needed to end the state (if you want that). you are probably not importing 100T a day and check, when you have traiggered the famine to end early. but if you like to, do a test (if you find a faction in famine with a market), and share your findings.
as for the general concept of missions only being more effective vs bulk-actions of the same kind, i can for exampel tell you that around 6-8 trade missions will put a minor faction in a small population system into boom, while you need ~10-12 mining pythons (192 T of pure profit cargo of a lot of different commodities) for the same effect. that is assuming that you decide whether doing missions or gaining 6 mio in explo data. when you have a returning explorer in your group, who wants to sell his data anyway, it is of course easier to trigger boom with the data of his week-long trip...
you'll get your own informed guesses on the concrete systems you are working very fast. still you might get surprised sometimes - we have triggered an election yesterday, which was planned for being triggered today ... instead of 9% we have won 11% between the two ticks. a mission to much? to many goods with profit sold? a random player shooting ships of that faction? who knows? playing the BGS is not that numbers game, which made other games great ;-) (longtime civ player here)
Shouldn't forcing a faction into retreat break a war state? No?
So Faction is pending war ins System A, force them into retreat in System B?
I have not witnessed it yet, but according the the last stream, yes.
HOWEVER - that is breaking an active war state, not a pending one.
we have exactly that situation, and retreat isn't pending for that faction (which is at <2,5% in the one system, and in war in another)