How to capture lesser stations in a system?

[Judikator]

Hi there, i recently get into BGS and all that stuff. I read this thread here

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showt...v-comments-and-feedback-Jan-13th-2014)?page=1

and there is a point that said to capture a controlling station you need to capture the lesser ones first. But what are the steps to do this?
My player faction got the highest influence in this system and the next state is civil war with a minor faction that controls two lesser stations. Does that mean if my faction win this war the two lesser stations flip their ownership to my faction?

 

[Vasious]

In order to gain control of a Star Port, you need to be in conflict with a faction that controls the Star Port

To get into the conflict -> be it election or war or civil war -> you need to have a similar level of influence to hat faction, and stay there until the conflict triggers.

The winner of the conflict will come away with control of the Star Port

If a Faction controls multiple Star Ports they will only lost the controlling one last.

If you push your influence to high levels (70%?) then you can immediately challenge the system controlling faction for control of the system controlling Star Port

If that happens all other Star Ports they control will stay in their hands.

To then gain control of more Star Ports when you are the controlling faction you need to support one of the factions with the Star Port you want until you trigger a conflict as above so they equal your influence.

 

[the100thmonkey]

To capture the lesser ports in the system, you have to reach the same influence as the faction that runs each station.

The outcome of a conflict (which includes elections) is that the most valuable asset controlled by the losing faction changes to the winning faction. This means that capturing all the stations in a system can take a significant amount of time. It also opens your faction up to the risk of losing stations. I remember a couple of years back there was a case of a French (I think maybe Quebecois; I'm not sure) group doing what you're asking about. They got trolled really hard when they lost a conflict for a minor station and lost control of their primary starport, and thus the system.

In other words, going for complete control of every asset in a system is tactically unsound. Achieving complete control is strategically unnecessary.

The Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim is the most complete public resource I know of about the BGS. The thread is hundreds of pages long though, so it will be easier to post a question rather than swim through thousands of posts. You'll get good answers to your questions there.

 

[Dommarraa]

Getting the owner of the lesser stations to retreat also gives the controlling faction ownership of their stations.
However, I agree it's not necessarily strategically correct to do so. When they have a station, they are a lot easier to manipulate and lock into conflict so you can deal with situations in other systems

 

[Marra Morgan]

In other words, going for complete control of every asset in a system is tactically unsound. Achieving complete control is strategically unnecessary.

This.

 

[_Flin_]

and there is a point that said to capture a controlling station you need to capture the lesser ones first.

That's Bull.

You need to win a conflict against the current ruler.
Then you get his best station. Which is the ruling station.

End of story, system controlled.

Edit: the thread you read is outdated.

Less outdated (but still) is our BGS guide:
http://elitediplomats.com/elitedipl...king-background-simulation-guide-turlorn.html

It gets the main mcganics right, but can be wrong in the details, like cooldown times or caps

 

[Apos]

In other words, going for complete control of every asset in a system is tactically unsound. Achieving complete control is strategically unnecessary.

Depends on your location a lot. It almost becomes a necessity the closer you are to high traffic areas, otherwise you get drowned from white noise activity.

It's not that bad really. Except for settlements, those really need to be given a beneficial purpose to become meaningful first instead of being solely targets of missions which will always hurt you.

 

[Judikator]

Thanks a lot for your response guys. This helps me to get a better understanding of this