If your faction illegalizes Imperial slaves, then you are probably are not the same ethos as the controller and will need to fight a war..
Non-combat actions have no effect on the result of a war.Is it possible to gain enough influence via other means during a war to win the war, or is the war purely decided by combat?
You might be able to win the war without personally firing a shot, if there's no opposition, by taking a really tough ship to a combat zone, signing up for your side, and hoping that the time the enemy spends failing to kill you is sufficient to swing the overall result to your side. But that's the closest you can get to a non-combat solution.
I have seen non combat missions that are marked as helping out the current war/civil war. It would seem that they would help otherwise why are they marked as such ?Non-combat actions have no effect on the result of a war.
You might be able to win the war without personally firing a shot, if there's no opposition, by taking a really tough ship to a combat zone, signing up for your side, and hoping that the time the enemy spends failing to kill you is sufficient to swing the overall result to your side. But that's the closest you can get to a non-combat solution.
I have seen non combat missions that are marked as helping out the current war/civil war. It would seem that they would help otherwise why are they marked as such ?
So polish your rifle, soldier.Most accounts suggest Missions still don't affect war outcomes, despite their wording.
Actually... i have a theory that missions in war might have an impact now.... but i need more evidence.So polish your rifle, soldier.
You'd need to do something empirical like try to win a day just on missions.Actually... i have a theory that missions in war might have an impact now.... but i need more evidence.
tl;dr its based on the fact the influence effects when handing in a mission "disappear" both in election and conflict.
Days can certainly be drawn if no-one does anything on either side.Can you even draw a day? or is it always "Close defeat / close victory"?
You'd need to do something empirical like try to win a day just on missions.
But not massacre missions.
Or massacre missions, but be careful to never win a CZ.
Could you complete Massacre Missions in a CZ by killing the target faction but not selecting either side? Sort of like bounty hunting?
Man that sounds just so edge-casey that I don't think it represents a very good 'control' for the experiment.
Maybe it would have to be Day 1 win 5 battles. Day 2 Win 5 battles but also take massacre missions. Uh no, wait. A win day is a win day, whether you tap it or smash it.
Can you even draw a day? or is it always "Close defeat / close victory"?
So, uh - I guess you kinda want 5 Battles won for faction A and then 4 battles including two massacre missions for Faction B. Then if missions do count Faction B should win.
Yeah that sounds straight forward - your answers on the back on an envelope to Dav at Dav's Hope.
One of my problems is, gone are the days of being able to guarantee no traffic in my systems. Even after Powerplay became a thing, our faction sat in a bit of a "No-mans-land" zone between Powerplay entities. These days, it's now an intersection of 4-5 powers and goes from periods of "maintenance" to lively hostilities, with my faction in the middle doing it's best to say "We'll support whoever comes out on top (as long as they're Imperial), but don't screw with our holdings."... so surrounding systems vacillate between "low-tempo maintenance" and heated protectionism. I saw another PMF enter a system we ceded to a power, and try to take control. They rapidly equalized with the controlling faction, at which point traffic peaked massively and the other PMF was smacked out of the park, and a good 30% put between them again afterwards. It was quite funny.Days can certainly be drawn if no-one does anything on either side.
So presumably it's also possible - if highly unlikely - if there were exactly equal inputs as well.