i call it honoring the peace treaty, and helping to rebuild that factions economy. and everytime those war-mongering feds declare war again shortly after!
War and Civil War: BGS Guide - Best Current Thinking
- Thread starter Jane Turner
- Start date
That, and they'll likely end up losing the assets you want to another faction on the way down. The last war I fought, I actually threw the fight the first time because I wanted to hand control of an undesirable asset (a planetary settlement that attracted a lot of settlement scan and bombing missions from surrounding systems) to the opposing faction, then push to take over the system, taking the good station and leaving them with the lemon. Since they're a native faction I'm also planning to make sure they keep that asset all the way down to the bottom of the inf table.
Huh, I hadn't even thought of that. My faction is currently defending a settlement, would it make it easier in the long run to let them lose it?
i can say that a system, where all assets are in your hand, are much harder to manage than those, where there are assets the other factions can get into conflict. especially a surface settlement without docking is only a liability.
If you control all the assets in the system, the other factions can't get into conflicts which makes it a lot easier for one of them to sneak up on you. Rushing to control every asset is something a lot of people do, but there are real advantages to not doing so.
For instance, back when C&P was first brought in, I winged up with a friend who hadn't played for ages, we went bounty hunting and they accidentally copped a friendly fire charge. They'd gone with the previous meta of swapping out their FSD for the session, and found that they couldn't pay it off (as the devs hadn't added the option to turn yourself in at that point) and the controlling faction had taken over all the other landables - including what had been an anarchy port before they moved in, which would have meant a guaranteed interstellar factors.
Now that you can swap modules on hot ships, even being able to access a station with outfitting would have fixed the problem, which just means being able to land literally anywhere that isn't controlled by the owning faction.
For instance, back when C&P was first brought in, I winged up with a friend who hadn't played for ages, we went bounty hunting and they accidentally copped a friendly fire charge. They'd gone with the previous meta of swapping out their FSD for the session, and found that they couldn't pay it off (as the devs hadn't added the option to turn yourself in at that point) and the controlling faction had taken over all the other landables - including what had been an anarchy port before they moved in, which would have meant a guaranteed interstellar factors.
Now that you can swap modules on hot ships, even being able to access a station with outfitting would have fixed the problem, which just means being able to land literally anywhere that isn't controlled by the owning faction.
So aside from Massacres, do specifically 'war' related missions contribute to victory for the day? IE, 'deliver war supplies' and 'strategic data transfer' couriers?
yes, or at least: say are dev-said-to-do-so (differently to winning a CZ before and handing bonds in after the tick, i don't have first hand experience with it).
it is said to be possible, yes. i don't know whether somebody tested it.
Okay, one last question (hopefully).
Saw OP said that the war ends when victory is inevitable, and another guide that said 4 days it the minimum duration. So if one side dominates 4 days in a row from the start of the war, it ends in their favor?
Saw OP said that the war ends when victory is inevitable, and another guide that said 4 days it the minimum duration. So if one side dominates 4 days in a row from the start of the war, it ends in their favor?
yes. a war goes 7 days max, and if it is 4:0 it is won.
Does combat bonds count towards my factions influence if i turn them in at my fleet carrier stationed in the same system as the war?
My group is fighting against the system owner and they have control over all the stations in the system and we are soon going to be hostile with them so we need some way to be able to earn influence.
My group is fighting against the system owner and they have control over all the stations in the system and we are soon going to be hostile with them so we need some way to be able to earn influence.
Yes - though it's not certain if the 25% cut gives a 25% score penalty.
You can clear the hostility by bounty hunting in-system and handing in the bounties at an out-of-system Interstellar Factor.
Thank you for the information @Ian Doncaster and for your suggestions @goemon
Problem is that since we are constantly opposed by other players when we go to war, i feel that we simply do not have the time to do anything else but combat zones. We have tried missions but they do not seem to do enough and going around and trying to balance our rep with the system controller at the same time as we are waging a war with them is just so exhausting, there are only so many hours in a day and we all have to work during the day and balance (what little there is) our free time.
If only the rest of the galaxy could see that we are the rightful rulers of our system insted of some corrupt Federation scum
Problem is that since we are constantly opposed by other players when we go to war, i feel that we simply do not have the time to do anything else but combat zones. We have tried missions but they do not seem to do enough and going around and trying to balance our rep with the system controller at the same time as we are waging a war with them is just so exhausting, there are only so many hours in a day and we all have to work during the day and balance (what little there is) our free time.
If only the rest of the galaxy could see that we are the rightful rulers of our system insted of some corrupt Federation scum
Is it deliberate opposition (ie. a player group that actively occupies the system) or just passive traffic (which tends to be in favour of the incumbent)?
I had a hell of a time flipping one particular system that was near a big player hub and got a lot of passive traffic, and had the controlling faction of a neighbouring system with good bounty hunting spots constantly bumping into me for the no. 2 spot on the way up but never actually won any of the wars that triggered, but as soon as I flipped it there were no other issues. I've not even been there for the last several months and the same faction is still in charge.
I had a hell of a time flipping one particular system that was near a big player hub and got a lot of passive traffic, and had the controlling faction of a neighbouring system with good bounty hunting spots constantly bumping into me for the no. 2 spot on the way up but never actually won any of the wars that triggered, but as soon as I flipped it there were no other issues. I've not even been there for the last several months and the same faction is still in charge.
I think it's semi-passive traffic, the system is close to Shinrarta Dezhra and when the latest war started the traffic (according to Inara) Quadrupled. We had no problem getting to war with the system owner, but i think the war lured in many trigger happy commanders willing to do the Feds dirty work instead of helping our little innocent mom and pop company.
Well there's your problem. You'll have trouble swinging anything around there with a small group.
Is it a powerplay exploited system? If the controlling faction is favourable to the powerplay group, then it'll throw up an alert on the inara powerplay page when a conflict kicks off. If not, there's a good chance of people going there just because it's the nearest CZ to farm and they'll pick the controlling faction by default as they won't want to go hostile in the dock where they cash in their missions.
And this is why I hang around outside the powerplay bubble these days. Believe me, you're not the first person to be annoyed with the way powerplay encourages the "must have bigger numbers" groups to stop in and kick over sandcastles then leave because they don't actually care about having the system as a base or anything.
It's one of the things that Sandro's proposal would have covered by making only control systems matter for the ethos and freeing up the rest of the bubble for people who don't want to get involved in powerplay to do their thing without having it imposed upon them.
It's one of the things that Sandro's proposal would have covered by making only control systems matter for the ethos and freeing up the rest of the bubble for people who don't want to get involved in powerplay to do their thing without having it imposed upon them.