War and Civil War: BGS Guide - Best Current Thinking

[goemon]

If bounty hunting does make a significant contribution, then I may even revert to that method myself. I'm sick of CZs.

A kill and a bond redeem from a CZ will outweight a bountie redeem from a RES (because that is missing the kill). besides a RES having no objectives, which is said to equivalent of ~4 kills.

While you can win wars by redeeming bounties, you can't be countered on your Cz work that way imho (you will redeem much more than 5 mio bonds from the CZ you listed).

Do you redeem bonds after each CZ?

So i think it is much more likely you have players in system doing Haz Res occasionally AND CZ - unfortunately a BGS conflict is to a large extend a numbers game.

 

[Alone Wulff]

A kill and a bond redeem from a CZ will outweight a bountie redeem from a RES (because that is missing the kill). besides a RES having no objectives, which is said to equivalent of ~4 kills.

While you can win wars by redeeming bounties, you can't be countered on your Cz work that way imho (you will redeem much more than 5 mio bonds from the CZ you listed).

Do you redeem bonds after each CZ?

So i think it is much more likely you have players in system doing Haz Res occasionally AND CZ - unfortunately a BGS conflict is to a large extend a numbers game.

I thought as much.

Yeah I redeem bonds after each CZ. I usually need to rearm anyway.

Someone is eager to stop me controlling this backwater system then. Looks like Fed supporters are moving North!

 

[goemon]

I thought as much.

Yeah I redeem bonds after each CZ. I usually need to rearm anyway.

Someone is eager to stop me controlling this backwater system then. Looks like Fed supporters are moving North!

did you check whether a goverment change would hamper the powerplay faction controlling/exploiting it? that#s a common reason for being blovcked.

 

[Screemonster]

Also remember that if nobody enters the system, they won't show on the traffic report. If they started the day in the system, they could be working all day and you'd have no idea they were even there other than their effect on the BGS.

edit: also there are diminishing returns on dropping large amounts of the same transaction. If the only thing you're doing is fighting CZs, and they're fighting CZs and bounty hunting, then even if you do more zones and bond drops they might still be able to get a better advantage.

That said, I've won days where the bounty drop figures were in the hundreds of kills before, by taking a single massacre mission and bouncing between low-res sites until they were done, and I know the bounties weren't for me as I was supporting the anarchists. From what I saw, they were grinding hard in the CNB and not taking any zones, so my CZ scenarios + bonds beat out their bounties. Even if we both hit the softcap for effective influence in our respective buckets, I had two buckets (zones and bonds) to their one (bounties).

 

[Ian Doncaster]

edit: also there are diminishing returns on dropping large amounts of the same transaction.

Though this may not apply during a conflict - Frontier said that their March 2019 update meant conflicts were no longer decided by redirected influence. What exactly that means they didn't say.

I don't think anyone's tested conclusively either way, but the reasons for applying diminishing returns to a non-conflict influence distribution aren't so important during a conflict, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was just a linear addition of activity on both sides to determine the binary result.

 

[goemon]

Though this may not apply during a conflict - Frontier said that their March 2019 update meant conflicts were no longer decided by redirected influence. What exactly that means they didn't say.

I don't think anyone's tested conclusively either way, but the reasons for applying diminishing returns to a non-conflict influence distribution aren't so important during a conflict, and it wouldn't surprise me if it was just a linear addition of activity on both sides to determine the binary result.

there is another option.
linear addition of one type of action/transaction. and who wins that "bucket". would be interesting, whether you can counter multiple exploration data redeems by any single smuggling in election for exampel.
i don't think it's the case, but could be tested.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

there is another option.
linear addition of one type of action/transaction. and who wins that "bucket". would be interesting, whether you can counter multiple exploration data redeems by any single smuggling in election for exampel.

Yes - and of course when the only measurement possible is "who won that day?" all very hard to test.

 

[Screemonster]

there is another option.
linear addition of one type of action/transaction. and who wins that "bucket". would be interesting, whether you can counter multiple exploration data redeems by any single smuggling in election for exampel.

It'd be interesting to see conflicts dealt with in a poker-hand kind of way, where the side that performs the biggest individual action wins a strategic victory, and going to the actual numbers on a tiebreaker, ie. if I do a high-intensity zone and you do a million low zones then I win as the high zone is the largest action, but if I do two medium zones and you do one medium zone and a million low zones, then you win as we both have an equally-scoring most-significant-action and it would then come down to points.

(I say poker as a pair of aces beats a pair of fives, but three of a kind beats a pair no matter how good your pair is)

 

[goemon]

and it wouldn't surprise me if it was just a linear addition of activity on both sides to determine the binary result.

in that case, alone wulff might be outplayed by bounties redeems.
8 CZ-Bond redeems: 8+
6 M CZ+ 1 H CZ: 9 Objectives: 9+ (in best case; it might be objectives are simply translated to bonds)
1 L CZ, 6 M CZ, 1 H CZ scenario effects (just sketching here, there is no proof for the following): 1x1+, 6x2+, 1x3+ = 16+

in total that would be 33+
countered by 94+ by redeeming 50K bounties (single kill)

i do seriously hope it does not work this way ... i don't think it works that way .. and i think it is most peoples experience that the best you can do to win a war is fighting in the conflictzones... but if i apply the concept of linear addtion, it could look like that.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

i do seriously hope it does not work this way ... i don't think it works that way .. and i think it is most peoples experience that the best you can do to win a war is fighting in the conflictzones... but if i apply the concept of linear addtion, it could look like that.

It could still have weighting on it, so the bounties and bonds count less and the scenarios count more.

But equally they might want to avoid the election scenario where (illustratively) 1 mission + 1 trade + 1 explore > 10 trade (and therefore a dedicated group gets outplayed by passing traffic)

I've certainly seen situations where - in both elections and wars - a group is relatively easily able to equalise influence for the fight (despite opposition efforts to keep them separated), but then loses the conflict 4-0.

 

[Vetinari]

Though this may not apply during a conflict - Frontier said that their March 2019 update meant conflicts were no longer decided by redirected influence. What exactly that means they didn't say.

It suggests that previously more or all actions gave inf that influenced the war whereas from then it would be the war or conflict inf only....whether that combined with the 'Help the War by ....' missions I dunno. If yes probably means all that and not trading etc If no it probably means only actively fighting the CZs decided the outcome....and may lean towards must win the CZ not just collect CBs and leave early like we can in the CGs where its just amounts.

So any other influence actions, Trade etc are no longer 'redirected' towards the War effort but are somehow ignored or put on hold or maybe vastly reduced and added?

Any of that make sense or feasible or testable?

Id like to think 'Blaze your own trail' means you can theoretically win the war just by doing non-combat 'Help the War' missions and no CZs.

 

[Riverside]

I've certainly seen situations where - in both elections and wars - a group is relatively easily able to equalise influence for the fight (despite opposition efforts to keep them separated), but then loses the conflict 4-0.

In an election the faction with a dockable asset to trade & sell exploration data to has a huge potential advantage, imo a far greater one than one faction of a war controlling easy access to bounties for their faction.

However wars work, imo they are fine as they are; it is one of few remaining gameplay loops where an optimal tactic has not emerged as a clear winner & I rather enjoy that

 

[Ian Doncaster]

It suggests that previously more or all actions gave inf that influenced the war whereas from then it would be the war or conflict inf only

I'm fairly sure it wasn't that - even shortly after 3.3 the previous rule that only combat actions influenced wars seemed to hold.

 

[Alone Wulff]

did you check whether a goverment change would hamper the powerplay faction controlling/exploiting it? that#s a common reason for being blovcked.

It's a system outside of the Bubble and a few jumps from Alliance territory. The system isn't on any PP lists as far as I know and the controlling faction (my enemy) is Fed anyway.

I really wish FDev would share a few more 'secrets' to aid BGS. There's a huge element of fun figuring things out but never knowing for certain what something does kinda ruins the fun a little. I do find myself realising I've wasted a day now and then and that day can make all the difference for a one-man band like me.

 

[goemon]

The system isn't on any PP lists

it's easy to check - you'd have something like

Powerplay:

Exploited by Edmund Mahon

on eddb

 

[Riverside]

It's a system outside of the Bubble and a few jumps from Alliance territory. The system isn't on any PP lists as far as I know and the controlling faction (my enemy) is Fed anyway.

I really wish FDev would share a few more 'secrets' to aid BGS. There's a huge element of fun figuring things out but never knowing for certain what something does kinda ruins the fun a little. I do find myself realising I've wasted a day now and then and that day can make all the difference for a one-man band like me.

You haven't wasted the day if you learned from it

Next time you will do better, then better again after that

 

[griffrawk]

Hypothetical situation:

What happens when a war reaches 3-3 (so no best of 7) after the 7th tick? Each side put equal effort in to win 3 each, but had a Christmas truce in the trenches somewhere in the middle and neither won the day.

Does it draw or drag on to another tick?

 

[Screemonster]

Hypothetical situation:

What happens when a war reaches 3-3 (so no best of 7) after the 7th tick? Each side put equal effort in to win 3 each, but had a Christmas truce in the trenches somewhere in the middle and neither won the day.

Does it draw or drag on to another tick?

If it's 3-3 plus one tied day, the result is a draw.

 

[Chaz C]

Has anyone tested the effect of a base assault (not mission related just a free ground attack run) on war/civil war?

Destroying turrets etc. has a negative effect on the owning faction normally so wondered if it helps in a war situation?

I'm also still unsure of which missions help in war - was there ever a consensus on this or is it still one of yhe great BGS mysteries?!

 

[goemon]

I'm also still unsure of which missions help in war - was there ever a consensus on this or is it still one of yhe great BGS mysteries?!

the problem here being, that what commanders report from in the game does not match fdevs own desprition (war themed courier missions are supposed to work, but commander report those don#t). it's hard to reach a consensus that way.