Are all EDO settlements up for grabs during a war/civil war or just the one being contested?

[St0rmFury]

Sorry if this has been asked before.

Based on what Paul said here: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/elite-dangerous-odyssey-bgs-and-crime-details.575842/

• When two factions engage each other in a War, their Odyssey settlements will become battle sites and in turn host Conflict Zones.
• When a war is resolved, all battle sites will return to being standard settlements under the control of the faction that won the most Conflict Zones at that particular battle site during the War.

So, by all battle sites, can I assume that more than 1 EDO settlement can change hands after a war is resolved?

 

[Jmanis]

All are, afaik. You can still lose the war, but flip all Odyssey settlements to you...

 

[Ian Doncaster]

If it's explicitly listed as being contested (usually only if the faction only owns Odyssey assets) it'll flip based on the war result in the same way as a space asset would.

If it's not, it'll flip based on the local balance of results at that site.

 

[St0rmFury]

If it's explicitly listed as being contested (usually only if the faction only owns Odyssey assets) it'll flip based on the war result in the same way as a space asset would.

I've read somewhere (probably ED discord) that you can win a war (via space CZ) but lose a settlement by fighting for the opposing faction in the contested settlement.

Seems to be a strategy adopted by certain PMFs to maintain their influence in the system while discarding undesirable settlements.

 

[Nepeta Uchiha]

I've read somewhere (probably ED discord) that you can win a war (via space CZ) but lose a settlement by fighting for the opposing faction in the contested settlement.

Seems to be a strategy adopted by certain PMFs to maintain their influence in the system while discarding undesirable settlements.

If you want to prevent all conflicts in your system it's best to own all assets in the system since to cause a conflict one of the faction has to own something. If the controlling faction owns everything conflicts are impossible amongst the others.

 

[goemon]

If you want to prevent all conflicts in your system it's best to own all assets in the system since to cause a conflict one of the faction has to own something. If the controlling faction owns everything conflicts are impossible amongst the others.

not really - in my view.

• assets can work as a stop gap. you can bind threatening factions in conlicts. very usefull if for exampel bounties are imported by random traffic.
• many assets also provide a potential influence loss only, so if you own all assets, you are also the only target of certain negative influence missions.

generally my experience: a system, where all factions own something is by far easier to manage than a system, where all assets are controlled by the controlling faction. the latter are more volatile.

 

[Nepeta Uchiha]

not really - in my view.

• assets can work as a stop gap. you can bind threatening factions in conlicts. very usefull if for exampel bounties are imported by random traffic.
• many assets also provide a potential influence loss only, so if you own all assets, you are also the only target of certain negative influence missions.

generally my experience: a system, where all factions own something is by far easier to manage than a system, where all assets are controlled by the controlling faction. the latter are more volatile.

You speak truth in systems that have many assets but in a system that only has around 3 assets for example it's better to own them all especially if the other factions in the system are just NPC factions.

 

[Ned Flandalorian]

If you want to prevent all conflicts in your system it's best to own all assets in the system since to cause a conflict one of the faction has to own something. If the controlling faction owns everything conflicts are impossible amongst the others.

I can't see how this can possibly be true.
If a new faction expands into a system it owns nothing but can definitely cause conflicts.
If a faction was required to hold an asset to trigger a conflict, and assets can only change hands via conflicts, the BGS would grind to a halt in any system where one faction owned everything.

 

[Jmanis]

I can't see how this can possibly be true.
If a new faction expands into a system it owns nothing but can definitely cause conflicts.
If a faction was required to hold an asset to trigger a conflict, and assets can only change hands via conflicts, the BGS would grind to a halt in any system where one faction owned everything.

Not quite what was being said.

Having one faction own all assets means other factions without assets can't go into conflict with each other. They can still go to conflict with the controlling faction.

Explicitly, for a conflict to trigger, at least one of the side must hold an asset. [1]

So, if the controlling faction is the only one which owns assets, the other factions can only go into conflict with the controlling faction.

[1] this was a change made because the whole galaxy ground to a halt with factions going into near- permanent conflict for nothing. This is why preventing conflict between other factions can be other useful... if you're driving for expansion, it leaves only 30% to distribute among the remaining up to 6 factions... it's highly likely they'll enter conflict and lock up their influence, preventing expansion in that circumstance.

 

[Ned Flandalorian]

Yes, that makes sense. But what was said was "If you want to prevent all conflicts..." so I don't accept blame for misinterpreting it

 

[Nepeta Uchiha]

Sorry for not wording that better. I should of said "If you want to prevent conflicts in your system as a controlling faction your faction should own everything and stay well above second place." Now of course if someone invades the system a conflict will start since the asset on an invasion is the right to be in that system.

 

[Screemonster]

I've read somewhere (probably ED discord) that you can win a war (via space CZ) but lose a settlement by fighting for the opposing faction in the contested settlement.

Seems to be a strategy adopted by certain PMFs to maintain their influence in the system while discarding undesirable settlements.

it's also a key part of my anarchy settlement farming guide

 

[antoca]

Seems to be a strategy adopted by certain PMFs to maintain their influence in the system while discarding undesirable settlements.

Why do you want to discard settlements? This is nonsense. In future updates they may become somehow useful, and they also increase faction in-system richness.

 

[Screemonster]

Why do you want to discard settlements?

Because if you have a lot of them and you're, for instance, an anarchy, this means that every player in every system in a 20ly radius will take a big fat stack of missions to knock over every single settlement you have in one trip.

If you only have one settlement and they can't stack them, then this at least slows them down.

As for "somehow becoming useful", get back to me when horizons settlements do literally anything other than attract generator shutdown and hack missions that tank the owner's influence. Horizons has been out for how long and they're still nothing more than a millstone around the owner's neck?

 

[Nepeta Uchiha]

Just being a controlling faction is bad. Killing just one Security Vessel is far more damaging then a few missions that has someone shoot one generator.

 

[FrogsFriend]

As for "somehow becoming useful", get back to me when horizons settlements do literally anything other than attract generator shutdown and hack missions that tank the owner's influence. Horizons has been out for how long and they're still nothing more than a millstone around the owner's neck?

On the other hand, if you're not the system controller then they provide opportunities to trade (including in-system trade if you own several), hand in exploration data, generate faction-specific bounties, and because all the missions there are only from the owning faction they seem to generate lots of handy cash donation missions.

It's a shame they don't change hands in a similar way during elections too though.

EDIT - Ooops, talking about Oddysey Settlements rather than Horizons Settlements

 

[Jmanis]

On the other hand, if you're not the system controller then they provide opportunities to trade (including in-system trade if you own several), hand in exploration data, generate faction-specific bounties, and because all the missions there are only from the owning faction they seem to generate lots of handy cash donation missions.

It's a shame they don't change hands in a similar way during elections too though.

I mean, FD has always been pretty clear that station ownership was meant to be a double-edged sword, it's just more of a double edge to some than to others with, in some cases, no perceivable trade-off.

The non-dockable Horizons planetary outposts are nothing but pure liability; there is no benefit to owning these. Likewise, Odyssey settlements are very dangerous for an anarchy to own.

 

[Starsong]

So when calculating who gets the Odyssey settlement in a war, what does it use - the same day-per-day calculation as the overall war or just the total amount of battles fought in the settlement over the course of the war?

 

[Ned Flandalorian]

So when calculating who gets the Odyssey settlement in a war, what does it use - the same day-per-day calculation as the overall war or just the total amount of battles fought in the settlement over the course of the war?

Seems to be whoever won the most conflicts at the location over the course of the war (unless the settlement is explicitly listed as an objective for one of the sides).

Edit: I went looking for the official post made by Paul back when Odyssey was first released and then realized it's quoted in the opening post of this very thread