A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim

[SaliVader]

the countermeasures are, that a faction won't retreat from a system <4 minor factions.

That's not true, there used to be 4 factions in this system and 2 retreated while we were building up influence to challenge the controlling faction.

EDIT: I have a question, by the way. Is it true that the 5% gap needed to win a war only counts after the conflict triggers? For example, if you have a factions match at 10%, then one of the factions goes up to 20% before the war starts. Would I need to bring it to 25% to win, or will that war be won by itself with no need to fight in it?

 

[jimbeau1571]

That's not true, there used to be 4 factions in this system and 2 retreated while we were building up influence to challenge the controlling faction.

EDIT: I have a question, by the way. Is it true that the 5% gap needed to win a war only counts after the conflict triggers? For example, if you have a factions match at 10%, then one of the factions goes up to 20% before the war starts. Would I need to bring it to 25% to win, or will that war be won by itself with no need to fight in it?

Won without a fight, unless that changed with 2.2

 

[goemon]

That's not true, there used to be 4 factions in this system and 2 retreated while we were building up influence to challenge the controlling faction.

"- Factions can no longer retreat if fewer than 3 factions would remain in that star system"

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/276723-2-1-05-update-incoming

so, before 2.1.05 - yes, possible. after 2.1.05: bug.

 

[dynamicbob]

"- Factions can no longer retreat if fewer than 3 factions would remain in that star system"

https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/276723-2-1-05-update-incoming

so, before 2.1.05 - yes, possible. after 2.1.05: bug.

frontier fix bugs, and sometiems the bugs remain. More testing and reporting might be needed, i sometimes think they need to really dig into the background sim or add more features just because it seems fiddling on the surface leads to things being missed.

 

[SaliVader]

It may be possible that both retreat states started while there were still 4 factions in the system. I wonder if we could get around this measure to have a single faction system...

 

[Schlack]

There's often some legacy issues when the bgs changes. I recall when cooldowns were reduced, those states that had started remained on the old values until they were cleared off.

 

[Shintai]

I wonder if factions can still vanish. The Keries Camorra for example is not in the home system.

 

[goemon]

I wonder if factions can still vanish. The Keries Camorra for example is not in the home system.

from my understanding, they would be re-injected to their homesystem, if they would retreat from their last expansion system... but that is untested as far as i know.

 

[Schlack]

from my understanding, they would be re-injected to their homesystem, if they would retreat from their last expansion system... but that is untested as far as i know.

+1

Although you would think logically that factions (like nations) could disintegrate and new factions rise. Probably for the best such a mechanic isn't in game - can you imagine the fury if a player faction was destroyed?

 

[Shintai]

+1

Although you would think logically that factions (like nations) could disintegrate and new factions rise. Probably for the best such a mechanic isn't in game - can you imagine the fury if a player faction was destroyed?

We kinda need this. A way to cleanup dead player factions (I have already seen plenty). Not to mention a healthy shakeup in the NPC factions. Since there is already a minimum of 3 factions in place. It cant be that bad to implement. It would also fuel the potential of new power players.

- - - Updated - - -

from my understanding, they would be re-injected to their homesystem, if they would retreat from their last expansion system... but that is untested as far as i know.

As far as I can check, they exist nowhere.

 

[Gemai]

So aside of the terrible balance and bug issues FD graces us with 2.2, let's talk about a hidden new feature they didn't disclose:

Vassal Systems

What do I mean?

If a faction expands too much and doesn't own said systems, or if they own stations in systems of other governments, once it reaches a tipping point, the entire galaxy map possesions turn over to that government in PP.
That means one doesn't need to conquer all "anarchy" systems if one just subdues most of theirs.

Seen with Khemaraui and its two "colonies" which turned communist upon capturing their main system.
Seen with ToC and its two last systems after conquering 4273 and subduing them in two other communist systems of 6369 and Kureserians. All their systems are now shown as communist.

 

[Schlack]

So aside of the terrible balance and bug issues FD graces us with 2.2, let's talk about a hidden new feature they didn't disclose:

Vassal Systems

What do I mean?

If a faction expands too much and doesn't own said systems, or if they own stations in systems of other governments, once it reaches a tipping point, the entire galaxy map possesions turn over to that government in PP.
That means one doesn't need to conquer all "anarchy" systems if one just subdues most of theirs.

Seen with Khemaraui and its two "colonies" which turned communist upon capturing their main system.
Seen with ToC and its two last systems after conquering 4273 and subduing them in two other communist systems of 6369 and Kureserians. All their systems are now shown as communist.

What? Im sorry, but I don't quite understand.

 

[Sentenza]

from my understanding, they would be re-injected to their homesystem, if they would retreat from their last expansion system... but that is untested as far as i know.

No I already saw it happen.

- - - Updated - - -

What? Im sorry, but I don't quite understand.

I don't understand either. How can possessions "turn over to that government in PP"? PP powers are not BGS minor factions.

 

[Schlack]

No I already saw it happen.

Interesting what kind of effect did it have on influence levels when that faction came home?

Did it enter the system at a similar level to expansion (7.5% or so) or does it slink back home like a bedraggled tom cat after a night on the tiles at 1%?

 

[Sentenza]

Interesting what kind of effect did it have on influence levels when that faction came home?

Did it enter the system at a similar level to expansion (7.5% or so) or does it slink back home like a bedraggled tom cat after a night on the tiles at 1%?

They in fact reappeared at 1%. I assume this is done to not upset the existing faction balance.

 

[Schlack]

Cool, tomcat it is!

Cheers.

 

[Gemai]

I don't understand either. How can possessions "turn over to that government in PP"? PP powers are not BGS minor factions.

In PP the "owner" of the system and its government affect the triggers. What is handed over is not the controlling station, but the ownership of the system. The subjected faction still owns the station, but the system officially acts as the other government in PP and on the galactic map.

 

[SaliVader]

So aside of the terrible balance and bug issues FD graces us with 2.2, let's talk about a hidden new feature they didn't disclose:

Vassal Systems

What do I mean?

If a faction expands too much and doesn't own said systems, or if they own stations in systems of other governments, once it reaches a tipping point, the entire galaxy map possesions turn over to that government in PP.
That means one doesn't need to conquer all "anarchy" systems if one just subdues most of theirs.

Seen with Khemaraui and its two "colonies" which turned communist upon capturing their main system.
Seen with ToC and its two last systems after conquering 4273 and subduing them in two other communist systems of 6369 and Kureserians. All their systems are now shown as communist.

I don't get it. Is this exclusive to Powerplay? Does this mean that if my faction is a democracy, the galmap will show the system as a democracy even if the controlling faction is an anarchy?

 

[Gemai]

I don't get it. Is this exclusive to Powerplay? Does this mean that if my faction is a democracy, the galmap will show the system as a democracy even if the controlling faction is an anarchy?

Yes, if most of the anarchists assets in foreign systems are subjected by you, the democracy.

For example:

Khemaraui ruled in its home system and the two colony systems nearby. Otohime subdued them. Now 3 of their main assets are below Otohime in Khemaraui, but they still own 2 in the others. Still those two were declared communists as well.

At that point we thought it might only be related to "colonies" if all your main systems are beaten.

Then came ToC:

After they lost the rule in HIP 4273 to the Communists, HIP 1672 and Synuefe GU-D D13-78 both turned communist. If it had been part of the "homeworld control" it would be patronage as Vesuvit was reconquered by the Patronage. But instead it turned communist. Yet two systems Toc is in are "ruled" by communists where they have assets (4273 and Kureserians). Other systems they are in also have partially communist governments (6369). So it seems their "government trigger" flipped to communism as most of their overlords are communist.

I don't quite understand the mechanic either, but it clearly resembles medieval feudalism. If you own assets in other systems of government without ruling them, you get "infected".

 

[Patau82]

Ît was fixed by FD. Otherwise you would drown in 100% and permaexpansion until you are in an investment trap. You won't get a one faction system anymore.

Can now confirm that this is wrong, expansions will start originating from another of your systems if you have one with 75% influence and systems within 20ly
Shame didnt know this before as we had the opportunity to have a 100% controlled system