pending ("countdown") 5 days, active 5 days (if not cut short by a conflict), expansion happens on day 6.
A Guide to Minor Factions and the Background Sim
- Thread starter Walt Kerman
- Start date
pending ("countdown") 5 days, active 5 days (if not cut short by a conflict), expansion happens on day 6.
I am absolutely sure it was not mentioned in the retreat system. I'm going to check in its native system.
Certainly not.
Don't you know that the BGS is operated by a hamster in a wheel in Cambridge? Knowing this solves many mysteries.
Wasn't it the Doggo in the security room all along?
No I planned the timings so well once or twice. I use 0-day expansions really rarely, but it is possible.
raeat
Banned
Excellent. Well, not excellent, but thanks. At least I have some idea what to expect now.
It's weird the way the BGS is set up. The idea of wars being fought and settled in 3-5 days is kinda bizarre. But who wants to wait for a realistic amount of time, right? That might be worse than waiting for one's ship to transfer from a few hundred light years away... Wait! No! I didn't say that!
Excellent. Well, not excellent, but thanks. At least I have some idea what to expect now.
It's weird the way the BGS is set up. The idea of wars being fought and settled in 3-5 days is kinda bizarre. But who wants to wait for a realistic amount of time, right? That might be worse than waiting for one's ship to transfer from a few hundred light years away... Wait! No! I didn't say that!
Don't forget ... those 3 days of winning a War is the minimum duration, the max duration is still 28 unless it is interrupted. Again, maybe not completely realistic but I don't think any of us want realism when it comes to War duration. Dare I say look at a current Civ War in the Asia that is a constant media topic .... 6 years and running!
A conflict for one base, outpost or station isn't unrealistic at a few days. Total domination of a system, especially with a high population, can still take weeks or months.
It's 5. Best example would be the 50 years war against FARC in South America actually.
Either way, wars end quickly if you have a clear advantage, which in real life they would too. You just "won" by overpowering the enemy. They can always fight back. Maybe it should be called a "battle" not a "war" but it is fine.
It can last 28 days if the RNG is angry at you, but the longer it goes, the more likely it enters ceasefire.
During day 1 of ceasefire, both will autolock again. If you push Faction A, Faction B gets the same % increase. Only on day 2 and 3 before it goes hot can you seperate the two. I don't know which game mechanic is involved in this strange behavior, but I broke up some "long wars" in my time.
When you get that feeling its just not worth the time or effort ............
dynamicbob
Banned
An election was rigged so the minor faction could invade another system, i see nothing wrong with that
Hurrah for childish one-upmansip! I raise you Korea.
1. My post still contained topic related content afterwards, yours does not (spam).
2. North and South Korea are in CEASEFIRE, so it is a wrong attempt by you to add it as an ongoing war. No battles have been conducted aside of the shelling of the border island some years ago.
BTT:
Third day war pendings and election pendings have continued to be observed in 2.2. So people still have to be careful how and when they win a conflict to not stumble into the next with a disadvantage.
I just read your bug report. So apparently "There have been some changes made to the background sim in 2.2"
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/298262-BGS-War-Pending-during-War
Sadly no. It still behaves erratic like before. Loss day can pend, cooldown day for some reason CAN'T (inconsistency) but it can again on the first state/none day.
Mitch says the developers consider it "Working as Intended" for the time being. So not even consistency is allowed in our BGS...
Mitch says the developers consider it "Working as Intended" for the time being. So not even consistency is allowed in our BGS...
Working as intended can mean three things in my experience
1) it's working as intended, despite it making no sense
2) Mitch delays any response of meaningful knowledge, because they see the issue but they don't have a clue how to change it and have no intention of trying just yet if at all
3) they don't understand what your saying, and don't want to enter into a dialogue with you as they don't see it as game changer.
1) it's working as intended, despite it making no sense
2) Mitch delays any response of meaningful knowledge, because they see the issue but they don't have a clue how to change it and have no intention of trying just yet if at all
3) they don't understand what your saying, and don't want to enter into a dialogue with you as they don't see it as game changer.
Last edited:
I would give support the benefit of the doubt. We are probably more expert in the bgs than they are purely as they have so much else to deal with.
They have to communicate with the bgs or server team and edge case bgs problems can be a real pain to check and assess.
The bgs team have been responsive in patches and tweaks, but they don't always shout about it.
They have to communicate with the bgs or server team and edge case bgs problems can be a real pain to check and assess.
The bgs team have been responsive in patches and tweaks, but they don't always shout about it.
