Not sure where you got this opinion from or how old the information your statement is based on actually still is. Some people from my PP group who have a deep knowledge and long experience with reverse engineering, didn't even bother to hand in combat bonds anymore and yet are effectively winning wars by solving combat zones.
I do agree though that an official word from the devs about the issue would go a long way.
... and not to say CZs are now bug free - far from it! I've ran into a few rare bugs or inconsistencies just recently, though very hard to report as it's almost impossible to reproduce them.
So, if you re-read my post, you'll note I said it needs to give a
proportionate boost. Although again, I'm not convinced the influence effect is being counted, based on the fact the reputation effect *
does not* occur. That second bit about the reputation effects is most definitely true, and I'm currently participating in a war where I've had multiple CZ resolutions, and I'm still allied with no negative impact to reputation against the enemy.
But assuming CZs do count, again, emphasis on
proportionately. If a combat bond transaction counts for 1 point, what's a Low-CZ count for? 2 points? That's not adequate... I can more quickly do combat bond submissions than resolve a CZ with that comparison. Assuming a combat bond transaction is the lowest possible influencer and it's worth 1 "point"... a Low CZ should be worth at least 5. And based on my clearance rate for CZs, Medium should be 10 points and high is 20. It is next to impossible to verify that, and I highly doubt, given the various issues to-date with CZs, that anyone would have done it because it would either take at least a month of consistent effort. But based on my recent experiences with opposition in conflict, I'd suggest the relative score of CZs is much lower. We need validation of that.
On that note, there's numerous people saying that Missions now count. If that's 100% true, then FD have now introduced a bug. Missions were made to not count explicitly because massacre missions double-dipped influence effects with bonds. This is just further justification for removing any effects of submitting bonds. But while Bonds are still effective, what even is their effect? Is it still transactional? Or has it been fixed so that 1m in bonds is 10 times more effective than 100k in bonds. And in that case, again, how's it compare to CZ resolutions?
This is fairly common because some assume pre-3.3 rules are all still place. This is simply not true. Granted the BGS wasn't rebuilt from the ground up, all the new aspects alter the environment in such a way that classic mechanics are no longer viable on their own. Combat Zones are indeed the best way to win war (mileage may vary because bugs). Since 3.3 dropped, my faction has won every single war by winning CZs and turning in bonds, yet CZ victories are surely most important. I have tested this (accidentally) by soloing CZs for days in a war (my PMF is tiny) and not turning in bonds. Every . . . single . . . time, winning battles meant winning days. Supericially, the mechanics seem pretty straight forward: if I fight in 4 CZs and win 3, my PMF wins the day (assuming no player opposition) because my faction had more wins than NPC faction.
I don't doubt your observations, but challenge that your assessment is a "smoking gun". It is *impossible* to tell if there is outside influence affecting your outcomes, as you can fight a war and stay invisible to daily traffic reports if you never leave the system. But again, there is no information about the efficacy of clearing CZs and their proportional impact on bonds, and I have numerous examples where I've overcome the effects of, say, a low CZ, with a small handful of bond submissions for the other side.
For clarity. I'm not saying CZs don't count, just suggesting that CZs don't count enough... because hitting on your next comment:
Will's post also states that CZs are the "obvious" way to win, which basically means they are the surest and best way.
It's not the first time FD would've said certain things are meant to have an effect, and haven't.... so says years of flavour text for war missions saying it'll help, when they don't.
Historically they have not but this update fixes that as long as they are combat missions. My PMF actually started war today with the update and the mission board is populated with "war effort" missions in the conflict system, something we haven't encountered before. Maybe that's coincidence or the update included more obvious missions. /me shrugs
It's highly likely your PMF was suffering from this bug, which was present from 2017 til late last year:
https://forums.frontier.co.uk/showthread.php/410124-Still-no-War-theme-missions-when-in-a-War-state
War-themed missions have been in the game for a long time, and have never had an effect.
Thing is, everything you've said is, for sure, how the game *should* work. But given the lengthy history of things simply not working that way, and frankly, how off-mark some of the big groups were with their bugreporting, compared to Will's assessment here, I take a grain of salt with everything people observe (even my own observations).
For any confidence, FD *must* confirm what specific activities will have an effect, and which won't, for the given states (just like the whole, incorrect, "selling biowaste on the commodities market causes outbreak" claims). Just that as a minimum would work, because statements like this:
(subject to the usual rules of combat actions affecting War and Civil War and non-combat actions affecting Elections).
While sounding all well and good, fall apart when you realise "Missions" count as non-combat, so an Assassination or Massacre mission works for Elections, but not for War.
