Controlling the point at which war breaks out

I’ve been dipping my toes into the deep well of the BGS in recent weeks and am trying to turn a small, backwater system on its head as a learning process.

I found a system that was controlled by a Confederacy faction from another system, had four native factions (one Anarchy, one Democracy, one Dictatorship and one Corporate,) another non-native Democracy faction and a small Corporate player faction that appeared from all the research I could gather to no longer be playing. The player faction was a distant second place to the controlling faction, the anarchy faction at around 2% influence and the others around the 10% influence mark. The closest station is an Outpost controlled by the anarchy faction and has a IF, the main station is owned by the controlling faction (obviously…I guess) and is a Coriolis station without an IF (controlling faction being a Confederacy.) All factions are independent except the native Democratic faction which is aligned to the Federation. Traffic is very low, according to EDSM only 180 ships have passed through since it was first visited (by EDSM contributors) and the traffic report says only the odd ship passes through every few days.

My idea was to try and take the native Corporate faction from third from bottom to become the controlling faction through various elections and wars etc. Unfortunately due to real life I haven’t played for several weeks and had left the system with ’my guys’ sitting comfortably in second place but without being too close for a war to be a danger. Unfortunately war has since broken out and I’m not in a position to get in game for more than 20-30 minutes a day to help push through a victory.

What I‘ve learned is that a War state appears to be a magnet for Cmdrs as the traffic report shows x3 Anancondas, x2 Krait MKIIs and a few other ships suddenly in system. I’ve also learned that Cmdrs would seemingly far prefer to take the side of a Confederacy with a name including the word ‘Revolutionary’ than work for a native faction that wears corporate colours.

What I haven’t learned is whether there is a ‘best way’ to control the balance of power between the two with a few simple missions so that things don’t change until I’m ready to go ‘all in.’ Would it be as simple as taking missions with the same or similar INF for each side? Would they need to be the same types of missions to avoid any hidden INF differences?

Also, is war the hardest state to control? I’m aware that they can end quite quickly or drag on for a long time, far exceeding elections, and I’m not sure if I’m being a fool trying to control the outcome myself even if the system is normally very quiet.

Apologies if this is kindergarten level BGS stuff for you all - it’s actually hooked me pretty quickly but understanding the mechanics can feel like one step forward and two back at times.
 
What I haven’t learned is whether there is a ‘best way’ to control the balance of power between the two with a few simple missions so that things don’t change until I’m ready to go ‘all in.’ Would it be as simple as taking missions with the same or similar INF for each side? Would they need to be the same types of missions to avoid any hidden INF differences?
TBH, I wouldn't over-think it. If it's a low-traffic system, then if you go to war, you go to war. I don't really think the faction being a Confederacy really plays into it, unless:
  • It's a system within the influence of a Power who needs Confederacy, in which case they'll only come out of the woodwork when a war kicks off.
  • It's a Federal confederacy, which are the lion's share of Confederacies out there.
  • It might be a player faction

Feds in particular are easymode for conflict zones, so for anyone casually farming rep/credits by conflict zones, they're a good choice.

But if interest only stirs up during war, then just go to war. Once it's done, they'll move on, and if you just keep doing your thing, you'll start war again. Eventually enough, anyone jumping in to fight the war for the other side will ineivitably;
  • Stop, because whatever rank/credit target they had is done; or
  • They'll just get tired of constantly having to patch the hole and just let it happen . A single, persistent commander can really play havoc on a large group trying to control a large swath of terrain, and so it's easier to just concede one system than draw effort from dozens elsewhere.

Also, is war the hardest state to control? I’m aware that they can end quite quickly or drag on for a long time, far exceeding elections, and I’m not sure if I’m being a fool trying to control the outcome myself even if the system is normally very quiet.
There's no difference duration-wise between war and the other conflict states.

All conficts are a best-of-max-seven-ticks affair, don't go longer than 7 ticks, and will short-circuit when the outcome is set in stone, i.e
One side on "Total Victory" with 2 or less days left
One side on "Victory" with 1 day or less left.

This is the same regardless of War, Civil War or Election.

WRT "hardest to control".... I guess it depends on what you mean.

Arguably, war/civil war is the best-known state, and is the 'easiest' to control, since you just go out, fight in CZs, come back, pretty straightforward. Contrast against Elections where it might be faster to run missions, depending on what missions are around, or it might be best to trade, if you have a market for one of the factions, etc..

However, war/civil war is the state of choice for rank-farmers. If your system gets spotted as a good place to grind rank for a faction, that'll work really bad against you (or for you, depending on who/what is the target). I once had a system I was working go from <10 daily players to over 100, because I went to war with a Federal faction and the system got spotted as being good for Federal rank farming and posted to reddit. So in that sense, it's hard.

But in a general sense, it's no less or more difficult to control than any other conflict state.
 
TBH, I wouldn't over-think it. If it's a low-traffic system, then if you go to war, you go to war. I don't really think the faction being a Confederacy really plays into it, unless:
  • It's a system within the influence of a Power who needs Confederacy, in which case they'll only come out of the woodwork when a war kicks off.
  • It's a Federal confederacy, which are the lion's share of Confederacies out there.
  • It might be a player faction
Thanks for your info @Jmanis - literally every bit of information is helping me to form a picture of what the hell is happening around me.

With regard to the highlighted section quoted above, I may be being a little dim here but; what Power would need Confederacy? There’s so much around the BGS (and Powerplay) that I still don’t understand as I haven’t interacted with it in a truly conscious way…even after four years of playing.
 
generally for controlling influence deltas:

the same action increases a faction of lower influence more than a faction of higher influence. so same input for both factions lead to the delta getting smaller.

and gains of influence are distributed as losses relativ to influence.

in effect you have to put in relatively more to the higher influence faction to keep the delta. just how much more depends on influence levels (and succession of calculation of different types, and state effects), but a good ballpark is simple the relative between both factions.
e.g. 25% and 50% = 1:2 - put in double for the faction of 50% to keep the 25% delta.

now that "double" isn't the double of actions, but the double of the actions influence effect ("points"). 8 mio in bounties isn't double as effective than 4 mio in bounties.

you see it gets very complicated fast.

there is also the question of "how much delta", which is down to max influence change. if you want to make sure no war happens, you want the delta being higher than max influence change plus the loss the other faction gets distributed by the others gain.

so yeah ... a better tactic than all this math is either to fight the war as it happens, or to create an activity plateau. as the higher influence factions need to "overcome" the lower influence faction gains you can keep a system quite stabile by input for all factions, for exampel a single mission for each or most.
 
generally for controlling influence deltas:

the same action increases a faction of lower influence more than a faction of higher influence. so same input for both factions lead to the delta getting smaller.

and gains of influence are distributed as losses relativ to influence.

in effect you have to put in relatively more to the higher influence faction to keep the delta. just how much more depends on influence levels (and succession of calculation of different types, and state effects), but a good ballpark is simple the relative between both factions.
e.g. 25% and 50% = 1:2 - put in double for the faction of 50% to keep the 25% delta.

now that "double" isn't the double of actions, but the double of the actions influence effect ("points"). 8 mio in bounties isn't double as effective than 4 mio in bounties.

you see it gets very complicated fast.

there is also the question of "how much delta", which is down to max influence change. if you want to make sure no war happens, you want the delta being higher than max influence change plus the loss the other faction gets distributed by the others gain.

so yeah ... a better tactic than all this math is either to fight the war as it happens, or to create an activity plateau. as the higher influence factions need to "overcome" the lower influence faction gains you can keep a system quite stabile by input for all factions, for exampel a single mission for each or most.
istockphoto-1067296712-612x612.jpg


I can see this is going to be a long haul...and that maybe I'm not as bright as I hoped I was:) Appreciate all the help, it's certainly opened the game up for me after four years of mooching around
 
Usually the faction that shows up on the top of the side chooser gets the most random player support because humans are smooth brain and just pick whomever is first regardless. My PMF always has this issue since more times than not we're 2nd on the chooser which makes us have to club many seals then explain what they did wrong lol
 
View attachment 315613

I can see this is going to be a long haul...and that maybe I'm not as bright as I hoped I was:) Appreciate all the help, it's certainly opened the game up for me after four years of mooching around
it's actually more easy with exampels. i'll take math and numbers from my last test on bounty hunting '21 - its still good to demonstrate the principles.

Exampel 1: "A Faction of Higher Influence gains less from the same action than a faction from lower influence":

Exampel System EX1

TICK 0

CF (controlling faction) EX1 Democrats: 45%
Dominion of EX1: 25%
Delta 20%
(+ 5 more factions we don't care about)

We redeem 1 Mio in Bounties for CF EX1 Democrats.

TICK 1:
EX1 Democrats: 49,03% (+4,03)

Now we turn the clock back to TICK 0...

TICK 0

CF (controlling faction) EX1 Democrats: 45%
Dominion of EX1: 25%

We redeem 1 Mio in Bounties for Dominion of EX1.

TICK 1:
Dominion of EX1: 30,49% (+5,49)

as you can see, from the same action (redeeming 1 Mio of bounties) the lower influence faction gains more (+5,49) than the higher influence faction (+4,03).

Exampel 2: "Gains are distributed as losses relativ to Factions influence"

TICK 0

CF (controlling faction) EX1 Democrats: 45%
Dominion of EX1: 25%
Delta 20%

We redeem 1 Mio in Bounties for Dominion of EX1.

TICK 1:
EX1 Democrats: 41,71% (-3,29)
Dominion of EX1: 30,49% (+5,49)
Delta: 11,21 (-8,79)

as we have seen, Dominion of EX1 gains +5,49 - but these 5,49 have to come from somewhere, as influence adds up to 100%.

So we calculate the relative influence of EX1 Democrats. Without Dominion of EX1 25% there are 75% influence in system, of which EX1 Democrats have 45%. 45/75*100 is 60, so 60% of Dominions of EX1 gains are distributed as losses to EX1 Democrats.

5,49*0,6 = 3,29.

now we imagine different influence levels. CF has not 45% but 65%.

TICK 0

CF (controlling faction) EX1 Democrats: 65%
Dominion of EX1: 25%
Delta: 40%

We redeem 1 Mio in Bounties for Dominion of EX1.

TICK 1:
EX1 Democrats: 60,24% (-4,76)
Dominion of EX1: 30,49% (+5,49)
Delta 29,75 (-10,25)

Dominion of EX1 gains same as before (+5,49), but EX1 Democrats looses more, as they have more of the remaining influence in system.

Exampel 3: "Same actions for both factions lead to the delta getting smaller"

TICK 0

CF (controlling faction) EX1 Democrats: 45%
Dominion of EX1: 25%
Delta 20%

We redeem 1 Mio in Bounties for BOTH CF EX1 Democrats and Dominion of EX1:

  • CF EX1 Democrats would gain +4,03. Of those 4,03 come from Dominion of EX1: -1,83
  • Dominion of Ex1 would gain +5,49. Of those +5,49 come from EX1 Democrats: -3,29
  • a straight sum of above would predict EX1 Democrats +0,74%, Dominion of EX1: +3,66.
  • but as the total of actions goes up (2* 1 Mio Bounties for different factions instead of once 1 Mio of Bounties ), this is not a straight sum of aboves single actions. Basically both factions already gain less from their 1 mio bountie redeem, because the total number of shifted "points" goes up.

TICK 1

CF (controlling faction) EX1 Democrats: 45,68% (+0,68)
Dominion of EX1: 28,41% (+3,41)
Delta: 17,27% (-2,73)

There you can already see that actions for all faction is a good way to reduce the effect of any action in system.

Exampel 4: Double actions does not mean double effectiveness of actions.

A 1 Mio Bounty redeem gains a faction ~7,9 points.
A 2 Mio Bounty redeem gains you 10,3 points.
If you want to counter a 1 Mio Bounty redeem for Dominion of EX1 (7,9 Points) at 25% and EX1 Democrats at 45%, so the delta stays at 20%, you need to redeem Bounties worth 11,9 points. Which is around 3 Mio.

If you want to counter a 2 Mio redeem for Dominion of EX1 (10,3 Points), so the delta stays at 20%, you need to redeem Bounties worth 15 points. Which is around 8 Mio.

And these numbers get more and more crazy with higher delta or higher influence levels or more bounties redeemed, as the influence gain from bounties basically caps out at 8 mio.

Which is the reason why it is really usefull to pull many different levers to get around the diminishing returns of same actions.


Exampel 5: How much delta is needed?

taking the max influence change from this thread: https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/influence-caps-gains-and-the-wine-analogy.423837/
you can calculate the maximum influence gain for Dominion of EX1 at 25% if you know the population size.

System EX1
Population 50k

TICK 0

CF (controlling faction) EX1 Democrats: 45%
Dominion of EX1: 25%
Delta 20%

the maximum Dominion of EX1 can gain in a single tick with this influence level and population size is +12,7%.
Of those 12,7% 7,6% come fromt he controlling faction.
So the delta can get 20,32% smaller - basically a delta of 20% is too small to make sure, that a random player does not trigger conflict if he for exampel runs massacre missions from EX1 to SECONDUS, which is controlled by Dominion of EX1. This looks massively different if the population is higher, or if you make any input for the other factions.


None of this fancy math - which is all roundabout for the actual points you gain from an action, as well as the max influence change, as both can only be tested so far in game - is necessary to play the BGS successfully.
but i hope it sheds light on the very basic principles:
1. A faction of higher influence gains less from the same action than a faction of lower influence (and vice versa).
2. Gains are distributed as losses relative to system influence (and vice versa).
3. Actions for factions reduce the effectiveness of any action for one faction.

each principle is simple in itself, it just gains complexity by connection.
 
Last edited:
@goemon thank you so much for taking the time to lay that out so clearly. I love the fact this game has so many willing to test it’s very fabric and then present it to others in a clear and open manner. Huge rep to you and the others in the threads you linked (which I will be reading fully,) as well as others who’ve contributed here.

The wine analogy was particularly helpful. 🍷

I‘ll have a good read through of the threads you’ve linked to and I’m also slowly making my way through the BGS Index, unfortunately there seem to be a few dead links there but I suppose that will be natural with each update and FDevs behind the scenes tinkering.
 
I‘ll have a good read through of the threads you’ve linked to and I’m also slowly making my way through the BGS Index, unfortunately there seem to be a few dead links there but I suppose that will be natural with each update and FDevs behind the scenes tinkering.

Hey there Rock Hunter, welcome to the BGS. When my group does go to war we call it "the battle of ....... station" etc. We like stories and even write a history of them. See our history at https://inara.cz/squadron-documents/793/131/
 
There’s an impressive amount of work and detail gone into your Inara squadron account @Marcus Machiavelli.
Thanks (coming up on 7 years now?) and this is another way of playing the BGS, this narrative style, where we do not worry too much about the math but focus on the cool stories that happen with us pushing our faction around and others pushing back.

Are you going to adopt that faction for yourself? Make a home to fight for? A place to make your stand?
 
Last edited:
I’ve been playing for a little over four years now and in all that time I’ve wandered around the place. I’ve Allied to many factions in that time, including the one I’m trying to topple right now, purely as a by-product of running missions, trading etc but I’ve never settled in a system or even area for all that long. My current plan was just to try and learn and experiment in a quiet system to get a feel for how things work and what‘s needed to make shifts in the balance of power so the system and factions were chosen only on that basis.

I must admit to having a ‘feeling’ for the faction, and the system, I’m pushing now after a few weeks or investing time and energy with them, which has surprised me a bit. However, from a lore or personal narrative aspect I can’t say that they’re a faction I will settle on long term.

I think at least initially I’ll float around and drop in ‘The A-Team’ * style to rescue factions from tyranny, force out the big boys and give the little guy a chance - no doubt ignoring large player factions entirely as that would seem pointless as a single player. Eventually I can very much see myself settling somewhere that does feel right and either adopt a faction (npc or player) that appeals to me when the time, place and group feels right.

I‘ve been a single player using Open virtually all of my time in Elite, in all that time I’ve often wanted to join with other players but finding those that play at similar times, have similar interests but don’t hold you to a strict play schedule has left me with mostly random encounters and the odd hour or two of winging up.

Hopefully a greater connection to the BGS than I’ve had before may lead me further along that path than I’ve been before. I’m ‘end-game’ (daft term in Elite, I know) in terms of ‘achievements’ (Engineering, ships, credits etc etc) so I‘m really just at a point where I’ve been drawn to the deeper end of the pool; namely Lore and mechanics.

…..sorry, ended up being quite a wall of text!

* Just in case you’re a lot younger than I am…or didn’t watch rubbish on TV
The A Team
 
Back
Top Bottom