Election and Terrorism

[Dommarraa]

We had an Election and Terrorism Attack start on the same tick. Winning the election is a piece of cake, but we are losing 2% per day on our opponent despite inf lock, and could end up winning but being lower inf than the loser.

Will this continue?
Are there any buckets to fill to stop it?
Is this just another bgs bug that we will live with till it gets replaced by another bug?

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Terrorism seems to have a fixed length of 3 days, so the +4/-4 from winning should still leave you higher afterwards. Countering the econ/security drain it causes should still be possible, though.

I assume the drain taking place through a conflict is a bug, but it sure makes it easier to tell what direct influence effects the new states have!

 

[Dommarraa]

It's wierd. We had it for just 1 day, the first day of the election, it's gone now. I must have been looking while the tick was still processing. Days calculated, states not updated.

So only a 2% gap, so no problem.

 

[Jmanis]

I assume the drain taking place through a conflict is a bug, but it sure makes it easier to tell what direct influence effects the new states have!

Nah, not a bug... at least, it's "normal behavior" in that it consistently happens for any of the states which drain influence. Seen it happen pretty often.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Nah, not a bug... at least, it's "normal behavior" in that it consistently happens for any of the states which drain influence. Seen it happen pretty often.

Oh, it's been consistently happening since 3.6 (re)added direct influence effects for states - but whether those effects should be able to break apart a conflict pair is less clear.

 

[Jmanis]

Tangentially.... these new states are overall, a bit limp imo.

My faction suffered it's first terrorism attacks recently, and, well, i didn't change my behavior. Maybe it's because i see famine/ civil unrest as opportunities rather than hindrances... so decay of those bars is generally of no import for me... and given my strategy is wholly about exploiting passive traffic, variations up and down of over 1-2% are normal and not call for response. But i will go out of my way for famine, outbreak and civil unrest... boom and expansion.... meh.

The lack of flavored missions and uss are what really crunch it for me... rocking up to the station under terrorist attack and seeing BAU nonestate/boom missions is just pretty jarring. I really hope FD will actually create stateful content for these soon.

 

[FrogsFriend]

If the two sides in a war/election both have other concurrent states that, for one side knocks down their influence e.g. Pirate Attack, and for the other increases their influence e.g. Public Holiday, could they then end up with the winner on lower influence?

 

[Dommarraa]

If the two sides in a war/election both have other concurrent states that, for one side knocks down their influence e.g. Pirate Attack, and for the other increases their influence e.g. Public Holiday, could they then end up with the winner on lower influence?

Yes, even 1 draining state is enough if it lasts long enough. Our Terrorism only lasted 1 day, so only fell 1.8% behind (we lost 1%, enemy gained 1%, and some rounding errors) but with the full 3 days, we would have had to run he conflict again.
Didnt know Public Holiday gave +1%, but as you can see, thats not even nessessary.