Expansion!

I had an interesting conversation with a faction yesterday, they stated that expansion in to other players systems was not a threatening move and that cohabitation of players systems is the way forward.

What do other BGS players think about this, is it a good concept or will it lead to conflict in the future?

Personally I thought they were using it as an excuse for their expansion efforts.
 
I had an interesting conversation with a faction yesterday, they stated that expansion in to other players systems was not a threatening move and that cohabitation of players systems is the way forward.

What do other BGS players think about this, is it a good concept or will it lead to conflict in the future?

Personally I thought they were using it as an excuse for their expansion efforts.

We have done this for years. It's known as 1st there claims system, 2nd there does not. There is a separate section covering Powerplay systems.
 
Depends on how much you trust them. A friendly #2 PMF can help your guard the system against invasion and they get to claim the loose starports in the system, if any. Maintaning a secondary position is a bit more work, in my experience, and that can lead to a temptation to take the system over.
 
As the bubble fills up, then your choice is likely to become not whether you have a second PMF in your systems, but which it is. Obviously if you don't trust this one you can try to make it someone else.

Out in Colonia we've had long-term stable systems with 7 PMFs, so it can work if everyone sees the benefit in not pushing it.
 

_trent_

Volunteer Moderator
Trust is certainly one factor to consider but a more important one is the relative sizes of the PMF. Sooner or later the system is going to be controlled by the larger faction, and the bigger the difference in size, the quicker that is likely to happen. Even in the rare occasion where the larger faction doesn't end up taking the system over, the smaller faction usually ends up having to negotiate (for that, read 'ask permission') from the larger faction if they want to take over an asset or go for expansion, or push out a non-native faction etc.

As Ian said, as time goes on it will become a matter of when, rather than if, another PMF will arrive in your system(s). This is because FD added the invasion mechanic a couple of years back which made it impossible to protect your systems by keeping 7 factions in them, and subsequently they also added randomness to the length of time retreats and expansions take which makes it much harder to control which expansion will end up where if there is more than one expansion going on within a cube.

Our faction never intentionally invade a system with another PMF and when it has happened (usually as a result of expanding sooner or later than intended) we always lose the invasion war and leave the other group in peace. So far every faction who has accidentally entered one of our systems has agreed to allow their invasions to fail too.
 
Last edited:
I had an interesting conversation with a faction yesterday, they stated that expansion in to other players systems was not a threatening move and that cohabitation of players systems is the way forward.

What do other BGS players think about this, is it a good concept or will it lead to conflict in the future?

Personally I thought they were using it as an excuse for their expansion efforts.
Hey Fozz, our faction is in the middle of imperial space and so other factions move into systems we control ALL THE TIME. As MrJupp and others have said, we make peace treaties so that the 1st one in can have control and the second does not.
The fact that they contacted you is a good sign as otherwise it could easily be a hostile move.
We find the diplomacy will other factions all part of the fun.... apart from when it goes wrong of course....
GOOD LUCK!
 
For our faction and any relationships it maintains, we generally just carve up the galaxy around us with a broad set of rules, and some hard delimiters, grouped as follows:
  • Contested systems when we're the controller, and the other party is the expanding party
  • Contested systems when the other party controls, and we're the expanding party
  • Contested systems where neither party controls, but has presence
  • Miscellaneous rules

KISS applies heavily with this. An example agreement might look something like this. Pretend Liz Ryder is a power, who requires Cooperative and Anarchy independent factions in control. We're an imperial dictatorship though. Suddenly, Liz Ryder gets a control system enveloping our domain, and we're approached by a faction who puts power-relevant factions in control. The arrangement we will come to might be something like:

  • Our owned systems of A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H are off-limits to changes of ownership, even though they're in Liz Ryder's influence. Liz Ryder's control system is likewise unchangeable.
  • If we're the controller of a system in Liz's domain, we'll passively relinquish if there's a Liz-favoured faction (i.e we'll just stop supporting), if not we'll maintain control.
  • If we're coming in to a system with a faction supporting Liz, we'll agree only to take non-controlling assets, and try to position as a "buffer" faction and otherwise maintain a non-retreat state.
  • If nobody controls and there's a Liz-favoured faction within Liz's domain, we won't actively push for control. If it's not within liz's sphere, it's our turf.
  • Miscellaneous: We'll never actively work against our own faction in support of these rules, we'll only cease support of our own faction.

What eventually happens in most cases is there's overlap where we've basically both mutually agreed "we don't care what happens here"... so our factions may enter conflict... either side can support or not as they see fit at the time with no diplomatic consequence.

As you can see, these rules are mostly focused around conflict and control, rather than expansion, which our stance is basically "If we fits, we sits". A fundamental is we control desirable systems with synergies between them to exploit passive (unaligned) traffic. In that regard, we have far less control over when we do and do not expand; it's inevitable thanks to passive traffic, and we can't control that, so we'll be happy co-habitants, but won't apologise for growth, inconvenient or not.
 
Our policy is always to retreat from systems controlled by other squadrons. We don't demand that other PMFs retreat from our systems, but we do not share assets. In the event of an invasion (which is the only way to get into one of our systems), we would expect the invader to self-oppose to exit the system. If they weren't keen, we would oppose for them. If they had an issue with that, we would take that as hostile.
 
Last edited:
The hardest part is usually deciding where boundaries are.

Personally I tend to play with a 20ly control rule. Space around me tends to allow that.
Systems within 20ly of my home system I want to control, but outside that I leave it up to chance/opportunity.
I also respect that 20ly around others' homes. I don't aim to control their turf, as I don't want them to mess in mine.
As for assets in the system, its give and take, tho I prefer to keep what I got and not mess around splitting what's already settled.

Sometimes it can't be helped, as I am an older PMF and have controlled some systems since long before some neighbors got inserted into the galaxy.
So I'll just let them get what they want as they grow, so long as they are willing to respect that fence line.

Other than that, there never usually is trouble so long as you determine who's in charge of a system and basically agree not to bump influence intentionally.
 
To me it seems the trickiest thing is how to stop random traffic from interfering in any "treaties", since any such "treaty" is entirely outside the actual mechanism of the game.

Example: Suppose I'm just flying about the place in my horrifyingly beweaponed space-battleship, far from my "home sphere", and encounter a war for system control between a Fed and an Indie faction. Suppose I'll decide to stop, and push the Feds to victory, not because I particularly care about the Feds, or the fate of that system, but just because I hate Indies and desire to expunge the colour yellow from the Allegiance map. But suppose that, unknown to me, the two factions are being supported by player groups, who have signed a "treaty" that the Feds should lose the war. How's my efforts to "undermine" a treaty I'm not even aware of, going to look to the Indies who are expecting an easy win? It might look like the sneaky Feds have gone against their word, but they haven't - it's just an ignorant third party meddling in their affairs.

There is no way in-game for the two player groups to communicate to me the existence of their "treaty". And no way to make me care about it, even if I become aware (by happening to notice a forum post, for example). This game's structure is not amenable to treaty-making and treaty-keeping. War and conflict are the natural state of each faction towards every other faction, where Darwinistic "might makes right" is the only enforceable rule.
 
To me it seems the trickiest thing is how to stop random traffic from interfering in any "treaties", since any such "treaty" is entirely outside the actual mechanism of the game.
Yup, that's why all my agreements do nothing to prevent our expansion/presence in systems, nor any impetus for us to actively work against our own faction.

If we did that, we'd never actually support our own faction ever, so great is the effect of "passive" traffic these days.
 
I will also say this, as it has been mentioned elsewhere. Communication. Vital in any region of space. On three occasions back to back we watched as player groups were inserted without concern, until they went on a runaway expansion rampage. On all three occasions, we suppressed their BGS completely, until we were satisfied they could expand responsibly.
 
Back
Top Bottom