Question about War/Civil War regarding effort required

[Deleted member 182079]

Having already won a war in a small system (180k population) I'm now involved in a civil war with the system controlling faction. I understand the overall concepts of how it works (mostly), but one thing I was wondering about is, what if I only participate very slightly in the conflict by contributing bonds, how does the game decide which faction will eventually win the war?

Reason I'm asking is, I'm not sure I want to grind away CZs for the next 3 days - the war started yesterday and I did a few CZs but am getting bored of that now and wouldn't mind doing something else instead, after having done the full 4 days against another faction last week I'm a bit worn out.

I don't think that I'm fighting against other players (judging from system traffic) although I guess that could change, but let's assume I'm the only player involved - the system is uncontrolled so no PP.

I'm supporting an anarchy and the controlling faction is Fed aligned. Would winning a few CZs be enough for the game tilt the conflict in favour of my faction even if I don't bother getting involved for the remainder of the conflict, is it a 50/50 chance of either winning each day, and how would the game determine that unless it's RNG?

 

[Dommarraa]

If there is zero traffic, you can win with a single CZ, bond, mission or bounty on day 1, and then let it run unattended for 7 days.
Guaranteeing zero traffic is not possible, so you just have to make sure that your side has 1 more action on any day than you guess the other side will get. And to win 1 more day out of the 7 than the other side.

There is no RNG. Either one side has more player actions than the other in any given day and wins that day, or they have the same actions and the day is a draw which nobody wins.

If it is a really low traffic system. You can do a CZ at the end of one tick, and hand in the bounties at the beginning of the next tick. That would be 2 days won, and you can then go off and do other things for 47 hours before coming back to repeat. If there is any traffic, then this wont work, the Feds would get some bounty hand ins at least.

 

[Dragsham]

Just do 3 a day for four days that should do it. Assuming no PP human intervention on opposing side. Boring yes but scan wakes and womble mats means u get something out of it..rep too if your working to combat elite

 

[Deleted member 182079]

If there is zero traffic, you can win with a single CZ, bond, mission or bounty on day 1, and then let it run unattended for 7 days.
Guaranteeing zero traffic is not possible, so you just have to make sure that your side has 1 more action on any day than you guess the other side will get. And to win 1 more day out of the 7 than the other side.

There is no RNG. Either one side has more player actions than the other in any given day and wins that day, or they have the same actions and the day is a draw which nobody wins.

If it is a really low traffic system. You can do a CZ at the end of one tick, and hand in the bounties at the beginning of the next tick. That would be 2 days won, and you can then go off and do other things for 47 hours before coming back to repeat. If there is any traffic, then this wont work, the Feds would get some bounty hand ins at least.

Thanks - so basically the wars fought out are normally purely player driven then? I didn't know this - so if no player gets involved the war ends in a draw, and starts again after the cooldown... because INF remains the same?

I'm basing my traffic estimates on checking the numbers over the past few weeks, apart from the odd AspX it was (most likely) just my own ships that frequented the place. It's not really an exciting system anywhere near anything interesting, which is why I chose it. Hopefully it stays that way.

Although - the system was updated yesterday on Inara, and I don't think that was my doing - presumably a player that is connected to the API caused it, hopefully one that doesn't want to get involved in the war.

Finally, it is fair to say that if my faction wins this, they will not only take control of the station that's noted in the 'news' section in the station menu, but also make the game an anarchy system, right? And the only way this would change would be players running missions or taking any other action in the system, right?

Only really getting involved with the BGS now after 5 years of pretty much ignoring it, so there's a lot to learn for me.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

Just do 3 a day for four days that should do it. Assuming no PP human intervention on opposing side. Boring yes but scan wakes and womble mats means u get something out of it..rep too if your working to combat elite

That's what I did last week - I get bored quite quickly doing the same task so I'm sort of longing for something else again, hence the OP. No need for mats (it seems CZs mostly spawn a limited number of them) or rank so I'm just doing this to flip a system, once of my few last boxes to tick on my bucket list.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Thanks - so basically the wars fought out are normally purely player driven then?

Everything that happens in the BGS happens because of player action and the collective direction of that.

(You could argue semantics over whether the tendency of the economic and security sliders to return to None is an effect of player action, an effect of player inaction, or an automated process. Still, the position of those sliders is purely deterministic based on what players have done in the system since 3.3)

Thanks - so basically the wars fought out are normally purely player driven then? I didn't know this - so if no player gets involved the war ends in a draw, and starts again after the cooldown... because INF remains the same?

In the event of an exact draw, the factions get separated in INF (it's not completely clear what decides which gets the increase) but no assets change hands.

Finally, it is fair to say that if my faction wins this, they will not only take control of the station that's noted in the 'news' section in the station menu, but also make the game an anarchy system, right? And the only way this would change would be players running missions or taking any other action in the system, right?

Correct.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

Everything that happens in the BGS happens because of player action and the collective direction of that.

(You could argue semantics over whether the tendency of the economic and security sliders to return to None is an effect of player action, an effect of player inaction, or an automated process. Still, the position of those sliders is purely deterministic based on what players have done in the system since 3.3)


In the event of an exact draw, the factions get separated in INF (it's not completely clear what decides which gets the increase) but no assets change hands.


Correct.

Thanks Ian, that's all quite interesting I was always under the impression that the game would do its own 'simulation' of faction activity in case there was no player interaction. I suppose it wouldn't really make a lot of sense from a dev viewpoint as it could be considered a waste of effort in terms of coding that whole process without potentially any player actually seeing (or benefiting from) it.

On your last point, I would probably let the current controlling faction get the nod in terms of increased INF, and just over the % thresholds that would trigger a war (if I understand that bit correctly there are certain trigger points in terms of the % delta between factions)... that's just me musing though from a common sense point of view - i.e. if controlling faction A is challenged by faction B and it's a draw why should B gain from it.

 

[Ian Doncaster]

On your last point, I would probably let the current controlling faction get the nod in terms of increased INF,

Separating them that way would make sense but I've seen cases where it's the other way instead.

and just over the % thresholds that would trigger a war (if I understand that bit correctly there are certain trigger points in terms of the % delta between factions)

This is a common mistake in BGS guides, probably caused by a misunderstanding of how influence and states are calculated and the effect of actively pushing a faction.

Factions will only enter a conflict if their influences cross over. The BGS will then instead start a conflict at the crossover point. They can hover 0.1% apart indefinitely in the absence of further activity with no conflict occurring ; likewise they can end up in a conflict having been >10% apart the previous day if they're pushed enough towards it.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

Separating them that way would make sense but I've seen cases where it's the other way instead.

Ah ok - maybe surrounding systems influence this also (say, faction A has control of most surrounding systems, but not the one in question, but gets the nod due to the former).

This is a common mistake in BGS guides, probably caused by a misunderstanding of how influence and states are calculated and the effect of actively pushing a faction.

Factions will only enter a conflict if their influences cross over. The BGS will then instead start a conflict at the crossover point. They can hover 0.1% apart indefinitely in the absence of further activity with no conflict occurring ; likewise they can end up in a conflict having been >10% apart the previous day if they're pushed enough towards it.

Yeah I read up on some (older) guides here and elsewhere, since things have changed a fair bit since 2017/2018 where most of them originate from it wouldn't surprise me. I did find it peculiar though how quickly I managed to trigger a war, twice in short succession, just by completing a bunch of INF+++++ missions for 'my' faction - I didn't do anything else but in fairness the system has a very low population.

Would love to see the number crunching under the hood but then again maybe it's best not knowing to keep a little bit of mystery alive!

 

[Ian Doncaster]

Yeah I read up on some (older) guides here and elsewhere, since things have changed a fair bit since 2017/2018 where most of them originate from it wouldn't surprise me. I did find it peculiar though how quickly I managed to trigger a war, twice in short succession, just by completing a bunch of INF+++++ missions for 'my' faction - I didn't do anything else but in fairness the system has a very low population.

Low population means that you can move influence very quickly if unopposed. If you're actively opposed it doesn't make so much difference.

There is a table of the maximum influence gain if unopposed by starting influence and system population around somewhere - as you say, you don't really need it.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

Low population means that you can move influence very quickly if unopposed. If you're actively opposed it doesn't make so much difference.

There is a table of the maximum influence gain if unopposed by starting influence and system population around somewhere - as you say, you don't really need it.

Yeah, I do think this will be a once-off for me, still good to know how it all works though, makes me appreciate seemingly mundane stuff happening on the mission boards and system maps much more than before.

Also I believe it'll be more fun to join in on a larger player/player-supported faction as it'd be more fun to do it as part of a team. Doing this solo feels more like a grind for me, which I want to avoid at this stage. Thankfully I do know a certain anarchy faction in Colonia that would deserve my support in the future (and has already received it in the past).

 

[Riverside]

Having already won a war in a small system (180k population) I'm now involved in a civil war with the system controlling faction. I understand the overall concepts of how it works (mostly), but one thing I was wondering about is, what if I only participate very slightly in the conflict by contributing bonds, how does the game decide which faction will eventually win the war?

Reason I'm asking is, I'm not sure I want to grind away CZs for the next 3 days - the war started yesterday and I did a few CZs but am getting bored of that now and wouldn't mind doing something else instead, after having done the full 4 days against another faction last week I'm a bit worn out.

I don't think that I'm fighting against other players (judging from system traffic) although I guess that could change, but let's assume I'm the only player involved - the system is uncontrolled so no PP.

I'm supporting an anarchy and the controlling faction is Fed aligned. Would winning a few CZs be enough for the game tilt the conflict in favour of my faction even if I don't bother getting involved for the remainder of the conflict, is it a 50/50 chance of either winning each day, and how would the game determine that unless it's RNG?

ObiW we met in the game once, fairly recently. What we did in those 40 minutes was probably enough to win that day. All the other work everyone else did was just making sure

 

[Deleted member 182079]

ObiW we met in the game once, fairly recently. What we did in those 40 minutes was probably enough to win that day. All the other work everyone else did was just making sure

Yes I do remember - back then we did encounter opposition though (at least that was the theory)... in this case I'd be surprised if anyone bothered pushing back, so wondered what the bare minimum would be.

 

[Riverside]

Yes I do remember - back then we did encounter opposition though (at least that was the theory)... in this case I'd be surprised if anyone bothered pushing back, so wondered what the bare minimum would be.

If you get to know the system & how the ambient traffic (and any opposition) behaves it could be a single massacre mission or even a single low CZ won. Apparently bounties work but spending 10 minutes in a low is probably quicker anyway.

You can also just leave it & keep an eye on it. If nothing happens do a bit on the last day to win the whole war.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

If you get to know the system & how the ambient traffic (and any opposition) behaves it could be a single massacre mission or even a single low CZ won. Apparently bounties work but spending 10 minutes in a low is probably quicker anyway.

You can also just leave it & keep an eye on it. If nothing happens do a bit on the last day to win the whole war.

Yeah I won yesterday (despite actually losing a High CZ - tried to attack the capital ship which didn't go too well, despite my shield/hull tank Vette - need to work out the best angle next time maybe with a different ship), today I just handed in a couple mediums only because I had a mission I wanted to complete. Will see how things go tomorrow but doing one of those a day isn't that big a deal; it's when I chain several of those, primarily to clear a massacre mission, it becomes a bit tedious.

 

[Walter2]

As others have pointed out, you only have to do more than any other player to win each day. If you're absolutely certain there's no-one fighting for the other side, you only need to kill a single ship in a CZ, claim the bond, put your feet up and win the day. A scenario seemingly designed for those that adhere to the Law of Least Effort. Domarra's trick of fighting one day and and claiming the next spreads the load even thinner.

 

[Sapyx]

As others have stated, you can win a war by blowing up a single enemy ship in a CZ and handing in the combat bond for it - assuming nobody ever does the exact same thing, or more, for "the other side" over the seven days of the war. But if you want the war to end quickly, you're better off putting in that same minimal effort once per day. That way, your side gains another victory point every day, and if they win for 4 days in a row, the war ends early.

It's also not possible to judge if there's any opposition until the day is over and then it's too late. Personally, when I fight wars/elections, I put minimal effort into the first day of the conflict, to try to see if there is in fact any opposition - if there isn't, then I ramp up the effort only slightly on succeeding days. If there is opposition detected, then it's obviously max effort every day, since I have to assume that they're doing max effort too.

It it's a system-controlling conflict then you are likely to have casual mercs looking for a fight to drop in and start fighting for one side of the other. System control conflicts attract more attention than minor conflicts between the lower orders (they get flagged on the "State" Galaxy map, for example). Especially if PowerPlay is interested in your system; the PowerPlay goons can get real touchy if you try to upset their carefully balanced applecarts. Being a frequent supporter of Fed Democracies, that happens to me a lot as none of the Powers like Fed Democracies.

 

[Retropolitan]

... the PowerPlay goons ....

I've always used "thugs", but goons? That works for me too.

 

[Deleted member 182079]

Thanks all that's good to know - another misconception I was under was that I had to complete a CZ scenario to make things count... A single bond eh, that's not what I had in mind in terms of minimum effort haha.

@Sapyx I'm actually fighting against a Fed democracy so will see if anyone gets attracted to the system. Up until last night (CET) only a couple of Asps entered the system, hopefully just travelling through.

Although I noticed that the previous minor faction I warred against last week is in election state this week - could it be that that's also caused by losing the war and then being on equal INF vs that other faction? Not sure.

As I said, the system isn't very attractive and the 3rd star is half a million Ls away so hoping that puts people off. Will know by Thursday as I plan to finish the war early if possible.

 

[Sapyx]

Although I noticed that the previous minor faction I warred against last week is in election state this week - could it be that that's also caused by losing the war and then being on equal INF vs that other faction? Not sure.

"Election" is what happens instead of a war when two factions of the same ideology are matched in influence. They resolve their conflict peacefully, instead of with guns: whichever side delivers the most missions, cargo, exploration data etc. wins the victory point for the day, best of 7 is the winner. So what's happened here is the loser got pushed down in influence, which put them immediately into a new conflict with the next faction down the ladder.