Spreading Anarchy
- Thread starter Axilleas
- Start date
Due to their inability to go to elections with any faction, anarchies are the most difficult to maintain of any govt type.
3.3 alleviates that a bit by removing blocking states (while at war in one system, you could only maintain satellite systems with bounties, which was awful) but it would still be tough even now.
3.3 alleviates that a bit by removing blocking states (while at war in one system, you could only maintain satellite systems with bounties, which was awful) but it would still be tough even now.
Last edited:
Why does the election thing make them harder? They just get war with any other faction, right?
OP, they’re like any faction but with a nice perk regarding black markets. Beyond running missions or selling exploration data at controlled ports you can also sell contraband at controlled ports with black markets. All those diamonds you just liberated? Sell them at your port and help your cause.
OP, they’re like any faction but with a nice perk regarding black markets. Beyond running missions or selling exploration data at controlled ports you can also sell contraband at controlled ports with black markets. All those diamonds you just liberated? Sell them at your port and help your cause.
Because elections are a lot easier to win, you more types of transactions and a lot simpler transactions.
Last edited:
And Anarchies will open up Interstellar Factors offices in stations they control too - very convenient
I don't care for easy - wars are more fun!
I actually disagree here. Wars are far easier to do, as they're far less prone to "casual contributions" by randos in system. You have to go out of your way to contribute to war.
Elections are as lso far too prone to the rng hating you, giving a bunch of missions to your opponents and nothing for you.
Wars are just easier to manage, esp now influence is locked
Last edited:
I was assuming active opposition, because if you are trying to spread anarchy across the Galaxy, that is what you will have. Randoms will be the least of your concern. You will literally be fighting against every Powerplay power. Of all the government types, anarchy is the only one that no power is strong against in any circumstances.
Last edited:
On the other hand, no power is weak against Anarchy, either.
(Who's strong against Democracy? That seems even worse than Anarchy for Powerplay, with no-one strong against it and a few weak against it)
why do people want to see the world burn? you never see threads about people wanting to spread factions that give out a nice cup of tea and a good biscuit selection.
Well, as to your first statement. To a power, not being strong might as well be weak. An increased trigger is an increased trigger. We don't give distinction between neutral and weak, they are both bad and must be corrected.
Second, upon further inspection you are right Democracy and Prison Colony have no powers with strength to them so yes my original statement was incorrect. However, this doesnt change the fact that every power will be against someone pushing anarchy.
Last edited:
When I retire from this BGS malarky I'm planning on buying a T9 and becoming a tea and coffee merchant
Last edited:
Who's looking to see the world burn? Anarchy? Sorry, I'll take societies based on anti-hierarchical voluntary association any day.
Not even Spidey McSpiderface likes Anarchies. Which is just another illustration of the backwards-ness of Powerplay favouritism. I don't know if it's still true, but I seem to recall reading that the consequence-free killing sprees that can happen in Anarchies were bad for Powers, generally, so Powers generally try to expunge Anarchies from their turf.
Further, they almost never are Superpower-aligned, so you never get people casually supporting you just to boost their superpower rep (or Naval ranking).
Finally, peace-loving "Lawful Good" players hate Anarchies within their space; they require ships visiting them to be geared for PvE and/or PvP combat/running away, so ships cannot be min-maxed for trade, exploration etc.
Personally, I stomp out Anarchies wherever I see them popping up in "my space". My character is Lawful Good and hates slavers and criminals. Before 3.3 dropped, there was only one Anarchy left within 20 LYs of my home system, and it's a PMF so I'm meeting some resistance.
Further, they almost never are Superpower-aligned, so you never get people casually supporting you just to boost their superpower rep (or Naval ranking).
Finally, peace-loving "Lawful Good" players hate Anarchies within their space; they require ships visiting them to be geared for PvE and/or PvP combat/running away, so ships cannot be min-maxed for trade, exploration etc.
Personally, I stomp out Anarchies wherever I see them popping up in "my space". My character is Lawful Good and hates slavers and criminals. Before 3.3 dropped, there was only one Anarchy left within 20 LYs of my home system, and it's a PMF so I'm meeting some resistance.
with your history with the NF before you left was less than laudable good sir
Last edited:
The Cooperative government type is probably about as close as you're going to get while still being able to operate as a minor faction.
We won our home system through a thrilling resistance campaign and now they're considered one of the top low salt PvP groups on XBOX.
Frankly, I couldn't be more proud.
Last edited:
I'll second that. Always found NF to be a decent group.
that's because the world is already burning, all factions are self-serving and violent scum. anarchy, at the very least, is plain and clear about it.
also, you really shouldn't be buying the demagogic effort the game makes to conflate anarchy with 'crime'. start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy