Currently minor factions can only be in war in one system, regardless of how many systems that faction is in. The consequence of this is that the largest Player faction never has to split his forces to fight wars against multiple smaller factions who may be trying to take control of one of his systems. He can always bring his giant army to every war, and always win, no matter how many smaller factions are encroaching on his empire. This effectively means that insofar as Player factions competing for systems is concerned, the largest faction has already won simply by virtue of his group size. This would be equivalent in the game of risk of being able to move ALL of your armies instantly to any territory where you are attacked by another player. And because in ED a Player Faction's Army doesn't get any smaller from fighting a war (as it would in Risk), then the game is over, biggest player group is the winner...
If Risk worked this way, few would find it engaging because everyone would know the game is over as soon as one player gets the bigger army.
I have spent the last five months leading a small but active Player Group in an effort to halt or at least slow down the spread of a large player group. It has been totally and absolutely futile, and I am giving it up because I have now come to the realization of how the game works and that, perversely, fighting against the larger faction actually accelerates his expansion rather than slowing it. Every war we fight ends up with the larger faction at 75 to 80 % and an automatic expansion.
The way I see it, the current mechanics will ultimately lead to the largest player group eventually taking over every system, as only a similar sized group can win a war against it. Having tried on several occasions, arranging/coordinating multiple smaller groups working together against the larger group has proven far to difficult in practice and has met with no success whatever.
Allowing the same minor factions to be in different wars in different systems would mean a large Player faction would have to split his forces to defend his systems against simultaneous encroachments by multiple but smaller player factions, similar to the way the game of Risk works.
If Risk worked this way, few would find it engaging because everyone would know the game is over as soon as one player gets the bigger army.
I have spent the last five months leading a small but active Player Group in an effort to halt or at least slow down the spread of a large player group. It has been totally and absolutely futile, and I am giving it up because I have now come to the realization of how the game works and that, perversely, fighting against the larger faction actually accelerates his expansion rather than slowing it. Every war we fight ends up with the larger faction at 75 to 80 % and an automatic expansion.
The way I see it, the current mechanics will ultimately lead to the largest player group eventually taking over every system, as only a similar sized group can win a war against it. Having tried on several occasions, arranging/coordinating multiple smaller groups working together against the larger group has proven far to difficult in practice and has met with no success whatever.
Allowing the same minor factions to be in different wars in different systems would mean a large Player faction would have to split his forces to defend his systems against simultaneous encroachments by multiple but smaller player factions, similar to the way the game of Risk works.
Last edited:
