I'm currently attempting to switch ownership of a specific Horizons surface emplacement between two factions in my home system. I know any orbital stations or large surface stations will be prioritised over it, but how do I determine its position relative to other Horizons or Odyssey surface bases?
Surface Stations War Priority?
- Thread starter Starsong
- Start date
Really? Another faction I've observed in a conflict had a large surface installation at risk, despite their ownership of an Odyssey dockable surface settlement.
Can confirm installations are valued higher than Odyssey settlements.
Odyssey Settlements are lowest priority since they can be claimed via conflict zone wins. The only time you will see one as a conflict reward is if the faction owns nothing else.
Conflicts will always wager the "most valuable" asset... the only definitive comparison I've seen is "Controlling station is most valuable".
That's a sortof important consideration since pre-Horizons some systems had space-Outposts only, therefore that was a designated "controlling station", but then got a large dockable surface port in Horizons... in those cases the Outpost is still "more valuable", as contrast to where I've seen situations where between such a large surface (Horizons) base and a space outpost, where neither are the controlling facility, the large surface base would be "more valuable".
I'd have to page someone like @Ian Doncaster or @goemon who might have a better memory than me, but asset type isn't the only factor, and there's hidden attributes (like wealth and such) that contribute to the "value" of an asset, so simply saying "Large dockable > Outpost" is not necessarily true in all cases, just most, and I seem to recall some observations of that occurring.
But because Odyssey settlements flippable in any conflict regardless of what's wagered, they're the lowest value, but will be wagered if there's nothing else.
... like what @Nepeta Uchiha said... hooray for "new posts" prompt.
That's a sortof important consideration since pre-Horizons some systems had space-Outposts only, therefore that was a designated "controlling station", but then got a large dockable surface port in Horizons... in those cases the Outpost is still "more valuable", as contrast to where I've seen situations where between such a large surface (Horizons) base and a space outpost, where neither are the controlling facility, the large surface base would be "more valuable".
I'd have to page someone like @Ian Doncaster or @goemon who might have a better memory than me, but asset type isn't the only factor, and there's hidden attributes (like wealth and such) that contribute to the "value" of an asset, so simply saying "Large dockable > Outpost" is not necessarily true in all cases, just most, and I seem to recall some observations of that occurring.
But because Odyssey settlements flippable in any conflict regardless of what's wagered, they're the lowest value, but will be wagered if there's nothing else.
... like what @Nepeta Uchiha said... hooray for "new posts" prompt.
I can confirm that ground ports have wonky priorities. In the current system my PMF is working we took the Large port first in the control war then got the 2 outposts in order of distance. Ok that follows the bill. Now when the 2 ground ports were next the further one in the system took priority even tho both were the same size. The only thing that made them different was economy type.
From tests, the order appears to be:
- controlling station first
- all other assets in order of either population or economy size (I haven't been able to find a test case where the ordering of population and economy size differs, and in almost all stations there'll be a 1:1 relationship between the two anyway)
I've not seen any exception to that rule in any case where the population/economy size parameters were measurable accurately.
In normal fully-procedural systems that's generally going to mean large stations, then outposts, then Odyssey bases, then the non-dockables as they don't add population - but not always. In systems where Frontier has been hand-placing assets, the order is more likely to be atypical.
Economy size you can usually get a proxy for by checking the H-Fuel stock (either in None state, or adjusting for the state effects), though note that Colony economies sell way less H-Fuel than you'd expect based on that, and Odyssey settlements can be all over the place, so it's not a perfect indicator. Obviously where the dockable doesn't have a market and you don't have a before/after on its addition to compare population, you're on your own a bit.
- controlling station first
- all other assets in order of either population or economy size (I haven't been able to find a test case where the ordering of population and economy size differs, and in almost all stations there'll be a 1:1 relationship between the two anyway)
I've not seen any exception to that rule in any case where the population/economy size parameters were measurable accurately.
In normal fully-procedural systems that's generally going to mean large stations, then outposts, then Odyssey bases, then the non-dockables as they don't add population - but not always. In systems where Frontier has been hand-placing assets, the order is more likely to be atypical.
Economy size you can usually get a proxy for by checking the H-Fuel stock (either in None state, or adjusting for the state effects), though note that Colony economies sell way less H-Fuel than you'd expect based on that, and Odyssey settlements can be all over the place, so it's not a perfect indicator. Obviously where the dockable doesn't have a market and you don't have a before/after on its addition to compare population, you're on your own a bit.
It's simple... Most valuable stations first, than most value ground (NOT ODYSSEY) stations, than Installations and at last most valued Odyssey settlements.
That put installations even those which can't be docked before anything from Odyssey, which is logical... Otherwise Horizon BSG players would never win system with landable EDO settlement.
This is tested several times
That put installations even those which can't be docked before anything from Odyssey, which is logical... Otherwise Horizon BSG players would never win system with landable EDO settlement.
This is tested several times
The only exceptions I have seen is systems that were Upgraded during the release of Horizons. In those cases, the original controlling asset remains the controlling asset even if the upgrade added a bigger station. The priorities other than controlling asset are unknown.
That said, I would not be surprised if these exceptions have been rationalised at some point since it was observed all those years ago.
That said, I would not be surprised if these exceptions have been rationalised at some point since it was observed all those years ago.