Unsure if this has been proposed before (i only got through the first 5 pages of the suggestions thread.)



I would like to suggest that a counter is added to planets that are pulled within an opposing or allied sphere of influence (inside someone else's boundries) that if positive empire influence is not restored within a certain value or time frame, the system capitulates and/or assimilates itself into the predominate empire (the one whose borders it is within.) This would have to apply to the real borders only so that you can't take over someone's system just because you haven't met them yet and don't know their sphere's of influence.



I think this would add a great new dimension to the game, as small turtle empire could slowly push out and takeover other systems (especially fun late game.) It would also force warring empires (cravers, etc.) who don't normally seek influence to actually become a scourge that assaults the galaxy in order to counteract this slow assimilation.



I have so many games, where I technically "own" enemy systems by influence sphere, but don't want to go invade or can't because of diplomatic situations. Some are even five or six strings deep into "my" territory. It would make the influence technologies actually worth pursuing.



Thought?

Influence is more of a political control zone, and while spy warfare should be apart of the game It is unlikely that any weaker empire would ever benefit from it.



Bigger empire loses a world, bigger empire destroys smaller empire now it has the excuse to bother.



I have never liked this in games anyway, territory's never capitulate when there is still imperial and military presence left, so you will have to remove them yourself if you wan the system.

One could also argue that, as the military might of a smaller empire is neutralised by a larger and more powerful one, the smaller empire would increase its espionage etc out of both necessity as well as desperation, so perhaps smaller empires should be more adept at espionage etc than larger ones? A possible scenario I presume, although just one of many

I think this will be very handy when the espionage features will be implemented, say the higher your influence the easier to incite rebellion on the target system, however bluntly handing over systems fallen into your area of influence (like cities in CIV) is too easy and a bit not realistic (those die hard separatists!) for my point of view :-)

This is the kind of discussion I want to see. I agree that just converting is a bit too easy and not too realistic. I like the idea that a fleet in orbit could dissuade rebellion. Maybe the thing to do would be to have a rebellion for 4 turns (like an invasion) and have it go neutral. Then a few turns later petition your empire for inclusion. Accepting this would cause a loss of relations with the former empire (not quite as much as invading an outpost, but close) and you increase your likelihood of going to war if you do it too much.



Since the other empire did not or was not able to respond in time, the loss in relations would not be terribly severe if this is done on occasion.

The idea would be like staging a coup d etat in a system where you have enough influence.

I feel like the rebels might put up as much of a fight as the original government, as they wouldn't give up their independence just like that.



While I also feel like rebellions should start spawning in pirate ships in the systems influence range to go and cause havoc, requiring you to invade the rebel systems inorder to declare your own ownership, systems connecting to the rebellion one would also have an increase in rebellion chance, leading bad approval empires and any bad approval neighbors into possible revolutions and civil wars.



Even creating new empires from the conflicts.



Influence and thus political control should decrease rebellion chance, so don't count on outposts standing by your side without problems.



I feel like a system like that could destabilize large empires and lead predictable games of ES into conflicts with your own former subjects, conquering the galaxy should be an eternal struggle.

Yes! more neutral (independent) systems sound nice, maybe even sort of distance penalty from capital (systems far away from capital system are more likely to revolt, mitigated by close by fleet presence and severed by enemy/pirate/independent fleet presence), for example the following formula:

likelyhood of rebelion = distance from capital of owning empire X (distance from own/ally fleet - distance from closest enemy/pirate/independent fleet) X (discontent of population)

rebellion outcome:

inside influence sphere -> 50% influential non ally player,40%independent,10%pirate



this way the capital system finally plays some long term role, and fleet presence can mitigate unrests.

to make even more impact for distance from capital, maybe a good idea to integrate it into happiness and effect all factors (making large empires behave in more realistic manner, having trouble keeping distant provinces...)



Hell why not, even something more realistic: severed (not directly connected by string/worm) systems are more likely to revolt :-)

This thread is the origin of discussions about peaceful takeover of systems due to them being in your empire's .

Other threads about this have been archived:

/#/endless-space/forum/29-archives/thread/13987-peaceable-takeover-of-ai-star-systems



Feel free to post here about this topic here and inform yourself about the variations the threads listed above have already discussed, but don't open new suggestion threads for anything alike.

Rather than simply "flipping" systems due to them being in your influence, perhaps a significant portion of their dust and science (including trade income) should go to you, instead of the owner. This would represent tribute taxes, espionage, political domination, etc. The better those planets are, the better they are for the person with the influence. AIs ought also to be more willing to give you those systems for a less excessive price.



I think that would be more realistic and interesting than flipping outright, and it seems to fit ES's general model of elegance and simplicity.



Players could always steer those systems toward pure industry to minimize your benefit, but that's still something you're forcing them to do, which might not otherwise be a good idea for them. Especially if those systems are economic powerhouses to begin with.

Influence from other empires should decrease happiness and as a result make a system more likely to rebel against its owner. If a rebellion is successful, said system should form an independent minor faction. Other empires could choose to acknowledge the legitimate leadership of the new faction and support it politically, thereby making it a 'proper' player.



Of course this would work better if we had neutral/minor factions in the game in the first place, so we have an established method of interacting with them

Hm..i like the idea to have neutral/minor factions...even evil or friendly minor factions would be a good addition in my eyes. Besides, they could grow and switch over to get a full faction, once they reached a certain level.

Besides, with unrest in your systems they could switch over to minor factions by themselves or by evil support of your opponent. This may be missions for a adventurer hero...

I really like these ideas, about subverting control via influence. I always enjoyed doing that in Civ. I also like the idea that it doesn't happen spontaneously, maybe you have to bribe officials or have some other type of espionage going on.

Danei wrote:
Rather than simply "flipping" systems due to them being in your influence, perhaps a significant portion of their dust and science (including trade income) should go to you, instead of the owner. This would represent tribute taxes, espionage, political domination, etc. The better those planets are, the better they are for the person with the influence. AIs ought also to be more willing to give you those systems for a less excessive price.



I think that would be more realistic and interesting than flipping outright, and it seems to fit ES's general model of elegance and simplicity.



Players could always steer those systems toward pure industry to minimize your benefit, but that's still something you're forcing them to do, which might not otherwise be a good idea for them. Especially if those systems are economic powerhouses to begin with.

I've never seen this suggested before... and now that I've seen it, I can't imagine why not. Which is to say, I really, really, really like it.