A feature that I loved in Galactic Civilizations II was, that colonies could defect to another player if they were surrounded by foreign territory long enough. I imagine to use an assimilation counter like the one after invasions, so that it is a longer process. It just doesn't feel right having another player's colony on my territory without any effect on it's inhabitants

Hm, it's just my personal opinion but when I hated something about GalCiv 2 then it was that. I just don't see a whole system undergo surgery to join another race. Maybe the colony should have AFIDS maluses but no defecting colonies, if that is considered make it an option please.

I like the idea, when I play civ4 culture is a big part of my strategy.



My opinion - the problem with using this mechanic in ES: it is unlikely that a people will abandon their species for another. I cant see a planet of Horatio turning away from Horatio and joining Amoeba's. It would be more conceivable that a system heavily influenced by another species become disillusioned with their own empire and splinter off to form their own.

xyquas wrote:
A feature that I loved in Galactic Civilizations II was, that colonies could defect to another player if they were surrounded by foreign territory long enough. I imagine to use an assimilation counter like the one after invasions, so that it is a longer process. It just doesn't feel right having another player's colony on my territory without any effect on it's inhabitants

Yay colonists with stockholm syndrome!



But seriously I do believe it's a good idea to implement for 'influence' based victories.

ShockPuppet wrote:
the problem with using this mechanic in ES: it is unlikely that a people will abandon their species for another...

My feelings as well. I could see such a colony getting upset and angry. But I view it less as "they're better so let's join them" and more as "oh no we are going to be eaten by strange alien monsters!!"

KNC wrote:
Maybe the coony should have AFIDS maluses but no defecting colonies...

That is what I am thinking, indirectly. Unhappy people produce less.

Prophet wrote:
My feelings as well. I could see such a colony getting upset and angry. But I view it less as "they're better so let's join them" and more as "oh no we are going to be eaten by strange alien monsters!!"







That is what I am thinking, indirectly. Unhappy people produce less.

Not only should they produce less, since they are unhappy maybe they should give less resistance to invaders (ex: low morale)

I suggested this awhile back so I support this.

VulpesWalker wrote:
Not only should they produce less, since they are unhappy maybe they should give less resistance to invaders (ex: low morale)

That makes sense. A bit of "We are all doomed, I tell ya! DOOOOOOMED!"

If a colony is surrounded, why not just give it the 'blockaded' status? Unless the surrounding race is friendly, of course...

Prophet wrote:
My feelings as well. I could see such a colony getting upset and angry. But I view it less as "they're better so let's join them" and more as "oh no we are going to be eaten by strange alien monsters!!"

That's a good point and makes sense. My thought was that the effected colony felt the large amount of influence from another empire and became envious, as opposed to afraid. So, I guess 'Influence' can be anything, but regardless of what kind of influence it is the effect on the colony should always be unhappiness towards their empire.

Wouldent it be more of a domination then a conversion, like blocking the colonys from communications and transporting and STUFF.

KNC wrote:
Hm, it's just my personal opinion but when I hated something about GalCiv 2 then it was that. I just don't see a whole system undergo surgery to join another race. Maybe the coony should have AFIDS maluses but no defecting colonies, if that is considered make it an option please.

I liked the cultural victories in GalCiv2, but this game isn't built that way. There are no culture points. If a star system is left defenseless and up against a mightier force, I can see where that star system would defect to save themselves. Why undergo planetary bombardment when there is no empire to save you?

I'd say that having a system totally blocked from its empire should have one of two effects, depending on circumstances. Either the planets would get a massive boost in approval and FIDS due to the populace's utter terror at the thought of being bombed to oblivion, or the system falls to rebellion and creates an independent faction with a randomly generated fleet so that it isn't automatically steamrolled by it neighbors.

ShockPuppet wrote:
I like the idea, when I play civ4 culture is a big part of my strategy.



My opinion - the problem with using this mechanic in ES: it is unlikely that a people will abandon their species for another. I cant see a planet of Horatio turning away from Horatio and joining Amoeba's. It would be more conceivable that a system heavily influenced by another species become disillusioned with their own empire and splinter off to form their own.

Prophet wrote:
My feelings as well. I could see such a colony getting upset and angry. But I view it less as "they're better so let's join them" and more as "oh no we are going to be eaten by strange alien monsters!!"



That is what I am thinking, indirectly. Unhappy people produce less.

I can see the point in this but after all the colonists stay at the planets. I feel like it would be the same mechanics like invasion, just with less destruction. My thought was something like people left alone of their originating faction in the territory of another one are trying to protect themselves.

Maybe this is an add-on feature where the reaction depends on the species. Fighters would just found their own faction (or join the pirates) while explorers would give up in the hope of being left in peace.



I added a poll to this thread to reflect the mentioned ideas. FIDS malus belongs to blockade status from my point of view.