If "that idea" is stopping colonizing everything to be a no-brainer, there is no way to advocate this idea too strongly : it's the core reason for the Influence upkeep mechanisms (that, and managing the snowballing effect).Vezzra wrote: ↑Sun Aug 09, 2020 12:11 pm
The idea was to make the "colonize everything" approach not a no-brainer. Currently, although you aim for multiplanet systems early on, eventually you'll start to colonize every system and all planets within you borders, as even lone small planets give some small benefit. Not colonizing everything is usually not a good idea.
Incurring IP costs on a per-system basis would discourage that approach. It would not be optimal anymore to colonize everything. You'd only colonize systems if you can expect a net benefit. And you'd only colonize that single tiny planet in that system that has nothing else if there is a good reason for it (a special on the planet, you need the supply range, it is a strategically important location, it provides a strategic resource of whatever kind...).
Wether we want that or not is another question. I don't want to advocate that idea that strongly, I merely find it interesting. If the majority doesn't want it/doesn't think it's a good idea, I'm fine with that. Just wanted to explain what I think was the idea/reasoning behind the suggestion.
If, though, "that idea" is per-system upkeep, I find it interesting indeed, as it would make the player think more about his colonization options.
But it is true that it would drive the player's strategy in a specific direction, which is not necessarily a good thing.
I have no idea whether your proposal of choosing between two policies to have a per-system upkeep or a per-colony upkeep would solve the problem.