Yes, quite a few now. But not when the losing faction also had a surface port. The surface port should always be the better asset in my opinion. Having a settlement with higher population than a surface port doesn't make any sense. I'd log that as a bug with lots of specifics and see if they'll look at it.
+rep, coz that's a pretty good point. Taking off the immersion hat for a moment and erring on the side of mechanics, i suppose there's an issue trying to work out if the stolen goods were stolen off the pirate faction themselves or not (i regularly take hauling missions off anarchy factions, abandon them and sell the stolen goods on the factions own black market to reduce their influence and gain rep for myself).
Not directly. But if you can map out the neighborhood and learn to predict where the expansions are going, you can eventually make the system you want to expand into the #1 choice. We call it "targeting" the expansion.
The flip side of it is that it's much harder to undermine anarchies in any other way - there are no system authority ships to shoot, for example, and the availability of slaves and otherwise illegal goods on the open market makes them a magnet for traders.
Cool! It was probably tagged originally as a compromised beacon, but since an anarchy was in control it was redundant. I would imagine it will stay compromised as long as a faction with system authority stays in control. Never witnessed it before, but I could see how the logic would be in there.
Well, one our guys confirmed we did not own that planetary settlement before the war. That means the BGS thinks it's more valuable, and gave it to us. So, even though it has no + signs, no landing pads, it is considered more valuable than a planetary port that has pads. *shrug*
Agree, although why a faction would issue a mission that decreases their inf is beyond me. I would at least like it to show what states it increases/decreases, if it does at all.
