If one group can dominate the entire game, it's a sign of poor game design. In an ideal world, movement of powers is strategic, not about taking or losing of numbers, but about tactically beneficial systems, for the purposes of winning short-term objectives, not for the sake of dominating enemy factions in outright combat.power collapse was never supposed to exist by itself. power promotion was also supposed to exist. Allowing factions that you push to expand to a certain number of systems into automatically becoming a power.
So there would be a mechanism for creating new powers and removing powers and this would keep going.
If it turned out one power grew to rule them all then so be it. However given the rules of expansion and the cost ...that would be highly unlikely if not impossible.
But whatever the layout turned out to be, it would be the players deciding it. If it ruined the makup of the who's in power in the galaxy, (big players in the empire or federation etc) then so be it. That's the way it would just have to be and the narrative would have to adapt.
The last thing you want is to wipe out underdogs. Underdogs are generally far more interesting than the dominant factions.
Last edited: