So if the local faction report were to say something like the usual 'this asset is at risk' but worded to say 'the loser of the war will be ejected from the system' would that solve your issue?
Seems to me that inherently an invader will be aware of the war, and that the lowest non-native faction will be there because they are not focusing on that system (as you describe), or perhaps are ineffective because they are surrounded by stronger opponents. Having the consequences highlighted more clearly is a reasonable request but I'm not sure it would actually change the underlying behaviour of a faction supporter or the result of the war.
Would've changed ours, in this case.
We've traded-off a few systems, and in this case we were typically around 20% with no assets, though there are definitely factions with (undockable) surface assets at 4-5% (currently three surface assets are owned by factions with less than 10% influence). We typically maintain a presence, but don't actively work those systems (i.e we let the relevant power be happy with things and not interfere, in exchange for being present to slip in if powers slip).
Given we went to war at 5%, with nothing listed as "at risk", we assumed it was just a war to obtain one of those minor assets (just checking something, brb[1]). Since, from the squadron allegience page, there's no way to distinguish the difference, it wsan't til the last day that I looked closer at the system map and noted our enemy was only on 1% influence, which was odd. We tend to only defend conflicts when they're for dockable assets, but maintain a ~20% presence.
But yeah, a "Defend" objective for "Presence in the system" would address my issue.
[1] I can't verify right now, but from the Squadron Allegience page, I'm
60% sure you don't see assets you're attacking; that's only in the status tab in the system proper. You only see the ones you're defending from Squadron Allegience.
