Now to start, Sandro did say that some elements of the BGS do impact on Power-play, however that impact seems limited, & is not remotely explicit in its impacts.
What I'm suggesting is that the impact of the BGS-namely System States-along with Security Levels & even Government/Economy types should have an a clearly defined impact on the ease/difficulty with which a system can be controlled, fortified or undermined.
The most obvious example might be a Lock-down State: An uncontrolled System in this state would be much more difficult to take control of than a system with no State at all. A Controlled system in this state would be much easier to fortify, & conversely much harder to Undermine.
On the opposite side of the scale, a System that is in Civil War, Famine or Outbreak: An uncontrolled System in this state would be much easier to take control of than a system with no current State. A Controlled System in this state would be harder to fortify, & easier to undermine.
So Lock-Downs, Booms, Expansion & War systems would increase the difficulty for a Power to seize control of a system, whilst making it easier for an already controlling Power to fortify it. Famines, Civil Wars, Retreats & Outbreaks would have the opposite effect.
By the same token, higher security systems could prove more difficult to seize control of than Anarchy or Low Sec. systems. Likewise, if a faction affiliated to a Power has a controlling influence over that system, and/or if the government type is in alignment with the ideology of the Power in question, then that system becomes much easier to seize control of.
Anyway, just a thought. I genuinely believe that a more dynamic approach to the difficulty of controlling systems would help make Power-Play much, much more engaging.
What I'm suggesting is that the impact of the BGS-namely System States-along with Security Levels & even Government/Economy types should have an a clearly defined impact on the ease/difficulty with which a system can be controlled, fortified or undermined.
The most obvious example might be a Lock-down State: An uncontrolled System in this state would be much more difficult to take control of than a system with no State at all. A Controlled system in this state would be much easier to fortify, & conversely much harder to Undermine.
On the opposite side of the scale, a System that is in Civil War, Famine or Outbreak: An uncontrolled System in this state would be much easier to take control of than a system with no current State. A Controlled System in this state would be harder to fortify, & easier to undermine.
So Lock-Downs, Booms, Expansion & War systems would increase the difficulty for a Power to seize control of a system, whilst making it easier for an already controlling Power to fortify it. Famines, Civil Wars, Retreats & Outbreaks would have the opposite effect.
By the same token, higher security systems could prove more difficult to seize control of than Anarchy or Low Sec. systems. Likewise, if a faction affiliated to a Power has a controlling influence over that system, and/or if the government type is in alignment with the ideology of the Power in question, then that system becomes much easier to seize control of.
Anyway, just a thought. I genuinely believe that a more dynamic approach to the difficulty of controlling systems would help make Power-Play much, much more engaging.