Flatfingers wrote: ↑Sat May 12, 2018 12:37 pm
Cornflakes disagreed with that last suggestion, and I thought his objection was reasonable -- allowing similar zones with different owners to overlap could create "zones of contention." In a political sense, that maps to how the real world works. I'm just not sure how you implement that in a game with so many other things that need doing! (And what the gameplay effects should be.)
(havent yet read up again on what my stance was back then, working from memory, so it may be inconsistent with my past statements)
i'd just personally find
nested zone(ownership) mechanics interesting and enriching.
you may have rights to enter a country, but that doesnt remove all private ownership of ground.
the system belongs to the local empire, some company may owns the asteroid belt and some secion of the belt may be rented out to a third party.
(Bhagaba system -> Bhagaba Asteroid Belt 3A -> (Belt north quadrant) -> Claim #2132)
each (sub-)zone with its own supremacy values computed from the supremacy values of the zones/assets it contains.
if incompatible zones collide (say two rivalling corps build stations near to each other) the zones could deform metaball like.
(however to define incompatible. non friendly owners? contradicting local rules?
)
or just (metaball)merge and initiate normal supremacy mechanics
... now with more thought im confused about how i wanted to differentiate between generating subzones and zone mergers....