It'd be cool to see this system represent inter-faction hostilities. Obviously you don't wanna go overboard with events, but I think it can be covered with just two: one for hostility to the player, and one for war between all the factions.
You could use the current relationship system as the tool for filling up the "war" meter, so for each faction that has a hostile relationship with another it fills up the war event bar every month. This could eventually culminate in a war that engulfs the sector, with smaller skirmishes at lower levels. You would then have the option of causing trouble (false flag operations maybe?) if you want war, or mending the relationships between factions if you want peace.
The player one would fill up based on the number of factions that have a negative relationship with you (as well as some other market factors), and when it fills all the way up one of those factions sends an expedition at you.
Yep, that sort of thing could definitely work, and combining it into a single bar (rather than per-faction-pairing) seems like it'd be a good idea. Same general comment re: trying to be judicious about where to actually employ this, but also appreciating the ideas - it's interesting to think about, and it definitely needs it, too!
hm, idk about this... i kinda would just not colonize if it was suboptimal to have all my colonies in one system, but i also don't get more than 2-3 colonies...
That just depends on what the incentives are, doesn't it? Unless you just feel strongly RP-wise about having all your stuff in one system.
How would this affect things, would it encourage systems with just one colony or would it encourage having only a few colonies in a system instead of colonizing every single planet or what?
It's less about that and more about there being some benefits to having a colony in the area, which would encourage you to have colonies spread around at convenient locations. It's about making the "where" matter a bit more.
Oh wow, that's not what I expected to hear from you 
I'm sure you just know it by a different name. But anyway, what I'm talking about is the "iron triangle" of project management: when balancing costs, speed and quality, at best one can usually secure two of these parameters, but almost never all three of them (e.g. you can have a well-built house made quickly, but it's likely gonna cost you a fortune).
Ah yeah! I just know it as "fast, cheap, good, pick two" - didn't know it had an official name
In Hostile Activity's case, the triangle might look like interaction, combat and longevity of the solution: Don't wanna fight? - Gotta interact with the threats often, if not lethally (trade? missions? securing merc contracts?); Solving stuff isn't your cup of tea? - Sure, I just hope you really like fighting, 'cause you're in for a lot (variable fights? variable locations? variable circumstances?); Wanna deal with the threats as little as possible? - Make sure to get to the core of the problem and strike where it hurts the most (investigation? securing allies? -> showdown?).
Hmm - I want to say this is just "three different routes to take" and not some kind of zero-sum problem. I mean, the routes are mutually exclusive to a fair degree, but still.
Looks very interesting! I like the idea of Tri-Tachyon in particular taking offense to my market share, seeing as they're a corporation.
That would very much be their thing, wouldn't it
Speaking of combat around planets, a bit of a pet peeve of mine is how lightly defended some of the major Core World systems seem to be. I would expect there to be fleets of capital ships patrolling around the Aztlan system, because it's the main system of the sector's dominant power. I'm fine with systems like Mayasura or Yma being lightly defended, but I think that Aztlan, Hybrasil, and maybe Samarra and Thule should be swarming with warfleets and should basically be immune to pirate raids. Askonia is actually in a good place in regards to defenses, in my opinion.
Hmm, possibly? Honestly it's not really something I've looked at or thought much about in a long time. "What happens when the player goes to war against a major faction" hasn't been a focus.
Anyways I always like reading your updates!
Thank you!
It's great that "Hostile Activities" are tracked through a report that's easily glanced through and dismissed, but I find it leaves something missing.
At the level of large interstellar business and/or empire, you would expect to have at least an adjutant with their own subordinates who handle the affairs of your organization - like your bridge officers, except on a larger scale. Ideally, a competent leader would manage those subordinates themselves, providing some much-needed flavor.
A human (or human-adjacent) theater makes a big difference, like a Commander Hayes, or the talking heads from Sim City 2. In fact, every instance of "SC 2" I can think of had talking heads that managed organizational affairs, and the benefit to the perspective of the player was significant, at the very least.
Food for thought.
I've definitely thought about it! For better or worse, this just isn't the route the game has taken, and I don't want to try to just shoehorn it in somewhere. I mean, conceptually those subordinates are obviously there, given how the game *is*, I don't think sticking a portrait somewhere would do the job. It makes more sense - or at least seems accomplished more easily - in a game where there's a bunch of things that happen where you get interrupted by modal notifications and it's "ah, this person is letting me know about this" and it builds them up as a person in your mind. In Starsector, I try to avoid stuff that interrupts the game and requires a response/acknowledgement, and it makes this less of a natural fit. Still possible, if it was a core design element, but it isn't!
Have there been changes to skills and industries to accommodate the new system?
Skills, why? Industries, per the post, Commerce has been changed to interact with HA in a hopefully interesting way
