It boils down to escalating stakes for attackers, with a softened--but still real--risk on their first invasion:
The first invasion (the attacker hasn't invaded this faction recently)
- If the attacker wins, they take the territory they targeted, or flip it neutral.
- If the defender wins, they gain neutral hexes equal to the targeted number, up to 3.
Repeat invasion against the same target (the attacker invades the same faction again within a set window)
- If the attacker wins, they take the territory they targeted, or flip it neutral.
- If the defender wins, they can take that many hexes from the attacker, or flip them neutral.
Example: Jedilovers69 invades Huttenthusiasts1337. It's their first invasion, so the Jedi don't stake any territory. If the Jedi win, they take the hexes they targeted. If they lose, they keep everything, but the Hutts grow their cloud.
If the Jedi invade the Hutts again next month, regardless of how the first one went, it's a repeat invasion. Now the Jedi's territory is on the line too.
--
Almost. Going on the offensive here wouldn't be risk-free. If the attacker loses, they gain nothing, but the defender does. A failed invasion grows their target's cloud and leaves them worse off relative to the faction they attacked.
To be upfront, this isn't full equality. In a first invasion, the attacker can take the defender's territory, while the defender can only gain neutral hexes. Full equal stakes apply once an attacker keeps coming back to the same target.
But I would argue this bit of imbalance is one to keep. We already see very few invasions. Folks don't seem enthusiastic to go on the attack. And my previous reasoning about affecting small, newer and more isolated factions disproportionately still applies.
I hope this makes the idea more clear.
Srina Talon