I was thinking about this for an idea.
Should the outcome of battles/how you are running your empire effect you units effectiveness and planets alligance?
In reality if you are getting your arse handed back to you every fleet battle you probably would not fight as effectivly the next time around, yet if you won you would be probably pumped up and ready to fight more (to be simplistic and sterotipical).
There for i think a good feature would be in battle you may get a damage/repair buff depending on how well you fleet is doing in the battle (similar to culture) and more combat effectiveness each battle win (increased morale). Could be "fleet-group" wise.
If the military was losing the war (and your planets getting conqured) then people would become disillusioned with it (e.g losing people/spending on ships).
I think a good feature for this would be loss of culture (not outright - but starts deminishing, propaganda only goes so far - making it easier for other "culture" to take over yours) and planet allegance going down (e.g if you lose a battle in a gravity well next to a planet you own planet then your whole overall planets "allegance" should drop due to lack of confidence in your abilities - aka politicians wanting to save their own self by making their own planets a less bombable target - with the resource rate going down due to people leaving).
This could help so that your military outcomes have non-military implications (not just less ships). If you kamakaze half your fleet on a badly thought out plan for a gravity well/planet with no strategic value or for the sake of it there will be a penalty, not just "might is right" and rebuild.
- Perhaps certain planets could be designated as strategic (e.g your home world or a chockhold area - which effects the "morale" more than others)
What do you think about this idea? (sorry really bad at explaining today as you can tell).