So, when we chose our difficulty, was it a, difficulty but worth the cost? Or just, way more difficult for the players? I've seen both be done, and while I have no problems with either, I'm much curious which one it was.
The difficulty of the world had a handful of aspects that made harder worlds harder.
1) The harder the world the more important it is to the Imperium, thus increasing scrutiny. (Lower Max Suspicion)
2) The economy would be both built up and under built, in there words it would be harder to bring the world to self sufficiency (Economic Balancing Pains)
3) Inquiries are harder to deal with on the harder worlds as a dovetail from point 1. (Suspicion is more impactful)
However, on the flip side the harder worlds do have their own bonuses.
1) Better defenses in and of themselves (Baseline protection across the board is much higher)
2) The Planetary Governor has more prestige/influence on harder worlds (More political weight)
3) More options to undertake that can slide under the radar, more options for Favor from Homeworld (Economic scale and options)
The above is not counting the more nebulous aspects that each world had to offer, but just the major axises of the situation. Nor does it count the points that the world difficulty added to the species creation vote.
For instance, if you had chosen the easy world your max suspicion would be around 4 times what you have on Shogi, but in turn you would be in a middle of a debt/interest crisis that would be problematic to fix to say the least. Due to the fact that that world would be in the middle of transferring from Developing to Civilized and the previous Governor was a clueless idiot with no checks on him.
In that case your diplomacy options would have
vastly higher DCs and costs associated with them due to the world being a nothing burger and everyone asking why should they care about it.