(01-16-2022, 11:27 PM)Yurk Embassy Wrote: I think there needs to be a physical barrier that stops you from blitzkrieging the crap out of your target. Some of us have been talking of a planetary shield system. Allow me to suggest a more detailed idea of the way it would work.
...
It should not be allowed on moons (less mass meaning less natural gravity, that would interact with the way that shield works), as moonbases should remain relatively easy targets to pick on.
My main issue with it is the exact reasoning explained in this thread. If you are attacking a solar system with many worlds, or a large ringworld, you will be attacking many of those planetary shield systems one after the other. And it doesn't account for if the world suddenly change owner to a neutral third-party empire while it is being sieged. That is why the topic here is specifically about contesting a whole solar system rather than individual worlds.
You can have important moons in a solar system though, if the player don't plan ahead a moon colony could even be vital for the solar system's survival. So it would seem very weird to me that you would allow some worlds to be unprotected. For example what if the solar system only has uninhabitable worlds, and some tiny moon is the only source of ice (water and air), if that source is lost the other cities might decay after a few days.
(01-16-2022, 11:27 PM)Yurk Embassy Wrote: What do you guys think? I feel like it would leave that sense of ruleless freedom Hazeron has, by making the obstacle to constant blitzkrieg physical and concrete, rather than just "rules being rules."
It might be physical and fancy, but it doesn't solve most of the issues.
I know sieging with propaganda isn't super exciting, but it makes owners and visitors very aware that something is going on when they enter a solar system and their communication channels are all: "You will be exterminated! Siege complete in 5 days!"