Conquest of Solar Systems

[Yurk Embassy]

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.

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!"

I mean, I see your point, and I could probably see it work to a planetary scale or so. Though I see two problems with that:

- First, the idea of besieging an entire system at once is interesting, but I feel like it regards star systems the same way as castles. A star system is huge--those are several worlds we're talking about. Realistically, a battle for the control of a star system should be more of a "step by step" type of thing; you aren't going to get the entire system at once. It's going to be a multi-step siege were acquiring or annihilating strategic objectives is key to victory. The good thing with it being planet by planet is that the order in which you capture/destroy those cities could have relevance; attackers would have to think tactically. Let's say star systems no longer receive resources from other systems when under attack. Taking the habitable world first would definitely have longer-term, severe consequences on the cities set in harsh environments elsewhere in the system, if the owner hasn't rendered them autonomous enough.

- It takes away the players' tactical and political freedom. If boradcasting propaganda becomes necessary to take a system, it reduces the tactical approach to only one thing, while realistically, without any physical barrier, a strong fleet in SoH can plain an simple wipe the whole city right away if they want. Plus, this approach would only make sense if you're planning to take the system; as I mentionned, destroying an enemy strategic position without claming it is a perfectly valid tactic, and I honestly wouldn't see myself use propaganda if I were planning on leaving no survivors.

When it comes to letting neighbours know something is going on, I agree many empires could definitely use it. Maybe SOS broadcasting to a determined number of systems/sectors around when under attack, should be a choice to add in the war policy tab in F12.