Conquest of Solar Systems

[Deantwo]

I'm not in any case sure why you are suggesting that solar systems would necessarily fall as one.  I tend to build colonies so that they are at the very least independent in terms of air and food power and so forth, mainly to avoid huge failure cascades due to supply chain issues.  You say few people do it, but I am fairly sure its nearly standard practice.  It seems like at best the system-wide siege idea would make it easier to conquer large swathes of space in a reasonable time frame, but it seems like thats an annoyance you have never personally been subjected to so its weird to me that you are so determined to make the case for that.

I don't really understand the point you are trying to make here. Are you saying you would rather have to spend multiple days sieging each and every world of a solar system one at a time? And only large empires that can field more ships should therefore be able to siege solar systems with many worlds? Assuming you need one ship per world siege.

And all the newbies that don't know they should make every single colony self-sufficient are just at a disadvantage because the attacker can avoid wasting time and warships on little mining colonies that will decay on their own?

I have yet to see any of the shield generator ideas mention the invulnerable surface-to-space weapon systems and how the attacker is supposed to withstand that firepower for days of a siege. Or is the attacker supposed to just be bombing the other side of the planet? Until the defender quickly build new invulnerable surface-to-space weapon systems under it?

I would rather have a single week long siege against the whole solar system at once. The attacker having to be in orbit of the sun or at the rim of the system so they aren't disadvantaged by invulnerable surface defenses. The defender having to actually take the fight to the sieging ship, or just evacuate around it.

In my opinion by far the biggest obstacle to changing cities into something that take a while to build up is the fact that they are so easy to quickly destroy.  A way to defend them has to come first, as a pre-requisite to them being harder to build up.

Yeah that has been an issue since before destroy-able cities. There is no difference in the value of a city that have existed a year, verse a city that was built a week ago. But this seemed like a while separate issue and I didn't want to get into it here.

If you wanna make a thread for the topic, I would love to read your thoughts on the matter.