Conquest of Solar Systems

[Yurk Embassy]

If we are done talking about super-shield-thingy-buildings that are either too powerful or pointless. I guess I will summarize the general idea I had in mind since the start of this thread soon two years ago.

I may very well have overinterpreted your introduction but that suspiciously looks like a "Anyway your point sucks, back to my idea." answer. However regardless of that supershield idea in itself, I do believe ground defence buildings overall ought to be buffed, and that buildings should be quicker to build. While a fleet can retreat, a planet cannot--defender should have an advantage. As for building time, I'd argue spending 30m working on a single building ends up turning city building into semi-AFK gameplay, which kills both the dynamic and interest in the player's experience; the fact they are so quick to fall under enemy fire makes that lengthy construction all the worse.

If you want to conquer a solar system, you park a warship in orbit of the solar system's main sequence or at the rim of the solar system and give it the order to siege. The ship will defend its area and broadcast periodic propaganda on the Hail channel. Cities in the solar system (regardless of owner) will then start requesting help on the Friend channel. Once the solar system has been under siege this way for a week or so, the solar system enters a "contested" state that allow the attacker to invade, capture or bombard the cities.

We've talked about that point before but I'm still unconvinced about the propaganda thing. Whether or not you wanna message your target with threats or terms of reddition should be up to the players themselves, as it is both a strategic choice and a diplomatic approach. Empires should retain the possibility of preparing a siege in ways more subtle or silent than just saying "Our great nation will break your world in a week! Prepare for round one! Seven days guys--be ready!"

Maybe a mechanic of "occupation and control of the system's space," would be more suitable on that regard. A blockade mechanic, put simply. It would still involve a timer before being able to siege (though I'd argue a week to be far too long and slow paced, but that might just be me), and would additionally deprive trade between the besieged system and the rest of the empire, representing the idea of attackers plundering/destroying trading vessels that attempt to leave the system. The attacker's identity or numbers would not be revealed by the siege mechanics themselves, even though defenders would be aware of a blockade being set around their system. The defender, however, would be required to scan the system with a spacecraft, or possess a sensor building, in order to spot and track the enemy vessel(s) identify them, and so on. The old and fair way.

But heh, even there, the idea of forcing players to refrain from an immediate attack without a reason as good as the defender being offline or a physical barrier stopping them from doing so, somewhat bugs me. I guess it would still make sense, however, that the attacker has to assert a certain control over the space surrouding their targets, before actually going for the kill.

If you recall the old way of capturing cities, it was a perfect balance of time and action.
The only difference now is that buildings are damage'able. The easy solution I can see is, you can not "destroy" building, but only "damage" it.
"Damaged" building lose up to 50% of its capacity (production lines become locked and inoperable, houses reduce in capacity, storage is reduced, etc.). The building appears "ruined" and never fully removed from the scene, thus will still block gunfire.
Now about gunfire. The way to subvert capture mechanics in the past was to gun down every living creature on sight. It was so easy because of transparency of the buildings, and there were a number of attempts at preventing this mechanic, like "population hides underground" and so on. But now, that "ruins" are blocking line of sight, this all is no longer necessary. Population could still pop around every now and then, but you'll have to, either, hold a lot of "gun points" through the city to control the territory, or leave them be and wait for loyalty to switch, or an original owner to fight back.

I have to admit I like the idea. I'm always down for mechanics that involve balance between waiting and acting; it can only promise more dynamic, credible battles. To make actual destruction possible, buildings could have to be repaired within a few days before being entirely removed--or the attacker could choose to either occupy or raze the city upon capture, just like in some Total War games. Even though technically, you can raze the city manually once you have come to own it, so this would remain possible for an attacker who has no interest in acquiring this specific position.