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.

[Deantwo]

- 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.

Well, I have nowhere in this thread mentioned that the solar systems just suddenly change ownership to your empire when the siege is done. It is just meant as requirement before being able to them capture or bombard the cities in the solar system.

I mean your "Planetary Shield" could be used as a lore wise reason if you want. All claimed worlds in a solar system is automatically protected by a world wide shield that makes everything on it invulnerable to attack, so the attacker has to station a warship in the system for x number of days until the shield systems run out of fuel or they hack it or whatever. Mechanical how it works is what matters, how it looks or quacks doesn't matter too much.

[Yurk Embassy]

Well, I have nowhere in this thread mentioned that the solar systems just suddenly change ownership to your empire when the siege is done. It is just meant as requirement before being able to them capture or bombard the cities in the solar system.

I mean your "Planetary Shield" could be used as a lore wise reason if you want. All claimed worlds in a solar system is automatically protected by a world wide shield that makes everything on it invulnerable to attack, so the attacker has to station a warship in the system for x number of days until the shield systems run out of fuel or they hack it or whatever. Mechanical how it works is what matters, how it looks or quacks doesn't matter too much.

I mean, sure, I see your point. I like this idea too, frankly; it might actually be the easiest to make as far as performance and crash/limbo avoidance are concerned. I simply feel like having it done to a planetary scale and involving actual, physical firing at said shields, might make both more immersive and more entertaining (it's just my take, I couldn't know for sure as it's never been tried before, but I do really think the aesthetic and rhythm aspects of battles should not be neglected for war to be enjoyable). Moreover, the idea of having to deliver constant fire might force even the most powerful empires to mind ammunition and fuel logistics when laying a siege. Maybe they'd even make specific designs dedicated to laying sieges: long-range line crafts that'd deliver powerful salvas with great ammo capacity, while being rather undershielded and underarmoured themselves.

Of course, since it would be planet-scaled and not system-wise, time would work a tad differently. Contrary to having to wait for like three or four days before a swift attack, attackers would wait at most 24 hours before a planet's shield is downed, then a more lively battle would ensue as they'd either bomb or capture the planet's cities, and afterwards, they would have to lay siege on another world. Depending on how many planets are occupied, taking/destroying the whole system could take, in fact, a few days in itself. Maybe if they have enough ships, they could have one or two crafts fire at another world's shield to weaken it early before the first planet falls, and the main force arrives later to finish the job. What I mean, is that there would be more variations between long periods of waiting and micro-battles for control over planets themselves; pace might be more interesting, and battles more complex, allowing for more tactics to play out, both from defenders and attackers.

I mean, either way, both your take and mine would impose a severe time constraint on sieges, and force even powerful empires to think "Is it worth it?" before attacking a random noob empire two sectors away from their border. Pragmatic thought might be summonned more often when it comes to the reasons for capturing a world or system: basically, strategic value for the enemy or ourselves.

[Celarious]

Honestly, I believe what Norm said about returning to the original loyalty system is the best option. Remove building damage entirely, unless the flags have been captured and the defender's city is under "conquest" as they'd technically be in for a bit when the loyalty flipped over. Yes, it will allow military buildings to fire at the attackers in safety, but I don't see this is a huge issue considering how much of an advantage attackers currently have

So you mean you want the old-style city conquest returned? But that wouldn't stop an attacker from capturing a whole empire within hours at all.

The old-style city's conquest and loyalty system was very much based on the attacker capturing the city, and then the defender login and capture it back with ease if loyalty hasn't flipped yet. Sure loyalty was nice for giving the defender time to retake what was lost, but it was not a fun way of doing war.

Yes, it wouldn't stop conquest in a few hours, however it would make it slower than it currently is. About it not being "a fun way of doing war", if we're going to look at it that way, that's inevitable if we're going to stop players from wiping out cities in minutes. Everything else you and Yurk have suggested in this thread is the same way - less "fun" for the attacker, and intentionally so as Yurk said here:

I mean, either way, both your take and mine would impose a severe time constraint on sieges, and force even powerful empires to think "Is it worth it?" before attacking a random noob empire two sectors away from their border. Pragmatic thought might be summonned more often when it comes to the reasons for capturing a world or system: basically, strategic value for the enemy or ourselves.

Unfortunately the most fun is what we currently have, and making it less fun is a necessity for discouraging quick empire stomps. This includes your suggestion about system sieges. Hence I don't think it should be considered as a part of the conversation, it's not helpful ultimately.

In terms of the actual suggestions themselves, I do think a planetary shield of some sort is the best option, as it gives a "physical" representation of some sort. Having to arbitrarily "siege a system" for x hours before you're allowed to do anything would feel a bit weird and abstract, which I don't think most players would enjoy

[Greydog]

Well, in real life when a weapon or tactic becomes too overpowered a defense is found to mitigate it. Maybe what we need are more dynamic and powerful defense systems.

We could start by needing line of sight in order to bring weapons to bear, creating the need to maneuver while fighting. At the same time it would (hopefully) dial back the one huge overpowered ships weapon in favor of multiple strategically placed weapons.

- Have ai pilots who man the fighters when attacked and ground troops in the vehicles.
- More different types of attack and defense vehicles/craft
- Ground officers that provide attack/defense modifiers and can also man stations.
- Maybe increase the effectiveness of heavy defense weapons and shields

The idea is to make an attacker think twice about attacking in the first place, not artificially limit their ability to do so.

[Deantwo]

Well, in real life when a weapon or tactic becomes too overpowered a defense is found to mitigate it. Maybe what we need are more dynamic and powerful defense systems.

The issue is, this is a game and there is no possible defense against a determined attacker with vastly superior firepower.

Not to mention newbie-stomping being an issue that can't be solved with just more power defensive structures because they are newbies.

We could start by needing line of sight in order to bring weapons to bear, creating the need to maneuver while fighting.

Line-of-sight requirement is already a thing, so I assume you mean limited firing-arcs? So spacecraft weapon systems aren't omni-directional?

I don't see how that would change anything at all from a planetary defense point of view. As for its effect on space combat in general, I don't care that is not the topic of this forum thread. There are already a bunch of threads specifically about changing weapon bays to have a limited firing-arc, please discuss it there.

- Have ai pilots who man the fighters when attacked and ground troops in the vehicles.
- More different types of attack and defense vehicles/craft
- Ground officers that provide attack/defense modifiers and can also man stations.
- Maybe increase the effectiveness of heavy defense weapons and shields

None of this really stops a max-sized spacecraft from nuking a city. If the city has a bunch of max-sized military defense buildings than maybe it would have a few issues, but those take a lot of resources and time to build, so probably only the empire owning the max-sized spacecraft will have those defenses.

Even if you went and dialed up the power of all military defense buildings, we'd still have the same talk about newbies and other weaker empires being wiped out in less than an hour.

I did make a suggestion way back in 2018 about having defender NPC ships spawn as an encounter. But again that won't help against a powerful empire steamrolling across weaker empires without a care in the world.
See: (Idea thread) Empire Defense Fleet and Encounters

[Greydog]

The only thing that would prevent noob stomping is to simply not allow it, then you're stuck with trying to figure out where to draw the line. If that's where you want to go, I have no issue with it, I would rather find more interesting solutions though.

If it's the big gun you're worried about why don't we give it some trade offs like a longer charge up time. Starkiller Base took about 20 minutes to charge, the Deathstar about 3 minutes I think. We could have our capital weapons take a few seconds to a minute or more depending on the strength. Heavier weapons would also require massive power to operate and fitting one on the ship would come as a serious trade off to some other things like speed and maneuverability. 

I'm thinking that if a noob with a starter planet is being attacked it's either a neighbor stretching their new found wings or they were unfortunate enough to spawn too close to a belligerent larger neighbor, or there is a large expansionist empire eating it's way thru the sector. The first scenario is hard to guard against as it's usually random. But in the other two there is the assumption that one or more nearby systems have already been taken by them. Maybe we could have the noob get visited by some refugees who happen to have a fully stocked colony ship who are offering to take them somewhere else. 

The tutorial could be expanded to teach players the importance of building different defenses and having reliable power to run it all and how command structures can multiply it's effectiveness. Then at least the newbie can start with something they can build on. 

If I were to weigh in on the morale debate I'd say bring it back, then we can use espionage to manipulate it.

[Yurk Embassy]

The only thing that would prevent noob stomping is to simply not allow it, then you're stuck with trying to figure out where to draw the line. If that's where you want to go, I have no issue with it, I would rather find more interesting solutions though.

If it's the big gun you're worried about why don't we give it some trade offs like a longer charge up time. Starkiller Base took about 20 minutes to charge, the Deathstar about 3 minutes I think. We could have our capital weapons take a few seconds to a minute or more depending on the strength. Heavier weapons would also require massive power to operate and fitting one on the ship would come as a serious trade off to some other things like speed and maneuverability. 

I'm thinking that if a noob with a starter planet is being attacked it's either a neighbor stretching their new found wings or they were unfortunate enough to spawn too close to a belligerent larger neighbor, or there is a large expansionist empire eating it's way thru the sector. The first scenario is hard to guard against as it's usually random. But in the other two there is the assumption that one or more nearby systems have already been taken by them. Maybe we could have the noob get visited by some refugees who happen to have a fully stocked colony ship who are offering to take them somewhere else. 

The tutorial could be expanded to teach players the importance of building different defenses and having reliable power to run it all and how command structures can multiply it's effectiveness. Then at least the newbie can start with something they can build on. 

If I were to weigh in on the morale debate I'd say bring it back, then we can use espionage to manipulate it.

I mean, I don't really feel like a huge planetary shield would come out as an arbitrary element in gameplay. If empires are able to cover entire cities under standard shields, why not planet-scaled ones? It doesn't need to take a whole day, it could very well be six hours. SoH being a rather slow-paced MMO, that sounds like a very reasonable timespan for a planet's defenses to be worked through. That idea of a shield system, however, would imply a full removal of Noncombatant status, as I hardly imagine those two working well together.

Which is why logic could very well be applied to already-existing city shields. The choice of tossing away the idea of a planetary shield system, but instead buffing the shield absorption of city shields generator designs, to make them much longer to take down, sounds decent enough to me. Maybe building the shield generator--and overall defenses, actually--could be a tutorial in itself that would trigger, say, as soon as the player's city acquires higher-tier, tech commodities necessary to build those.

[AnrDaemon]

Let's get to the face of the problem: This is a game, and to keep the game interesting for all involved parties, there should be some rules.
"Realistic" is not the right term to discuss the game. If you want realism - go outside. There you'd get your realism in true color, HiFi sound, realistic force feedback and full presence effect.
What you are looking for is "Consistent". And for consistency, game rules don't have to be "realistic".

[Yurk Embassy]

Let's get to the face of the problem: This is a game, and to keep the game interesting for all involved parties, there should be some rules.
"Realistic" is not the right term to discuss the game. If you want realism - go outside. There you'd get your realism in true color, HiFi sound, realistic force feedback and full presence effect.
What you are looking for is "Consistent". And for consistency, game rules don't have to be "realistic".

It's not that simple. It's also about it being credible and not being an arbitrary rule saying "lol you can't attack because rules, wait x hours before actual battle." That wouldn't be the Hazeron spirit. Realism isn't necessarily reality, mind you. Hazeron has a certain tendancy to cling to a realistic base of things as far as physics and biology are concerned: gravity around moons and planets, in space without suit=death, groups of species are based off those we know here on Earth, and so on. Sci-fi in itself can be "realistic". I simply meant it should remain credible in the universe it fits in, and we all know SoH has never really had a reputation of stopping players from attacking one another "because rules" (that Noncombatant thing brings a whole new concept to the game, actually, even though I'd argue it's only fair that offline players be somewhat guarded from complete obliteration--they are offline, after all).