Planet Outposts

[lordxorn]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

The idea of projecting influence or having "territory" sounds more like Galactic Civ than DW.  I like the mechanics the way they are now.  Just my 2 credits.

Elmo3 makes alot of sense to me because I am a Heavy Border advocate until you think about the real world where borders are nothing more than a line on a map. What enforces those borders are military ships.

It would just be a nightmare to micromanage a border fleet though to destroy any marauding colony ships.

[Aures]

Yeah, but if someone trespasses on your property and you take justified action to remove them they are the ones who will get arrested and not you. DW does not recongise your right to enforce your borders with military ships.

[Dannyboy99]

A simple option when controlling a fleet could be "claim system" this could also be expanded to "claim sector". This would allow you to send a fleet out to patrol an area and to turn away any other empire's ships, possibly set to that empire's settings for when they fight so if they are set to 2:1 and don't have twice the firepower of your fleet they will retreat, if they do you could receive a pop-up asking whether you wish to fight or withdraw. The empire could react in different ways depending on their relations with you, friendly empires staying out, neutral ones letting you withdraw and hostile ones driving your ships away. It would be easily balanced because your ships would need to refuel, if they are set to "claim sector" they would travel from system to system, expending a large amount of fuel and having to refuel often, fleets set to "patrol system" would obviously expend less fuel. This would also make it too costly to try claiming any space that is far away from your own empire and stop you from claiming too much as you would need a number of fleets. Would also make refuelling ships even more valuable as these would allow your fleets to remain on station.

[forsaken1111]

I like the 'patrol sector' idea. We could also utilize the existing map grid sectors and color them based on sovereignty, and any sector with more than one race's colonies is considered 'contested'. A sovreign sector would count as enemy systems to the AI so if their racial stats indicate that they wouldn't colonize within an enemy system, they will stay out of your sector unless their need is great enough.

This is a soft approach with no arbitrary limits, just gives the AI some semblance of recognizing rough borders.

[Dannyboy99]

I dont think owning a whole sector is a great idea, it just gives you the option to "claim" territory whilst requiring a large amount of effort and limiting the amount of territory you can claim like this

[forsaken1111]

ORIGINAL: Dannyboy99

I dont think owning a whole sector is a great idea, it just gives you the option to "claim" territory whilst requiring a large amount of effort and limiting the amount of territory you can claim like this

It would just be a political thing as I said, a soft claim. To enforce it you'd need to bring in a fleet to patrol as you suggested.

Just an idea anyway.

[Dannyboy99]

I think everyone has their own ideas about this but to me it should be based around military strength in the area you want to control

[forsaken1111]

ORIGINAL: Dannyboy99

I think everyone has their own ideas about this but to me it should be based around military strength in the area you want to control

I would accept a system like that too if it my fleet could turn away colony ships and enemy fleets without resorting to blowing them away.

[Dannyboy99]

Yeah, I'm sure navies are supposed to be about deterrence and providing a show of force as well as just smashing other fleets

[PaulP]

All that really needs to be done IMO is not allowing colony ships to plant colonies on planets with existing bases. I've had to go to war and lose reputation several times just to reclaim my own planets that the AI stole by colonizing out from under me, and the player can exploit the exact same thing against the AIs.
 
It doesn't make any sense. Having a mining base should be just as much claim on that planet as a colony - if they want to colonize it let them bring a military and shoot down the station first, not just sneak in with an unarmed colonization ship and steal it. Even if I have a fleet there guarding it I have to take a hit from shooting it down even when its obviously flying in to steal one of my planets.

[Aures]

Certainly much simpler than my suggestion.

[elmo3]

ORIGINAL: PaulP

...Having a mining base should be just as much claim on that planet as a colony - if they want to colonize it let them bring a military and shoot down the station first, not just sneak in with an unarmed colonization ship and steal it. Even if I have a fleet there guarding it I have to take a hit from shooting it down even when its obviously flying in to steal one of my planets.

Disagree. If you want a colony there then put one there. Otherwise it's not "your" planet. To me a mining station doesn't confer any control over the planet and the game design confirms that by allowing another empire to colonize the planet. You should not be able to lock down planets from colonization just by putting a mining base there. You do so by putting a colony there.

[Simulation01]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: PaulP

...Having a mining base should be just as much claim on that planet as a colony - if they want to colonize it let them bring a military and shoot down the station first, not just sneak in with an unarmed colonization ship and steal it. Even if I have a fleet there guarding it I have to take a hit from shooting it down even when its obviously flying in to steal one of my planets.

Disagree. If you want a colony there then put one there. Otherwise it's not "your" planet. To me a mining station doesn't confer any control over the planet and the game design confirms that by allowing another empire to colonize the planet. You should not be able to lock down planets from colonization just by putting a mining base there. You do so by putting a colony there.

Elmo,

I disagree completely and emphatically. A mining facility implies ownership.

[Shark7]

Honestly, to 'claim' a planet/system, then perhaps we need a new facility or troop called the 'colonial garrison'.

Colonial Garrison:

-Cheaper than a colony ship
-Very Expensive to maintain (after all it requires you to support it)
-Unlimited by colony tech (that is you can go claim any potentially habitable planet for future colonization).
-Built as a ship that converts to a garrison outpost/troop upon arrival.
-The Colonial Garrison 'claims' the planet and prevents colony ships from landing.
-The Colonial Garrison can be removed via enemy attack or bombardment.
-Attacking or Bombarding a Colonial Garrison will have only a very small hit to reputation (no more than attacking an independent).

[forsaken1111]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

ORIGINAL: PaulP

...Having a mining base should be just as much claim on that planet as a colony - if they want to colonize it let them bring a military and shoot down the station first, not just sneak in with an unarmed colonization ship and steal it. Even if I have a fleet there guarding it I have to take a hit from shooting it down even when its obviously flying in to steal one of my planets.

Disagree. If you want a colony there then put one there. Otherwise it's not "your" planet. To me a mining station doesn't confer any control over the planet and the game design confirms that by allowing another empire to colonize the planet. You should not be able to lock down planets from colonization just by putting a mining base there. You do so by putting a colony there.

This is like saying it's okay to wander into someone else's oil field, plant a flag and build a city. Don't you think they would get just a bit pissed off at you dismantling all of their oil rigs and taking the oil for yourself?

They don't own it, they didn't have a city sitting on the oil field, so it's okay right?

[elmo3]

We're talking about a whole planet here.  An oilfield in Texas on an otherwise vacant Earth should not mean I "own" Earth.  I'm opposed to civilian installations conferring ownership of a whole planet.  The colonizing empire could take it's relations with the base owner by colonizing but it should not be prohibited from doing so altogether.  The game mechanics are simple, i.e. if you want a planet then colonize it.  I could see a military base possibly being enough to discourage colonization but even that should be an expensive proposition, otherwise people will be running around plunking down military bases just to deny the AI a nice planet.

Anyway it's just my 2 credits and obviously people will disagree.

[forsaken1111]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

We're talking about a whole planet here.  An oilfield in Texas on an otherwise vacant Earth should not mean I "own" Earth.  I'm opposed to civilian installations conferring ownership of a whole planet.  The colonizing empire could take it's relations with the base owner by colonizing but it should not be prohibited from doing so altogether.  The game mechanics are simple, i.e. if you want a planet then colonize it.  I could see a military base possibly being enough to discourage colonization but even that should be an expensive proposition, otherwise people will be running around plunking down military bases just to deny the AI a nice planet.

Anyway it's just my 2 credits and obviously people will disagree.

You aren't getting the scale. This is a mining station which is mining THE PLANET. It is an extensive and expensive installation which you have put in place and paid for in credits and resources. Why should I be able to wipe it out and steal your resources just by sending in an unarmed colony ship?

And why isn't an oil field in the middle of Texas a good example? You didn't colonize that bit of land by building a city there, so I am going to build one and all your oil belongs to me. Why should I care that you have another city nearby? Just because you have a city doesn't mean you own the whole state, that would be a TERRITORY system with BORDERS which we do not have. See?

[elmo3]

You used the example of an oilfield so I just piggybacked on that for my example.

You can wipe out my planet wide mining station and put up your colony because those are the game rules.  I don't think they should be changed to allow mining stations to prevent colonization is all I'm saying.  Others are lobbying for putting down a flag and thus owning a planet.  By that logic the United States owns the Moon since not only did we plant a flag but we left a golf cart there too.  Nobody in their right mind would agree with that so why should we have it in the game?

Just because you have a city doesn't mean you own the whole state, that would be a TERRITORY system with BORDERS which we do not have.

If by city here you mean a colony then yes I own the whole planet according to the game rules.  I have no problem with allowing multiple empires to colonize the same planet but that is another discussion and I don't expect to see it ever happen in DW.

Anyway I guess we can agree to disagree on the subject.  Peace.

[Simulation01]

ORIGINAL: elmo3

You used the example of an oilfield so I just piggybacked on that for my example.

You can wipe out my planet wide mining station and put up your colony because those are the game rules.  I don't think they should be changed to allow mining stations to prevent colonization is all I'm saying.  Others are lobbying for putting down a flag and thus owning a planet.  By that logic the United States owns the Moon since not only did we plant a flag but we left a golf cart there too.  Nobody in their right mind would agree with that so why should we have it in the game?

Just because you have a city doesn't mean you own the whole state, that would be a TERRITORY system with BORDERS which we do not have.

If by city here you mean a colony then yes I own the whole planet according to the game rules.  I have no problem with allowing multiple empires to colonize the same planet but that is another discussion and I don't expect to see it ever happen in DW.

Anyway I guess we can agree to disagree on the subject.  Peace.

Actually I would posit that we are the only ones that have demonstrated any sovereignty over the moon ( our manned landings ) and hence we would have a better legal claim to owning the moon than anyone else. I would in fact be in favor of the US and it's allies claiming the Moon or large portions of it's surface.

[forsaken1111]

You don't really understand analogy do you?