Buildable Orbital System Defenses

Idea/Ultimate Goal:

I'd love to see the ability to build system planetary orbital defenses/platforms etc. such as Battlestations/Missile Platforms/Fighter Hangers etc. that would have to be destroyed in space combat before planetary invasions could be initiated.  They would need to be powerful, limited to one of each type per system.  But they would also need to be expensive to build and expensive enough maintenance wise to make them impractical to build on anything but the systems that make the most sense to players.  Such as a highly contested border, natural choke points, or a system that has a high resource importance (whether that's high dust, research, production, strategic resources, or your primary shipyards etc.), or even your homeworld.  That way no one could afford to put these types of defenses in every system (otherwise wars could start to become tedious rather than fun), but would add more strategic depth to wars and give us more defensive options at our disposal to build for those more strategically important systems while at the same time forcing us to be careful not to build such expensive defenses on planets not worth the required resource expenditure.  Would love to be able to custom fit these stations like you already can currently with your ships, Arks and Heroes as well.

Possible Approaches As Discussed In Below Comments:

AngelicStorm wrote:

Not a bad idea, but this feels like another layer of the shipbuilding mechanic that the game might not need. The combat system is already based on range and how you approach your opponent's fleet. Stationary defences would be at an immediate disadvantage because they can't move like that and gain the bonuses for certain manoeuvres. Depending on the range of the station's weapon(s), they'd have to have some kind of static buff. Also, it takes people to run stations, so losing them would have to mean you'd lose some Manpower too. They'd also probably have upkeep just like ships, but at that point, they're basically just tougher ships that can't move; you could simulate the same thing by making a class of ship with weak, inexpensive engines and decking it out with better weapons and armour.

I'm just spitballing, though. This could very well be a good idea, like the Starbases in Sins of a Solar Empire, but this is just my two cents on it.

ValhallasAshes wrote: (Edited: Couldn't Edit Original Post As Comments Tools Are Bugged)

All really good points.  I did think the same about the stationary issue, which is why I thought they would need to be strong and powerful due to their lack of movement and account for their high expense. (Or to play on your Sins of a Solar Empire analogy, they could possibly move Vasari style, but I don't know if that would work for this game.)  I also wondered about how it would work considering everything is mainly looked at from a system level rather than a planetary level, so for it to work, you would think you would want one around each planet or at each access point to the system, but then you start to get logically muddled up between multiple stations, where are they located within the orbital grid, what's to prevent enemy ships from going around/avoiding them,  how would that work etc.  Which could cause a whole mess of immersion killing logic issues.

The only thing I could think of to kill all birds with one stone is to maybe make this a special system project (not specialization since those are planetary level) and then insert something into the lore saying these stations have powerful technologies (tractors, powerful electronic countermeasures, whatever) that prevents hostile ships from approaching, targeting or even navigating to planets in the system, forcing a confrontation with these stations before hostile ships can begin invasion operations.  That would make more sense, allowing you to completely ignore trajectories, planetary orbital positions, (all of the logic muddling issues etc.) and allow it to be implemented fairly easily.

The only other possible issue I can think of as well, are Vodyani Arks.  Currently, as confirmed to me by Romeo, Vodyani Arks take all their infrastructure with them when they move systems.  Which is why I suggested this be a special system project instead of the typical system infrastructure project.  So when an Ark moves to a different system, the systems defense stations/platforms should be the only things the Arks can't take with them, for obvious reasons.

I'd also like to see these stations have the ability play some similar roles as defending fleets would.  Such as a border checkpoint.  Similar to the way fleets can blockade a system holding fleets traversing through the system to have to wait a turn or 2 before being allowed to proceed (unless their fleets belong to allies of course).

I'll let the dev's decide whether they would want to allow fleets to engage hostiles in the same battle instance as defensive stations.  Honestly, as cool as it would be, I fear this would have the prospect of breaking battle balance.  So it would probably be better to have stations/platforms fight their own fights in dedicated battle instances.  However, you should be able to select your stations icon and tell them to force an engagement with hostile forces, but hostile fleets should be forced to deal with defending fleets before being allowed to fight defensive stations.

The idea behind this is to give players more defensive options and add more strategic depth to the map and wars.  Especially since the way the star system navigation setup is currently, is perfect for this kind of feature, if we can find a way to implement it in a logical manner.

lo_fabre wrote:

Hi,

I got an idea to defend the systems, that is not exactly what you're proposing, but as it ends with similar function, I'll post here to avoid possible duplicities.

One think i found strange is that you can send ships into space, but for some strange reson you can't fire a land-orbit missile to an invading fleet. It for me is a no sense. I'm sure population will do what is necessari to defent fron an enemy orbiting fleet, instead of just waiting for the invasion.

My proposal is that any sieging fleet receives damage each turn from system defenders, and at same time manpower is reduced like in actual system.

The damage is done to the ships, but doesn't reduces its manpower. So you have to plan accordingly if you want to siege a system without loosing any ships.

Damage done to ships is can come from different sources:

• Manpower: This is a source in each system. It means a basic defense, and it is a basic multiplier of 0.X, to grant a constant but reduced damage. Also this damage diminishes as manpower is reduced each turn. The advantatge is that this grants a minimal chance of defense to all systems for free.
• Improvements that increases manpower effectiveness: Yopu can see it as something like "System defense coordinating center" or anything that fits lore better. Basically what this improvments do is increase the manpower multiplier over 1, to 1.X, 2, 3 and successively. Obviously you have to build them.
• Improvements that increases your manpower, or reduces its loss, like the actual impervious bunkers.
• Laws that improves manpower generation, and the actual levy (didn't remember the name) system.
• There are faction traits that increases mapower in the game.
• Improvements like "Missile silos", "Space stations", "Surface-orbit lasers" or whatever occur to you, that deals flat damage. As they can be represented in system view, to make it cool, they are treated as improvements, not fleets or ships. Also you can consider making this bonus per planet or per pop.

I think that way allows you to defend system before land invasions. Also opens door to new features like modules that makes your fleet resistant to this attacks, or capable of destroying some of this improvements from orbit.

If properly balanced (wich can be done only by tweaking numbers) it can totally change the dinamycs of invasions and sieges. Now attaking player will be interested in invading ASAP, as many of this improvements can be destroyed in ground battle, reducing damage to your fleet in next turn (considir that imo this improvements will be a priority target, having more chances to be destroyed than other improvements).

Hope it helps. If you consider this is a totally different idea, please say and I'll create a new one, but ATM I think its same goal.

ValhallasAshes wrote:

Nope, same idea, just a different approach.  Or may be better if they use a combination of our approaches.

First of all, I think your system for "basic" system defenses is better than mine and I think it could be scaled throughout an empire relatively easily and for fairly cheap/moderate costs to build and maintain from an approach point of view.  Allowing all systems to at least have some basic orbital defense capabilities.  But also, if balanced right, could allow for varying degrees of buildable defenses across the campaign map system locations between minimal, moderate and heavily defended systems via means other than by simply whether or not you have ships in system and how many ships.  I also actually like your concept of building planet ground based missile silos better than my original pitch for having them as orbital platforms.  This concept could also work by making the fighter hangers I proposed ground based as well, as the fighters would be able to provide in-system orbital defense as well as play into the air support mechanic for ground battles that already appears to be blocked out in ground invasions, but we haven't seen the actual units for yet.  These ground based defensive structures just make more sense as they would logically be easier to build and cheaper to maintain allowing more systems to have at least basic defenses (or stronger) for both ground and space.  And would play into the already existing game mechanics, as well as the mechanics you proposed for how they could work.  Although I would point out, that I think they already have items in systems specifically for increasing manpower such as bunkers.  If I remember right, the bunkers tooltip simply states that it increases system manpower by 50.  And if you look in the system view, there is a listing for system manpower.  But currently, I think their only use is for resistance to land invasions.  So I think your idea in that regard, would be more of an expansion to that already existing manpower mechanic rather than an addition by expanding it to account for orbital engagements as well.

I do however worry about how this mechanic could negatively impact blockades though.  Where, when you're not actually attacking a system, but rather simply blockading it.  I don't think fleets that are simply blockading a system should incur this turn based resistance damage.  In which case I would propose a new button option being added to fleets actions.  Keep the one for blockading a system, but also add another one specifically to put your fleets into siege mode.  This would also play into your concept for turn based planetary bombardments weakening a systems defenses over the course of several turns.  This would make a lot more sense to me.

The part of my idea that I think should remain is the Battle station as I've outlined over the course of this thread.  It should be a separate entity locked to the system and should have to be destroyed in a space battle instance before system sieges/invasions can begin.  It should be a super-structure, powerful, and expensive to build and maintain so (even if you wanted to) nobody could afford to build one in every system (This is where so many games get it wrong and ends up turning wars into a slog rather than being fun).  Forcing  players to use these super-structures strategically adding a lot of strategic depth to the campaign map and gameplay, not only for defense but also in an offensive war.  You could put one at a natural choke point, giving you a strong defensible location.  You could, if used in conjunction with this guys idea (https://www.games2gether.com/endless-space-2/ideas/13-space-shipyard) use it to defend your primary shipyards.  You could use one to bolster the defenses of one of your major economic hubs (where if lost, could seriously hurt your empire).  And this is just from the defensive point of view.  Then you've got the offensive point of view.  Where you would no longer be able to just steamroll through system after system.  You now would have to choose your incursions more carefully.  Do you take out this system over here or do you go for the jugular and hit his shipyards, putting a big dent in his war machine.  Whereas before he would just have the same defenses as every other system, with the super-structure as well, you now have to think, I may need a bigger force to take that thing out.  Maybe I should blockade this system over here as well to prevent him from bringing in reinforcements while I deal this thing.  This is the kind of depth I'm looking for on the strategic map, and your part of the idea, plays beautifully into that as well.

In every one of the best space war movies/shows, there's always been that seminal victory or defense scene.  That all important strategic location that could make or break a war campaign for both sides.  They're thrilling to watch.  And in games thrilling to take part in, but have always been heavily scripted events and as a result never really been replicated in a dynamic way in strategy games.  But, I think using a combination of your idea and mine, could actually naturally add this kind of thrill to ES2's gameplay mechanics in a very dynamic way.  I also really like the other aspects of your approach as well.

So no, I don't consider it a completely different idea.  Just a different approach toward the same goal.  But that's what I see these comment sections as for, in the idea thread.  For the community to come together and expand and refine the idea into a solid concept as a group cooperative.  So yeah, keep those thoughts coming.