quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

That's not to say that a weapons control status isn't needed.

Others have commented on the need to quarantine systems in terms of friendly movement, well I would suggest that fleets and ships need a weapons control status that overrides the idea of war for the above reason -- to impose a quarantine by force.  I've documented many cases where fighting with ships when you are not at war with the faction causes all kinds of AI headaches. So far the fix has been to make war more likely.

However, I think this kind of system would greatly assist in protection of key assets, colonies and facilities where weapon systems may be fired at any target not positively recognized as friendly. For example, keeping others out of debris fields. This would also benefit the AI, in that, players could not slip troop transports past starbases and defensive bases to effectively seize a colony when not at war.

Examples could be
-- weapons free = fire at any state-owned target not friendly
-- weapons tight = fired only at state-owned targets recognized as hostile by disliked, or attacking other friendly assets
-- weapons hold = fire only in self-defense, at war targets, or in response to a command (the only current weapons control status)

This isn't to say that fighting shouldn't have the same diplomatic consequences they do now, but it allows the player to draw a line in the sand around important resources, assets, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NinjaCool

Seems like an interesting idea dawilko. Just enough sphere of influence to cover a planet if a military station is build on it to symbolize your empire claiming the planet but not the system itself would stop what Sarissofoi has experienced, although the AI should need to learn this idea to at least some degree.

Perhaps if this opens up to too many possibilities to be exploited by a player, then maybe link it to only be able to build military station with a sphere of influence at extremely rare luxury resources where no empires have a presence in the system and/or also link it to the distance from your nearest colony so you cant go calming planets half way across the galaxy using military stations?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I agree there should be some kind of warning and ideally an option to open fire (and risk war) if a colony ship approaches.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

Examples could be
-- weapons free = fire at any state-owned target not friendly
-- weapons tight = fired only at state-owned targets recognized as hostile by disliked, or attacking other friendly assets
-- weapons hold = fire only in self-defense, at war targets, or in response to a command (the only current weapons control status)

This isn't to say that fighting shouldn't have the same diplomatic consequences they do now, but it allows the player to draw a line in the sand around important resources, assets, etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Erik Rutins

I agree there should be some kind of warning and ideally an option to open fire (and risk war) if a colony ship approaches.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Malevolence

That's not to say that a weapons control status isn't needed.

Others have commented on the need to quarantine systems in terms of friendly movement, well I would suggest that fleets and ships need a weapons control status that overrides the idea of war for the above reason -- to impose a quarantine by force.  I've documented many cases where fighting with ships when you are not at war with the faction causes all kinds of AI headaches. So far the fix has been to make war more likely.

However, I think this kind of system would greatly assist in protection of key assets, colonies and facilities where weapon systems may be fired at any target not positively recognized as friendly. For example, keeping others out of debris fields. This would also benefit the AI, in that, players could not slip troop transports past starbases and defensive bases to effectively seize a colony when not at war.

Examples could be
-- weapons free = fire at any state-owned target not friendly
-- weapons tight = fired only at state-owned targets recognized as hostile by disliked, or attacking other friendly assets
-- weapons hold = fire only in self-defense, at war targets, or in response to a command (the only current weapons control status)

This isn't to say that fighting shouldn't have the same diplomatic consequences they do now, but it allows the player to draw a line in the sand around important resources, assets, etc.