# Combat

This document defines the intended combat model for the simulation.

Combat is primarily a localspace activity. It is how factions, pirates, and defenders contest access, claims, stations, and logistics.

## Design Goals

The combat model should support:

- localspace tactical fights
- piracy and harassment
- claim destruction and station contestation
- station defense
- commander-driven engagement behavior
- policy-aware hostility and access denial

## Core Principles

- combat happens in `localspace`
- claims and structures are physically contestable
- piracy should target valuable traffic and vulnerable infrastructure
- stations should be defensible but not magically safe
- combat behavior should come from commanders and policy, not only from raw proximity

## Combat Space

Combat belongs in `localspace`.

This is where entities can:

- maneuver with thrusters
- approach targets
- engage with weapons
- defend stations and claims
- intercept miners, haulers, and construction support

Ships in intra-system warp transit are not in normal tactical combat.

This keeps tactical fighting distinct from travel.

## Combat Actors

The main combat actors are:

- combat ships
- escorts
- station defenses
- pirates
- claim objects
- vulnerable civilian or industrial ships

Combat should matter not only for fleet battle, but also for logistics disruption and territorial contest.

## Claims As Combat Targets

Claims at valid construction anchors should be valid combat targets.

That means:

- enemies may destroy a claim before it matures
- pirates may harass or destroy claims
- destroying a claim reopens the location for future contest

Claims should not be protected by abstract immunity.

They are real objects in the world.

## Construction As A Vulnerable Phase

Station founding and expansion should be dangerous.

Vulnerable targets include:

- claim objects
- construction storage
- constructor ships
- supplying haulers

This makes station growth something that may require escort and local protection rather than being a purely economic background action.

## Station Defense

Stations should be able to defend themselves through modules and local defenders.

Station defense may come from:

- defense modules
- docked or assigned defenders
- nearby fleet response
- friendly system presence

Station safety should depend on actual defensive capacity, not only ownership flags.

## Piracy

Pirates should be a meaningful localspace threat.

They should favor:

- industrial ships
- haulers
- construction traffic
- station approaches
- valuable logistics lanes

Piracy is especially important because it creates pressure on:

- escorts
- trade profitability
- claim security
- station recovery

Pirates should not behave like generic random attackers if the game can instead make them economically disruptive predators.

## Hostility And Access

Combat should interact with policy and diplomacy, but not be replaced by them.

Examples:

- a hostile faction may be denied docking and attacked on approach
- a neutral faction may be tolerated in-system but not allowed to build
- pirates may ignore policy altogether and simply attack vulnerable targets

See [POLICIES.md](/home/jbourdon/repos/space-game/docs/POLICIES.md) for the access side of this relationship.

## Commander Role In Combat

Commanders should determine combat behavior.

Examples:

- faction commanders set threat posture
- station commanders request local defense
- ship commanders choose whether to attack, escort, retreat, or hold

Combat should therefore depend on:

- commander doctrine
- assigned role
- local threat level
- policy and hostility state

This is better than a purely reflexive “closest target” model.

## Engagement Rules

Commanders should eventually carry engagement rules such as:

- attack hostiles on sight
- defend only if attacked
- prioritize claims and stations
- prioritize civilian protection
- avoid battle unless escorted

These rules can begin simple, but they are important for faction identity.

## Civilian And Industrial Vulnerability

Non-combat ships should not be expected to behave like warships.

Industrial or civilian commanders should prefer:

- fleeing
- docking
- requesting escort
- rerouting
- abandoning low-value trade under danger

This gives escorts and station defense real purpose.

## Claim And Station Contest

A system can be contested without full conquest mechanics.

Useful examples:

- destroy the enemy claim before activation
- raid construction storage
- kill the constructor ship
- deny safe trade to a vulnerable station
- force expensive escort commitments

This creates strategic conflict even before fully mature station warfare exists.

## Destruction And Recovery

Combat should create lasting economic consequences.

Examples:

- destroyed claims delay expansion
- destroyed haulers create shortages
- destroyed defenders weaken a system
- damaged or powerless stations need recovery support

This is one of the main ways combat feeds back into the economy.

See [EVENTS.md](/home/jbourdon/repos/space-game/docs/EVENTS.md) for the combat and claim-related event families.

## Minimum Rules

The following rules should remain true unless deliberately revised:

- combat is primarily a localspace activity
- claims are destructible and contestable
- station construction is a vulnerable phase
- piracy should prefer valuable and vulnerable traffic
- station defense depends on real assets
- commander doctrine should influence combat behavior
- combat outcomes should affect logistics and expansion

## Relationship To Other Documents

- [UNIVERSE-MODEL.md](/home/jbourdon/repos/space-game/docs/UNIVERSE-MODEL.md)
  - defines where combat is allowed

- [POLICIES.md](/home/jbourdon/repos/space-game/docs/POLICIES.md)
  - defines access and hostility context

- [COMMANDERS.md](/home/jbourdon/repos/space-game/docs/COMMANDERS.md)
  - defines who decides engagement behavior

- [STATIONS.md](/home/jbourdon/repos/space-game/docs/STATIONS.md)
  - defines vulnerable stations, claims, and local defense context

- [ECONOMY.md](/home/jbourdon/repos/space-game/docs/ECONOMY.md)
  - defines the economic consequences of combat disruption
