# Combat This document defines the intended combat model for the simulation. Combat is primarily a local-space activity. It is how factions, pirates, and defenders contest access, claims, stations, and logistics. ## Design Goals The combat model should support: - local-space 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 `local-space` - 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 `local-space`. 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 `system-space` 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 Lagrange points 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 local-space 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 local-space 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 - [SPACES.md](/home/jbourdon/repos/space-game/docs/SPACES.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