space-game/docs/COMBAT.md

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 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 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

  • defines where combat is allowed

• POLICIES.md

  • defines access and hostility context

• COMMANDERS.md

  • defines who decides engagement behavior

• STATIONS.md

  • defines vulnerable stations, claims, and local defense context

• ECONOMY.md

  • defines the economic consequences of combat disruption