Siege bloodlust

[Grumblesaur]

Even that time investment is trivialized by AFK sieging.

A base with a healthy arrangement of weapon platforms can allow for AFK defense. The entire notion of POBs is to have a presence in the game without actually being logged in. AFK sieging vs AFK ore transactions is just an eye for an eye.

POBs do need to be re-examined, in terms of both the mechanics of health/regen/decay, and the current investment disparity between attackers and defenders. My preference is to add an upkeep cost to sieges by implementing a specific siege-weapon that is necessary to damage POBs, which itself consumes ammo in order to fire. This adds a cost to attacking bases as well as maintaining them. Sieging would still have no-where near a similar cost to building, but it would provide pause for thought on whether flippant sieges were worthwhile.

The investment for a base could also be lowered, instead of raising the cost of sieging, that way the potential for hurt feelings is reduced because the time, money, and emotional investment over constructing the base doesn't have the argument of "hours/weeks/days/years" spent maintaining the base.

Reducing the number or distance of trips necessary to build them would play into this. While this may allow for more POBs to be built, it would also normalize them as being targets for demolition. More POBs means more POB sieges, which makes that kind of interaction more common. This may be a good way to drive large fleet fights.

But I think we should keep in mind that also, while a single player may not be able to effectively defend a base, it's all too easy for a single player to trade endlessly in support of a base. Nobody can siege alone. It takes a fleet to destroy a base, and it's not even possible for some factions to rally an adequate siege force without assistance. You probably wouldn't see the Mollys trying to siege on their own, since the largest ships they have in their arsenal are Scyllas. Meanwhile you have Hessians, Corsairs, and Outcasts that have access to battleships, which are practically necessary for sieging. Thus, some groups will not only need to coordinate within their faction, but bring in support from the outside, and coordinate the supply line for the ammunition.

Suggesting the ammunition supply mechanic deliberately downplays the value of the coordination necessary to effect a successful siege. It's not just "grab seven valors and go AFK" unless the base mounts no defense. Contested sieges have fighters and bombers and repair ships. The recent clashes in Dublin have brought lots of ships on both sides. Long-running voice calls, lots of Discord @mentions. It's a busy time, and involves a lot of effort on either side of the siege that isn't readily visible in the game proper.

---

A way a lone a last a loved a long the riverrun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay,
brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs.