Instead of the cryptic "Your station is under attack!" messages, I think they should be a little more detailed, for example "Turret 4 at Bractus IX Planetary Outpost is under attack!" That way it would be easier to tell if it was a false alarm or not (like station guards running into stuff) and which station it is.

yes yes +1

EDIT: I have retracted my vote, see Arf's statements.

At most it should indicate which station is under attack. There is no need for it to indicate any further details about the alarm.

As for Station Guards ramming into things and triggering the alarm, perhaps the damage source or threshold before an alarm is triggered could be adjusted, though the AI and object avoidance could probably use a little tweaking too.

+1

-1 and here's why: Holding more than one conquerable station should be a chore. This change would make it easier for a defense force to be launched quickly to the correct station and greatly reduce the head-start that the attackers get by element of surprise.

+1

for the reasons that ARF states, but for me those are reasons PRO better warning system. There's no "surprise" in an attack that must be repeated many times to complete, only a stupid warning system.

Maybe tie that warning "level" to presence of a buildable "warning turret"... when present, it gives full detailled warning, or present brief message in its absence.

And since this "warning turret" is buildable, will not (auto-)respawn once destroyed!

Good old ideas refuse to die, this one was requested many times before.

Alloh, you never conquer stations. If you did, there's a database entry *somewhere* that would exist to prove it. You can, and we do, use "surprise" attacks to successfully conquer stations.

Play the game dude.

I do believe that the station bar should get a more detailed attack warning though, since anyone already in-sector is going to know about the attack. Something like what Samwise9 suggested would work there without ruining the possibility of a surprise attack.

Hmm, you have a point. I retract my vote until such time as there A: is a way to suppress or delay the notification (blow up the communication array or something), and B: are significantly more conquerable stations. At that point it should possibly become more detailed.

Well, then we should probably look at "A" in the nearer term, because I would like the conquest mechanics to be more refined before we run into the "B" situation.

If there are more thoughts related to communication-array / sneak-attack type stuff, put them in a separate suggestion thread.

+1 to a message saying station "A", "B" or "C" is under attack, most people except for the attackers are not close to the stations anyway.