If you are confused to my replies, it's because you read my arguments upside down. I put quotes first, then the reply to that quote.
Not really. Marza DN has the exact thing as a passive ability. Take that effect, empower it some and give it to siege ships.
The Marza's passive ability sets fire to everything but planets. It does not select one unit type over another. It's not even close. You're not even on the same topic.
There is an option for special abilities to distinguish between orbital modules, capital ships, and frigates. I do not know if it also applies to basic weapons.
2. Balance for one. And if you want a SciFi example, Star Trek: Nemesis'(however bad a movie it was) Scimitar had a planet killing weapon that required deployment. Let's just say that the weapon components can not be exposed to some kinds of space radiation for a long time bla bla bla...
These aren't 1-shotting planet killers that destroy all life. These are prepackaged solutions for slowly taking out a planet's government and supporting infrastructure. You don't NEED them to engage a special deployment mode. They can shoot just fine as they are. "Just because every other game does it and it looks cool!" is not reason enough to fundamentally change the ship during siege. (BTW, that's the Bandwagon argument, as you seem to be interested in those.)
3. Now this is borderline strawmanning. How does a slower ship that requires several seconds to deploy, fire and then change over to mobile form again equal instagibbing a planet and moving over to the next, and leaving you helpless to defend against it? The deployment mechanic would make it a pretty big decision to either move away, wait or commit your forces, knowing that it isn't a simple right-click-them-away maneuver to retreat.
Your suggestion is to make the ships slower, but more durable and deadly to compensate. It's the durability and damage that makes them deadly for steamrolling a sector. A few seconds of deployment is not going to be a crushing difference in a game where moving across sectors takes MINUTES.
My whole argument is that siege ships vs. planets shouldn't be changed. This is PRECISELY why I say that, because it's too slippery a slope! Killing planets is a VERY fickle role, with changes either way dramatically changing the course of the game. This is not the same with other theatres of combat such as fighters/frigates/orbital structure/cap ships.
They're already deadly to buildings and planets, why enforce the spam-siege-craft mechanic by making them effective against caps?
You are now being deliberately misleading. Siege ships use their standard armament against buildings. They are in no way effective against them.
Anyway, what I'm trying to point out is that the siege ship is completely broken at its PRIMARY role, when pitted against a capital ship's SECONDARY role.
Implement planet shielding as a tech option. And only siege ships can penetrate the shield without any side effects. Instead of the siege ships standing there like capital ships to bombard from orbit, rather animate them by making bombing runs on the planet, therefore bypassing the planetary shield.
Well, that's an interesting approach. I thought only TEC had planetary shields, though? Other races uses different approaches to protecting their planets.