Force fields?

Part 1:

I don't understand how a basic concept of expenditure can be argued against. You want to build a shield, that costs something, which has to be paid for from somewhere, and are resources which are therefore not going into other projects.


The strawman is yours. In no way did i claim using shields was "critically undermining competitiveness". I stated that your claim that shields invalidated aggression and had seemingly no counter play was false.


What do you mean by "Significant"? What do you mean by "Competitive?" From your example here neither player is of a skill level deficit that they would be run over, and have similar resources to play with. In your example, you aren't exactly selling to me how shields are a bad thing. The stalemate is already there by process of the two being equally matched, not by shields being present.


You build one shield or two, perhaps it won't affect your economy.

If you want to seriously dig in, as your previous posts seem to suggest with shield layers, then the costs ramp up - not only of the shields, but the energy needed to run them. Then we run into other problems. What is "exorbitantly expensive"? Where do you draw the line between "efficient investment" and "too much"? Isn't that a matter of balance as opposed to a flat out "Sheilds are bad for gameplay" from the get go? They are very different things, the former of which I don't disagree with, the latter of which I don't have an opinion on.

Quite frankly, in reply to your question "do people know there are ways to deal with a shielded location", I would state, from the posts in the thread, the answer would be no. It's "It's too defended, I can't attack it, awww.".


To quote your first post:


"The first, and most serious pathology, is that you need enough firepower to breach the shield in order to do any damage at all to the area being shielded. This leads to consolidation beneath the shields, and it leads to consolidation by attacking forces against the shields. And worse still, it runs away because you can make multiple shields, further increasing the minimum amount of damage needed to breach the shield."


How would anyone read that and arrive at the conclusion you are aware there are counter measures beyond brute forcing your way through in a simplistic manner? This "most serious pathology" is describing turtling.

You then reply to me that nobody decent would turtle to gain a "marginal advantage". So what is it, a big problem, a minor problem, a balance issue, or personal opinion?


Going to something like "It's boring" is so weak as an argument it's ridiculous. If arguments were based on subjectivity, you would get somewhere. In general, they're based objectively. Hey, How about this.

"nukes are boring"

"Artillery is boring"

"Space is boring".

That's hardly an argument. And do you know why? Because of this:

I'm sorry, but if you feel that your personal opinion on a matter makes a certain position of a topic stronger... no. I think even you would see how absurd that is.


In addition, you then again seem to be using evidence that supports my side of the argument yet still somehow manage to disagree with me. People will use multiple assets in an attempt to win. You make a play, I make a counter play. You choose to augment your forces with shields, I'll harass somewhere else with bombers instead.
It's a tactical decision as to what to invest in. If you wish to invest in defence, I don't see why that should automatically be "bad".


Oh, and to address your quasi-insult: "A player with a large army who buys a shield instead of a few more troops does not immediately lose the game, you nit.".


Then you're at a point of the game where the impact of the shield isn't that large. Adding more troops, wouldn't do anything because there;s a stalemate going on that cannot be broken by extra troops that a shield will bring. The stalemate exists before the shields ever arrived at the picture. Do you know what the hilarious thing is? It's your overall reasoning for why shields are boring.


I'll quote:

"Being unable to deal any damage to a defensive position without bringing overwhelming force is boring because it makes all but the most focused, decisive, and certain attacks completely foolhardy because you may lose everything and not kill a single enemy."


Do you see the word "shield" in that phrase anywhere? No - because it is universally true what is being stated, as the statement is one of the blitheringly obvious. You wouldn't willingly undertake any action if that action resulted in a negative overall impact to your chances of winning.



NB: There's making a game hard, and there's making a game obnoxious. Where that line is, is again, not what i am seeking to address. Do shields make the game obnoxious to win? Not what i'm seeking to address.

Where exactly did i state it wasn't efficient? If anything I stated that efficiency wasn't everything., with regards to map control and resources at someones disposal. But meh. Moving on.


Right. Um. I again don't see how my quoted point is invalid. I decide to break one of your weapons, you therefore cannot use it. You cannot use it, therefore I no longer take damage from it. The overall damage I now take from you is less than what it would have been before i had taken the action. How is this not be taking steps to mitigate the potential damage coming to me? I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just saying i'm "dealing damage to you in order to mitigate damage from you to me."


As for your shields comment - no real comment beyond what I've said before in that they're stationary, in which case your example holds true. Well, it would, because you've created the scenario. My question now is, "so what?" If you choose to invest resources into a system which means your units will be more efficient under certain circumstances (Under shields), and your opponent oblidges you and attacks on your terms, why is that a bad thing?



As for this:

"I think outranging turrets so you can kill them is better for gameplay than outranging turrets under a shield so you can stalemate for a while"

I played TA for quite a while, there shields didn't exist. I actually agree with this view of things. Everything was MT forest, then placing down long-range artillery which was a considerable investment to secure territory.

I'll reiterate a point I made earlier incase it gets lost somewhere. I'm hardly a hardcore pro-shield person. I much preferred the TA school of fighting to SC.

I will also state that for the most part, I don't disagree with what you're saying. But one thing does bug me immensely.


This phrase I will talk about:

"What strategic options do shields create? What emergent gameplay? Because all I can think of is they lead to passive play. At its most pathological, passive play with artillery where neither side is doing anything productive except bouncing off each others' shields."


Why stop at shields? Why not state "what strategic options do turrets/static defences create"? They create an area which you'll need to crush with overwhelming force, else they'll end up racking a lot of kills as fodder units in front of them will just die in the mean time. I don't see why this argument can be applied to shields, yet not to other defensive structures which "hold up the game".

Do we not run the risk of suddenly everything becoming "units units units" with no change in pace or flow? I don't know, this is just conjecture here. It is also why I dont wish to address your conclusion, as there's nothing wrong with it. I just don't get right now (honestly, if i see a good case i accept it) why there's this "Passive play = bad" when other structures which essentially serve this function already exist in the game.

Nor do I know what we're exactly arguing about anymore as it seems to emcompass a fair few aspects of the game. So i do apologise if i misunderstood you somewhere, please feel free to tell me if i have.

Shields are fundamentally very different from other types of defenses. A turret is merely an immobile unit. It can be destroyed individually. Shields, on the other hand, give an umbrella of protection to potentially many units within the shield. They are not merely another defense or another turret; they operate in a fundamentally different way.

Turrets fit perfectly into the normal process of expenditure creating an asset on the board with fixed behavior. If attacked, the turret is destroyed if it runs out of HP just like any other unit. A wall of turrets can be attacked and have some of the turrets destroyed while others remain. Destroying one of the turrets reduces the strength of the defensive line, just like destroying one of the units from an army. However this dynamic is completely different from how shields work, where a shield can extend its protection over a different unit. This ability to radically increase the durability of other units is the pathological component here. Not defenses.

I have nothing against defensive play. In fact I think defenses should be exceptionally efficient precisely because they cannot move. Having good defensive capabilities is not the same as playing a passive game, because an opponent can attack into your defenses and destroy them, it will just cost them some units to do so. If they should expect failure, or if it isn't worth the risk to make such an attack, then you have passive play. Nobody will attack unless it will be extremely decisive because they expect they will lose units for little chance at gaining an advantage.

Attacking a defensive line that lacks shields is a completely different proposition than trying to batter down the shields before you can start scoring kills. Without shields, it becomes massively more difficult to have such a powerful defensive line that the enemy cannot even get a single kill. Killing a single turret amongst a large defensive line isn't that hard, even if breaking through wholesale is extremely tough. But even if the attack fails to achieve a breakthrough, as long as damage was done it isn't a complete loss.

The stalemate resulting from shields is created because nothing is being destroyed. Attacking with troops into a defensive line (no shields) will destroy a lot of turrets, and lose a lot of troops. With shields, attacking with troops into a defensive line has a binary outcome; either the defenses are cracked and gets wiped, or they aren't and the army is wiped, while the defensive line is fine. This state of affairs chills aggressive maneuvers. Because of the risk of being aggressive, rational players must be more passive.

By the same token, consider how shields interact with artillery. Given a certain strength and quantity of shields, artillery fire up to a certain density is completely absorbed. However, as soon as the artillery barrage becomes one erg too powerful, the shield collapses, and everything within the shield is obliterated. As soon as you start losing assets beneath the shield, the damage starts to run away. I have a hard time believing you don't realize this is a weird and not really that interesting or desirable mechanic, that shields just require a certain threshold of force be applied. When the attacker strikes the shielded position with overwhelming force (or artillery barrage) the attacker doesn't lose much either.

It really seems like you are pushing on increasingly tangential, even unrelated premises just for the sake of arguing, especially since you yourself say you aren't actually in favor of shields and prefer TA, which has no shields.

For example,

This is silly. Large sections of your multiple responses give me the impression of "what does that have to do with the price of fish?" These are facts, but they don't support anything, much less your argument. Obviously killing an enemy unit is more efficient than blocking its damage with a shield. Even if only because the shield blocks the shot, whereas killing the shooter is rather more permanent. Shields are still efficient at absorbing damage.

You take the same approach with extensive illusory counter-arguments that have nothing to do with the gameplay of shields. I never said shields were unfair. I never said shields were uncounterable. I never said turtling was a problem. Most of your arguments have been of the form of stating something true about how SupCom is played, and then QED shields. Sovietpride, saying a bunch of true things and then a completely unrelated false conclusion isn't an argument. And now you've gone completely off the rails, saying "well, why do anything" and I don't really know what to tell you. None of your arguments are "cohesive" as you assert they are.

I suppose you might say that shields canceling out artillery on both sides for 20 minutes, "but that's just, like, your opinion, man." But that's a total failure to actually engage. If you think that type of gameplay is interesting, make a case for it. Or if you are thinking of something else, make a case for that type of gameplay instead. Obviously everything I have written is my opinion, and an omission of "I think" at the beginning of every sentence is just common writing practice because it is unnecessary, and should be self-evident.


TL;DR

Shields lead to passive, risk-averse gameplay to the extent that they are a factor in the game. If they are so weak as to be a non-issue, well then no harm, but also why have them. And if they are hugely influential, you get extremely passive play from behind shields by both players, each constructing an army large enough to land a decisive blow and ending the game.

Not having shields will lead to more aggression and active movement, and with more defenses and units being constructed, moved around, and destroyed in both successful and failed smaller attacks. Whether you find that preferable to using shields is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.

Shields also have the effect of not dealing with the problems they are supposed to solve but rather the symptoms they produce.

And that is a very big problem.

As has been brought up, bubble shields are immensely powerful. They instantly give a several hundred hp boost to all units and turrets within their bubble. Build several shields, now each unit and tower gets like, a thousand hp boost.

That's one of the core reasons very simply why they are unbalanced.

Other great points have been brought up throughout this thread.

Part 1:

Problem being is that your example is already wrong, given the nature of walls. Place wall in front of turret, watch as turret is unaffected. I also don't get this furor over "hp regeneration". Essentially in a way, isn't it just automatic?


I do get where you're coming from with regards to a unit designed to protect another unit. My only problem with this is the "lancaster square" principle: a 2v1 situation, assuming the "1" is equal, (So 1+1 vs 1), is essentially a 4v1, as the lone "1" has to contend with twice the firepower against it, and twice the targets against it.

TLDR of the above is: Why is it different in your mind that is "Ok" to build additional turrets, which would increase the effectiveness of existing turrets by virtue of having more overall targets to destroy and dealing more firepower which means an attack is blunted faster, as opposed to having a structure which just makes things harder to destroy, thereby keeping them operational longer?

We assume that you attack a position with the same amount of forces capable of inflicting damage. My point is, and I have a feeling I might not be clear here to some people, why do you assume that the shielded position would be better off as opposed to the other position which can inflict more damage?

The point you raised earlier about how it forces a minimum amount of force to do lasting damage is what I imagine you'll wish to bring up here. How a small raiding force, if it did damage, would simply be absorbed by the shield and no lasting damage would remain.

To which I would ask, "Why would you want to send forces which wouldn't overrun a position to begin with?"

But let's take your example anyway, as there's another part to it I want to ask.
Let's assume there is a force "A" - it isn't enough to overrun a point B or C.
Point B has two turrets.
Point C had a turret and a shield.

We also assume that the shield is as strong as you say, just for the experiment, and point C takes no damage. (And even then, wouldn't it be a balance issue?)

In both situations, force A is destroyed. The only difference is that in point B, there is "lasting damage" to the turret/turrets. I now choose to "repair" the damage to point B. The end result is the same: No damage. (Because if damage could be inflicted to destroy a turret, I don't see why having a second turret which would have been operational to take out incoming damage is worse than having a slightly sturdier position which doesn't output as much damage)

I know my model isn't perfect, but I'm trying to get a point across.
If you're not attacking a point with overwhelming force, the position will survive. Why you attacked isn't the point, as it always happens regardless of RTS.
Why is "repair and rebuild", in essence regenerating the position, better than "making it tougher"? You could argue it makes things simpler for the defender I guess, but again here where do you draw the line? Is shift-clicking to build x5 units at a time too much simplification? What if instead of a shield, I built an auto-repair structure (Kennel/hive) that means it'll automatically regenerate HP of the things surrounding it at the cost of energy? Is this just as bad?

I again, don't understand why having a tougher position is automatically better than a position which kills units faster. I will indulge your thought experiment as to why such a scenario exists, as I'm not arrogant enough to dismiss it as something that will never happen. But I do feel that your end goal is a bit askew here.


---TLDR:

If you don't have enough firepower to inflict a single kill on a defended position, Why are you attacking it?

If you have enough firepower to inflict damage but not overrun it, Why are you attacking it?

If you have enough firepower to overrun the position, Why do shields matter?---.


The first and third points are logical extremities, of which isn't that you're trying to get at. Your stated situation is the middle one - and the answer is a simple "To inflict damage".


My question to you is now thus:


Why do you assume that if you have enough firepower to deal lasting damage to a position, yet not enough to overrun it, that the presence of shields makes this worse? Why is it intrinsically worse that a position which is tougher is better at holding its ground than a position which does more damage to an incoming attack?


The end result is the same is it not? The defensive location stands.
I'll bring an example from TA since shields didn't exist here.

Point B is heavily fortified - PD, long range cannons.

Person A doesn't want to attack it. It's not because he can't inflict damage - It's because he can't remove the presence of the enemy entirely. If point B could not be totally removed, why would he attack at all? - point 3. The owner of point B can just repair and rebuild - since, as you've stated, we don't have enough resources to over run it. That's not even counting the available reclaim from destroyed units which can sometimes even be beneficial to the defender - as is now the point of debate in SC:FAF


Furthering this point about passive play is again shown in SC: FAF team games. There is often a lul when experimental hit the field. If they were sent, The experimental will do damage... that's not in doubt. (so not point 1). But it won't be enough to overrun the enemy base entirely in most cases (point 3).
That leaves point 2: A bit of damage, and as you stated, any attack should be efficient to the attacker. In SC:FAF, they don't attack because they know throwing these machines at their opponent will often just gift their opponents resources. Do shields factor into this? Not really.

Part 2:

As stated above, this is an oversimplistic analysis. If you do option 1 or 3, shields are irrelevant to the outcome.

To option 2, I have already addressed this above. The problem with your scenario is you assume shields to be so powerful as to completely stop incoming damage. Isn't that a balance issue then?

Then surely this just benefits my argument that states shields to be not as much of an issue as you made out to be. This is the very example I listed in my first reply to you - If I start bombarding a position with artillery, he either builds more shields, or he loses the position. I don't get how you are using an argument I made stating that shields aren't that big of a problem, arrive at the same conclusion as to where they can lead, and still state that they're pathological.

Ok, maybe they're a noob trap is what you're saying. In the above situation, (ignoring the fact that the artillery piece in question is easily in the region of x20 the cost of a heavy shield generator), turtling even harder and then failing is quite clearly the wrong response. What do you want? a noob-proof game?


It's an RTS. You make a move, I reply. If my move isn't correct, then that leads to a whole host of problems, and in most games, the person with the most mistakes loses.


I'm not not in favour of shields. I do however wonder why they are so maligned by everybody.

Then you've arrived at the conclusion that offence is still a better option than defence.

To destroy that is which is dealing damage to you is better than just holing up in the ground and hoping to ride it out.

Therefore... Shields are the answer? What?.

Neither are your points all valid, as i've aptly demonstrated. You state a point, I give you an example as to why it's false. You don't like it, you ignore it. I could state that you don't do what I do and refute point for point because you cannot. What I gave you was a hard example as to why your point didn't really house water. Case in point was my example about the economy and map control.


There is no point is claiming all your positions now in a hastily erected defence, when you have actually stated to some extent or another all the points you now claim not to support.

I've been stating many times that shields weren't unfair, and weren't uncounterable.

You do not help yourself by giving extreme examples which would only ever really occur through crass stupidity, (A defence line where no damage is taken? Really?) and yet still claim to be on the side of players who know how to play the game, like expanding.

Yeah. Because going “it's boring” is definitely the epitome of a good case for a particular position right? To address this point of failure to engage: back to basics. With what resources would your scenario occur?

This is easily the most frustrating part of this debate is that you throw out examples which bear no semblence reality.

Again, taking your example you've given me: This was the case in TA. One side throws up a plasma cannon. It grants a whole area to that team. The other side throws up a plasma cannon outside its range. They cancel out. Are plasma cannons now pathological and toxic? They're stopping engagements. No wait, crap! PD's stop engagements. Better remove it all!

Let's just have a Dawn of war 2 style no-base building all-units fest shall we? No? Then where is the line and why. Because you haven't been convincing at all, especially when you try to take the high ground through absurd examples.

Why is your position one of two extremes? Why can't they just be balanced? If you introduce units/structures, regardless of what they do, they will need to be balanced. I'm going to see if what I do now makes any sense:


“PD lead to passive, risk-averse gameplay to the extent that they are a factor in the game. If they are so weak as to be a non-issue, well then no harm, but also why have them. And if they are hugely influential, you get extremely passive play from behind Pds by both players, each constructing an army large enough to land a decisive blow and ending the game.


Not having PDs will lead to more aggression and active movement, and with more defenses and units being constructed, moved around, and destroyed in both successful and failed smaller attacks. Whether you find that preferable to using PDs is, I suppose, a matter of opinion.



TLDR:


I Don't get why you hold a special place in hell for shields when they pretty much serve the same function as other defensive units. They are structures. They are defend a place.

I don't get why you feel that a tougher position is intrinsically “better” for the defender than a position that can deal more damage.

I don't get why you wish to bash me for “going on a tangent”, when you bring up examples which are either extreme, absurd, and in most cases, not based on current observations as to how they affect a game.

@brianpurkiss

I have addressed that point in my first post. on this thread. The TLDR being: "so what?"

Please, this has been discussed like hell and blood is going to start flowing if we don't stop it.
I've been convinced that shields are ****, don't make my same mistake...

I love shields, always have always will, thats just my personal preference, loved how they look in SupCom, just this huge base shield that would flucturate the more bombardment it would take with the UEF version. Just visually looks absolutely awesome.... There wont be shields and as EVO already states this has been talked about a LOT and there wont be shields, I think its a shame that they dont add it, and then have an option in the game customization to disable shields if you dont like em, like how SupCom lets you disable nukes, or air units, no ground units ect.... Its just down to the modding community really if someone can make base shields later on.. I'm hopeing so.... I'd like to have the option to play with shields, or play without them...

You miss the point.
I'm not arguing *for* sheilds.
I'm arguing that the arguments against shields are kinda crap at the moment, and for most of the problems listed, either already exist inspite of shields, or shields do not make it worse.

It is also for my own benefit and thought processes.
Such as:
Given how strong PD are right now, why are there no T1 countermeasures? like in SC:FAF?
Why do bombers suck so much at dealing damage?

Or, specifically for the person i've been having this debate with:
Why are things like dragons teeth/walls OK, yet shields are terrible?
Why is it mandatory to be able to deal visible damage?



*shrug*

My chief problem in myself so far is that I don't exactly offer a solution.
But i'm not naive enough to assume that without knowing both sides of the argument I could arrive at one.

Again, false assertion.
They won't be in the original game as it ships, but they would like for it to be in an expansion, as stated here: http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/z8l44/iam_the_project_lead_on_planetary_annihilation/c62uz0o

I think shields add a lot to the feel of a base, you actually feel like you have a central base with shields, gives you perspective, otherwise it really does feel at times like your base is just simply a bunch of buildings with no sense of structure scattered anywhere, all over the place in some sort of messy building spam....

This game needs shields. Would look awesome.

Yeah they talked about adding it later, but I think it was more of a "we're still thinking if we want it" kind of approach, there was nothing concrete about they were definitely adding it later after launch. They might, they might not... I hope they do

Never had problems against shields in SupCom, its not like they were that strong and I would not depend on it during the endgame to protect my commander as it could give the commander a false feeling of safety.
But I rather have him stealthed and underwater or cloacked. But none of these seem to be an option in PA either

The "so what" is shields are not balanced.

With a few hundred or few thousand metal, you're able to boost the hp of dozens of turrets and dozens of units by several hundred hp. That makes the metal invested in a shield more effective than investing the metal in more units or more turrets. It's unbalanced. It's OP.

With a small investment of metal, you're able to provide several hundred extra hp to dozens of units and towers. Now build several shields, and every single tower and unit has an extra few thousand hp. That is simply op.

The amount of metal required to build a strong defensive line goes down drastically when bubble shields are involved. That means the attacker has to double, triple, or quadruple the amount of forces that must be used to break a defensive line. If they do not break the line, they now lost out on thousands and thousands of metal while inflicting no damage at all to the opponent since the shields automatically recharge with just energy.

It's simple. The amount of metal investment required to break a shielded defensive line is many many times more than is required to break the same non-defensive shield line. That makes shields way way way worth the investment, and makes them OP.

I used to play SupCom. I didn't play competitively, I just played casually against the AI and used the fun units. I would build bubble nets of 20 or so shields. I was practically impregnable. I could withstand three heavy artilleries and an attacking force. Attacking that shield net was completely suicide.

The only way to make shields not op would be to have the energy per second consumption and metal required to make extremely extremely high – making them not very viable for competitive gameplay and not worth Uber's time in this short deadline and tight budget.

Again. I should re-iterate. I used to be a pro-shields guy. Until I started going over the details of how powerful they are and actually playing PA competitively.

I would say you played the game on an easy AI then if you were impenetrable with only 20 shield bubbles on SupCom, or you didn't go up against any experimental Artillery, there is no way 20 shields will withstand that amount of bombardment for long, I would build over 50 and still get penetrated quite easily, especially against the Aeon artillery as well.... try having a go with Cheating AI or one of the modded AI behaviors lol...

Shields aren't OP, you still need a defensive line to protect your base, that only stops in comming bombardments it still wouldn't stop units from coming into your base still, shields are a good protection, and you can always counter balance it by only being allowed to place one-per-planet type of thing, like only being able to have 1 commander unit.... You can always make the shield cost in energy and metal to build a lot higher then SupCom ever was as well to balance out the materials needed to break it..... I always found shields in late-game in Supcomp almost useless when all the hard hitting stuff starting flying all across the map anyway, hence why you always needed 20/50 whatever your number was just to protect from it...

You can always have an option in there to disable shields for competitive play anyway seems thats your main point there brian, so people who dont want them, dont have to play with them but there are a lot of players out there that just do casual play co-op with their friends against the AI or just play against the AI (im one of them). I don't really intend to take this game into a competitive online tournament or anything. Of course this is all just how I feel about it all and not everyone shares my opinion of course

This is a moot argument. If artillery is what you're scared of, use a bomber to take it out, hiding under a bubble is as depressing as the wall spam we see sometimes. Then again, I'd probably send an asteroid your way, unless there's a sudden call for anti-asteroid devices since sending in orbital fighters or spreading out from the cubby hole is 'too hard'.

exactly... just send an asteroid, no shield can defend against that haha

but artillery is just an example... the nuke spam from AI late-game is absolutely rediculous in SupCom, eventually shields will fall under that type of constant payload bombardment... then you had the destruction of experimental units crashing inside your base taking out a ton of shields/units/defences as well... that was a lot of counter stuff happening to shields.... if you just sat back under a shield bubble against actual players, your as good as dead so I simply do not see what the issue is..... anyone whos played competatively will know turtling for the "most" part you will loose.... you can just hold out longer perhaps... shields are great for early game, not so good late-game.

I understand some people like to turtle hard, and one way to accomplish this is by removing long-range threats if you 'just turtle hard enough'.

Sure if that's your tactic, you'll be out-eco'd and obliterated eventually but I don't see the need to provide a 'you can stay in one spot and stand a chance.' The very nature of PA is harsh to turtles as there aren't many geologic formations to build defensive lines, so a shield is attractive as it's instant 360 degree coverage if you layer them such and such, and mirco them to death.

The game, I'd like to hope, is fast paced, with the front lines, including bases them selves, shifting with the tide. I personally see someone putting up a strong ringed defense as an excuse for weak harassment of the enemy's eco, and given the 360 nature, I always find a kink, else I make one with air or artillary since they don't have many offensive units. Were I in their shoes I'd see why I'd want shields as it's 'unfair' I can't block these shells/pults; but given they hampered their own offensive capability so much I don't see the reason they don't have air or ground units to send in to counter it.

Let me explain this to you slowly using short words so you will understand. The fact that one thing is greater than another thing does not actually say anything about the absolute value of either. The fact that it is more efficient to destroy the shooter than to use a shield does not say anything about how efficient shields actually are, only that it is less than destroying the enemy unit. Both are obviously highly efficient.

You claim shields are not efficient, and in support of that claim you say it is more efficient to kill the enemy. That is not an argument. In line with several other arguments of yours, this doesn't actually lead to the conclusion you think it does.

No. Positional play is one of the hallmarks of good strategy games. And that means you need efficient defenses, and reasons to care about patches of dirt upon which you have constructed important assets.

Shields do not have the effect of creating a position that you care about- they have the effect of taking a position you already care about, and are already defending, and making it extremely binary whether it stands or falls.

Exactly. You wouldn't.

The entire point is that it is irrational to attack a defensive position where you will lose all your units and inflict zero damage. Resources spent on a wall of turrets has a casualty threshold which is the HP of one turret. If you have shields, then the casualty threshold for one turret becomes the total strength of all shields, plus the HP of one turret. This means you need a lot more force in order to do any damage, whereas building more turrets only means you need a lot more force in order to completely destroy the position, with some marginal efficiency gains from increased firepower that can be offset by using assault units and artillery.

Put another way, suppose you are attacking a defensive position with just one artillery gun. It will do relatively little damage, even to a position without shields. But it is a factor. However if there is a shield, it is simply a non-factor. It has zero effect.

Now, increase the number of artillery guns. The unshielded position takes a smoothly increasing amount of damage as the number of attacking guns increases. By contrast, the shielded position still takes absolutely no damage until, at one point, the shield fails. When the shield fails and assets beneath the shield start dying, then the shielded position crumbles quickly, especially if a shield generator is destroyed.


This binary nature of zero damage/crumbling is the entire problem. The only difference is the amount of firepower brought to bear on the shield, with a specific amount very swiftly changing the outcome from total failure to total success.