Force fields?

The best way to handle shields, wouldn't be to exclude them, but change them. Bubbles are overrated, let's have something new.

Here's my idea, have a basic shield generator and an advanced shield generator, the difference between the two are in both the power of the shield and the size of the building.

How do these work?

Well these buildings project forcefields around individual buildings (maybe the commander to, if these standing still) that they are based adjacent to, the small generator is the size of a small power generator, the larger one an advanced power generator.

These would be considerably more balanced than bubble shields, that is easier to balance. The buildings will cost significantly more power to run than the generators to power them, i.e. you aren't going to be able to build them everywhere, in order to utilize them you will have to layout your base in a very specific way. How will these be balanced:

Firstly it will be a pain in the butt except on the most featureless planets to construct your base this way, clustering buildings in this manner will actually make them easier to destroy (although the forcefields will mitigate this somewhat) and you can't stack and spam these efficiently, it would cost far too much power.

On the other hand they can protect vital components of your base, turrets, walls and shield gens will cluster together as an effective defensive formation. Building a cluster of power gens around a shield gen, will still be efficient in terms of energy and provide very necessary protection for your very valuable generators. And most importantly units can't walk through these shields, by far the stupidest thing about sum com.

Currently, if artillery can fire into your base your reaction time to protect vital base components is very very very insignificant, the notion that the best defense against artillery is a counter-attack assumes physic powers. You can't always scout them whilst they are being built, especially since some are mobile, shields give you a precious few seconds/minutes/hours (obviously depending on how they are balanced) to respond to threats to your base. Something that turtlers desperately need to have a chance against a more expansive opponent. (And please don't say that you shouldn't turtle, it's a perfectly respectable strategy that lovers of this game employ to great use.)

But they don't solve the problems they are supposed to, that is what everyone has been saying.

If there is a particular problem that you believe that only, and I mean only shields solve then please say so.

I can not hide under a pretty blue dome!!! I want to hide under blue dome.

Wha?

Isn't this basically a description of TMD from SC? (excpet, of course, modified to intercept other projectiles)

That's because in similar games they have not been implemented properly, as I'm sure you'd agree.

Why would shields need to be the only solution to some sort of problem? A good game has multiple ways to combat a particular issue/threat that may arise over the course of a game. For example do you need both scouting and radar to detect incoming threats? No, so should they remove radars? Again no.....

This is a game set in the distant future within a sci-fi setting, shield technology should be addressed. Obviously if cannot be balanced then it shouldn't appear in the final build, but it's definitely something the player base will want to see in the game if it's possible. (as long as it's balanced)

Wouldn't know. Never played SC.

Um.
Supcom? Tactical missile defence? Shooting down incoming Missiles from MML's / TML's?

Ah. I've seen SC normally short for StarCraft and SupCom for Supreme Commander.

Yes. It is a description of that, except it also intercepts artillery shells.

That is not what I mean, what I mean is:

Do shields solve any problem, not symptom, at all?

Yes. They solve the problem that a game has too much tactical and strategic depth.

(again: bubble shields only).

Shields extend a very binary protection to firepower generally.

Antinuke has, in some ways, quite a similar structure to bubble shields, although usually larger and with a higher price point. It provides protection against nukes, and mitigates damage specifically from incoming nukes. Note that antinuke creates the same kind of binary success/failure of the nuke problem that bubble shields do with everything.

Bubble shields take this same principle and block all incoming damage with the same binary success/failure. That is a problem.

If you wanted to relegate bubble shields to only work against LRPCs like Berthas, I would have no issue whatsoever with that design. If you want to change the lore so that it is an "anti-artillery gun" instead of a bubble shield, that is fine too.

I think the best approach is just to have shields on single units. Personal shields can have their value worked into their units' costs, and cannot stack to run away out of control.

Well personal shilds are just HP that regerates no?

CNC Mammoth tanks could regen up to 50% HP so the lesser half of their HP acted like a shield.

But many people have been against the idea of personal shields due to the regen.

The difference between shields and anti-nukes are simple. Anti-nukes protect against one thing. Shields protect against everything making them extremely powerful.

Which is why I'm in favor of a tactical missile defense style weapon that defends agains tactical missiles (not nukes) and artillery shots.

Edit: Heh – that's pretty much exactly what you say.

Quoting my own post because HURPDURP BUBBLE SHIELDS has gone no where.

Lets actually talk about something new(ish).

Maybe you should be specific, are we talking problems with balance, problems with strategy, problems with tactics, problems with control and command. They look pretty, I guess you could say they solve a problem with a lack of pretty shields, but i suspect that's not what you are angling for.

Because you are so vague, all I'm able to answer is, now wait for it. try to hold in all that excitement, settle down it's coming, just SIT, OKAY!

"Yes"

Well actually that's not a good analogy, It's more like a separate secondary layer of hit points that can both regenerate autonomously and be active only when able to draw a certain amount of power from your energy supply.

I don't think units should receive personal shields, they already enjoy large advantages over their stationary kin due to numbers, mobility and flexibility.

How about a Deflector Directional Shields? You have your shield bubble, and depending on side your are getting the bombardment from, that side of the shield looses its power far more quickly then the other sides, focus fire from 1 side of the shield brings that side of the shield down 10X faster then that whole shield itself?

This is also an idea that needs exploring.

I'd go one step further and suggest a turrety like structure that projects a wall of shield in a particular direction chosen by the player (either at construction, or by an attack-ground order).

How is my questyion vague?

In what situation is having shields just putting of what actually solves you the situation?

Shields don't stop bombers, they don't nullify artillery, so how do shields actually help in a way that isn't just an area HP buff?

And even then, they promote bad gameplay and screw around with the HP balance.

Shields do not help and are entirely bad design.

There is no reason buildings can't have personal shields. In fact, for some applications it would make a lot of sense, such as for walls, where replacing destroyed walls is a chore, so giving them limited regenerating HP seems like a relatively minor APM saver for little gameplay consequence.

A group of units with personal shields exhibits functionally similar behavior to a group of units underneath a single bubble shield with respect to intermittent damage. However they can be destroyed individually, and their cost-effectiveness is fixed because you are paying for each personal shield, instead of scaling infinitely with stacking shields on top of units that don't cost more for the additional protection; you pay a flat value for each shield only, so when they overlap on top of other units their cost-effectiveness grows.


Deflector shields is a very interesting idea, essentially bringing back directionality with a different spin. However I think the same arguments against directional armor/damage can be applied to directional shields. It is complicated, could be rather opaque, etc. That said, I would be all in favor of having directional armor and directional shields. But I think PA is going for flat unit properties regardless of direction.


Limited shields that serve a concrete gameplay function I am completely in favor of. For example, if the gameplay role of the bubble shield is to block only long range artillery, but it has no effect on regular units, missiles, etc. then it would work perfectly. Shields would be the counter to artillery, just like antinuke is the counter to nukes. You could use tactical nukes to destroy the shields, or you could use artillery to destroy the missile defense. Or you could use air units to snipe either, unless there's anti-air... etc. etc. Limited shields can easily work, but they are a completely different animal from universally combat-applicable bubble shields.

A shield that fulfills a specific gameplay role, even a bubble shield, has none of the problems of a universal damage absorber. It can be countered by any type of unit or weapon other than the thing it blocks, but the player could also build counters to that stuff, such as more turrets, anti-air, anti-nuke, artillery, and so on. But this requires vastly more investment to get "total protection" than just stacking overlapping shields, and has more dimensions which can be individually maxed out by an attacker. If someone balances all the different countermeasures, then an equal expenditure in assault units or air or whatever will give many times the yield and overwhelm it in just one dimension, ignoring the rest. This also creates a more complex board with more factors to balance, with more liabilities for the defender and more scoutable and exploitable features for the attacker.