My Thoughts on Shields

feeling a little terse?

care to elaborate? I disagree that there is anything that cannot be balanced/countered given human ingenuity and creativity.

Shields don't balance artillery, because shields don't counter artillery.

Shields don't counter anything.

And even so, having map crossing artillery makes the artillery massively powerful, and should not be included.

But we have done this before, I don't want shields, and you want them no matter the cost.

Funny cause from my perspective you want no shields no matter the cost.

you are obviously in a surly mood and I am not going to type out an essay again about why this is wrong so i suggest we leave our conversation here and accept that we disagree for now.

I'll still be around making my case if you ever feel like dropping in and detailing flaws in shield vs artillery gameplay theory in a constructive manner.

That is fine, but im not wrong, shields can slow down the damage of artillery, but they cant kill artillery, and so are not a counter.

Other uses aside, shields never countered artillery, and never will if they can't kill the artillery that shoot at them.

There is not argument here, a unit that cannon shoot cannot counter something, especially artillery that can shoot across the map, requiring immediate action.

If you wanna suggest a actual artillery counter, that's cool, like really really genuinely cool. But bubble shields isn't that counter, and you haven't suggested anything that would change that.

If you wanna suggest a shield for any other purpose, please do too, but make sure it does it's job and only it's job, unlike the bubbles of previous games.

That is my argument, shields as seen before don't counter artillery, and provide far too many stupid bonuses to be worth keeping them as they have been in previous game.


If you want to change this, if you want me to discuss this amazing new shield that is not like the older ones, then please do, because up to this point you have provided nothing but vague comments about a mythical balanced shield that I apparently am so blind to being able to see.

Wouldn't the simplest way to balance shields, be the requirement that for a given area a shield covers (for a bubble) the area required for power generators just to power the shield is greater? It means that power generation is always the Achilles heel of shields, and you would never be able to cover all Pgens with shields.

The only weak spot in this, is that if you had a planet that you dominated completely you could power shields by proxy without the disadvantages. But that just brings me back to wanting per-planet resource consumption

Well the problem with that, is that there would no point in building them.

If we are going to have a shield for whatever use, then it needs to be worth the cost, as does anything in the game.

sorry I have posted my layer shield post in so many threads I assumed you read it. that makes more sense as I thought we were past talking about bubble shields as most people on both side of the debate agree that they have way too many problems as implemented in SupCom.

here is the layer shield post

this shield is designed to be almost impenetrable against artillery but very weak to combat units.

this is the counter i was talking about as to penetrate a shields with artillery you would need a prohibitive amount and the defender can just throw up more shields. but a single DOX attacking even multiple shields can allow your artillery to get through, let alone an army.

Not exactly, I think the idea of being able to have all structures under an impenetrable umbrella of shielding is the fallacy. Shielding as an expensive front-line defence or to protect certain critical structures makes more sense, but this could also be done with large and small fortifications....

I can't always tell who I was talking too, to there is a good chance I might have.

Ahh so here is the root of our disagreement.

So I am of the opinion that a unit cannot be a counter to something if it cannot kill that said something, so to me shields don't countered artillery, because shields cannot attack.

However based on my experience, simply having shields be more cost effective then artillery doesn't really matter in the end because the enemy player is paying for more damage over the entire range of the artillery guns, where as the defender is paying to reduce or stop damage, in a much smaller and static area (Sure static artillery can't move, but they choose where to shoot, where as shields cannot project a shield to a target destination.) leading to a chase of escalation where, you can only be safe from the attackers artillery when under these shields, and the attacker can choose to shoot at any non-shielded targets at any time, and then go back to putting pressure on your shielded positions.

This pressure builds, and while you have the cost effectiveness advantage, once the bubble is popped and the shield go to recharge their layers or bubble, they have absolutely no effect until they are back on-line, creating a situation where the attacker only needs to force your shields to go down for a instant for the whole thing to come tumbling down.

But there is the other issue, even if your shields remain strong, you will then be confined too them as any land or naval forces that attempt to go out of their own need to have the same shield stopping power, or the entire cluster of enemy artillery can pop their bubble and prevent you from attacking, or even crossing the map very well (Currently PA artillery is short ranged, so this effect is mitigated as the attacker cant shoot at every approach), leaving you with few unit layers to respond to this attack, sure you will have a metal advantage due to your shields being cheaper then the artillery, but with artillery also countering land and naval assets you are left with air (And now orbital) as a counter, making the defence of the artillery themselves actually easier, as naval and land defences can be reduced or even ignored in favour of more artillery.


So this is a system that I feel is just, fundamentally flawed, even if I actually quite like your suggestion.

I would feel like a counter batter missile designed to fire anti-artillery rockets at and only at artillery to be a much better solution, as artillery that fire at the counter battery would find themselves being destroyed by the counter battery's dedicated missiles.

Forcing the attacker to rely on a more shoot and scoot kind of artillery strategy, using mobile artillery to avoid counter fire, whilst themselves being more limited their their static counterparts.

But in that instance, would it not be simply better to fund a defensive mobile military, or more static defences?

Why cant shields be layer based where each layer dissipates after a hit.. regardless of damage..

Regular walls are tied to mass and just absorb damage

"Advanced walls" can have multiple layers that each dissipate after a hit of any i.intensity
Make the shield a non buble but rather directional on construction..

want to protect against artillery\air.. fine you get 5 layers up.. but only one layer everywhere else.. meaning a shield unit which is a not covering all sides at once... meaning... you must make TACTICAL DECISION BASED ON INTEL


Mass based walls have nich for protecting against high quantities of shots

Energy based advanced walls are layer based and each layer dissipates after a hit regardless of hit strength. But fail at high shot volumes...

Tell me how that doesnt add depth to walls in general.. base deffence that can counter and be easily countered provided you have INTEL...

Let me justify this for you then.... the energy required to create a barrier that could dissipate a physical non-EMF projectile is a shitload... make the energy loss comprable to that of repairing metal for walls..

Now off topic you are talking dont say "we" because that is vaugue and leverages more power then You have. In Your post.

How do you know something that hasn't been in this game will be balanced or unbalanced without being tested..
that line of thinking is present in many active members of this comunity and it needs to stop..

Before somebody says something xyz is op/up and it has yet to be even tested in game. Remember the scientific method... im not saying shields will or will not definatively work..

Im just advocating that we test ideas in Planetary Annihilation's atmosphere before we criticize effectiveness.

You place an artillery proxy by my base in an attempt to stifle my economy.

Since i pride myself in gathering intel i spot your proxy and I place a layer shield oriented up giving me 5 layers of damage sponge against your artillery. Plus it regenerates..

I have just countered the purpose of your proxy artillery unit..

You go gather intel to see the damage your proxy has done and you notice i placed a vertically oriented layer shield..You send dox to overwelm weak parts of the layer shield.. sides which arent the primary orientation of the layer shield only have 1 layer and are dispatched with ease...
You have just countered the PURPOSE of my shield..

Notice a trend.... intelligence is vital and gives a unit purpose...

Purpose is what defines counter effectiveness not whether something attacks or actually does damage...

anty arty...
(CRAM) System

well I'm naive so:
what's the problem with that?


keep in mind you only played supcom2 and i only played FaF, I don't recall there being long range arty in supcom2 but whatever.

techniacally no, you have to leave your base, else the game is over far before getting to that stage.

and also the game should be over when getting to that stage, because an agressive strategy is always superior to a turtle stategy.

So you can only get there if both are turtleling.

that's definitely worth it. the point is not to cover everything. the point is to cover strategic points.

Give me a shout when building a space elevator is feasible, and we've completely solved the issues relating to non-renewable resources.

Theoretically, your statement is true, given an infinite amount of time and resources.

We don't have that.

So from your point of view balancing shields requires a workload close or equal to an infinite amount?

He's using physics as an example of something that human ingenuity and creativity just can't beat or counter.

It's a poor example (I honestly believe space elevators will be a feasible thing - we're just waiting on a good process for manufacturing carbon nanotubes), but it's an example nonetheless.

To answer your question in a more direct way; something that requires an infinite amount of something is impossible to achieve.

To be even more direct; yes.

Why do you think an infinit workload is required to balance shields then?

Because they're proven to have problems, even in games which haven't attempted the scale of PA.

Because they overlap with walls and no-one has given any differentiation other than "well they can use Energy". Which skews economic balance.

Because the problems to which people consider shields to be the solution, are only problems because PA's balance (and even design) hasn't settled yet. The gameplay is not stable.

Ergo, we can argue infinitely over the implementation, need for, and design of, shields. Only Uber would decide one way or the other. And even then, I'd still disagree with it.

Let's put it another way: what use do shields have that cannot be solved by further balance or design passes?

EDIT@BulletMagnet - I read up on this a while back, seems like a long way off. There are also issues with maintenance. Simply put, at the moment it's both a logistical issue (also complicated by territories of control and diplomatic boundaries) and a resources issue (while carbon isn't necessarily going anywhere, our manufacturing base in terms of resources is declining).

Logistics we could theoretically solve. Resources are trickier.

I have played all of the supreme commander games rather extensively, but Im not sure how making that claim that I only play SC2 really works as a argument here.

And there was indeed map crossing artillery in supcom 2.

For me to attack your base with map crossing artillery, I don't need to leave my base to use them, this is a point against map crossing artillery, it removes any of the fun or strategy in using static artillery to shell a position.

I am not arguing overall strategy here, I am talking about the artillery it's self, and why having map crossing artillery is a bad idea.

And I agree, the game should be over by that point that you can get map crossing artillery, but that was not the point of my argument, because again I am not talking about a overall strategy, but map crossing artillery themselves.

You have completely missed my argument in favour of talking about turtling.

But that job can be done in so many other ways that is is far from unique, in fact the whole point of the game is to protect your commander and kill the enemy commander with everything in your disposal.

Your strategic point is your commander, an you protect him by killing the enemy's commander.

They have not worked well some games, in other they worked fine. The same can be said about nearly anything.

In my opinion the scale of PA will make it easier to inculde shields.

If you mean that they role-wise overlap with walls - sure they do in some aspects but not in all of them.

If you mean that they litteraly overlap with walls and the combination of those two together would be to strong - we'd have to see. But I am certain that with units like the inferno and the vanguard it should be pretty easy to break through even those barriers.

I have actually suggested that maybe shields would work better if they streamed some of your metal away.

As far as skewing economic balance goes, that would not necessarily be a bad thing. That would only mean that a player that prefers shields in his builds would have to have a different outlook on his economy than the player that does not want to use shields. In my opinion that is a good thing.

Yes and no. You could applie the same logic to any unit and you'd still be right. In other words, if you balance the game so that shields wont be needed - shields wont be needed. The same can be said about any unit ever.

The point in having shields is that they can be used for tactics and strategies that would be impossible without them. Balancing the game so that shields wont be needed would mean that the gameplay connected with shields would also be gone.

Uber are the ones building the game so yes, they can decide whatever they want.

That does not mean that trying to figure out shields is pointless.

Im unsure what you want to express with your last sentence there, other that however shields are going to be implemented you wont be pleased with them.

You can 'solve' any problem by balancing it away.

I think you are making the mistake of equating balance with fun. The most balanced form of any game could only be achived if every side only had one unit, on a completly featureless planet.

That would just not be fun because in order to achive this most perfect balance possible you had to give up everything else on the way to get there.

What I am trying to say is that by excluding a unit you always shut down the strategies connected to that unit.

Me and a few others like the strategies connected with shields and would like them to be included for that reason.