Give us Shields! Come on!

that is what I mean. A shield like supcom, won't do a helpful function. Not anything combat fabbers, walls, and anti turrets don't do already in a balanced environment.

I see a lot of comments and posts about shields need to add something special or unique to the game, how they must have a purpose or add something positive to the gameplay but do shields really need to add something special or significant in order to be added? Why cant "shields are just simply awesome and fun" be enough to be added? they never added anything meaningful to supcom, nothing like some of the out-landish reasons why shields should "only be added because" comments. They looked awesome, they felt awesome, and gave something in addition to just simply laying a wall of turrets. I don't think we need to have some spectacular reason where shields add layers of depth or anything their just there for some added protection. I REALLY don't think shields are going to change the core gameplay of PA in some amazingly negative way that people are portraying it to be.

I'm actually supprised this thread has reached 21 pages and still going. Its obviously a hot topic for all concerned I guess no matter which way your opinion is. Yes I would absolutely love shields to be added, but Uber have already stated that this just isn't going to happen, so why peeps still talk about it? Uber even mentioned its not going to happen in this very thread heh.. Not officially anyway

So walls but with a bubble shield aesthetic?

I think your reasoning is flawed here. while shields do add effective hitpoints to units and structure procted by them they are not a multiplier as the hitpoints are shared from a single source.

they are an additive force, not multiplicative.

you are thinking more like guardian shield from the sentry in starcraft 2. It raises the effective hp of units against ranged attacks by increasing their armor value therefore this effect is multiplicative as it affects units individually


a shield works more like a single unit with a regenerating life pool that forces all attacks in its radius to damage it first.



I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate my preference towards layer shields similar to 'Faster Than Light' on Steam.

here is a rough idea of what i would like to see for ground based shields in PA

Shields generate layers that take -1x energy to keep on and use -2x energy to recharge. Each layer blocks 1 projectile and recharge one at a time every 2 seconds as long as there is energy available.

Tier 1 shield generator
medium radius that could just cover an advanced factory
4 shield layers -250 upkeep -500 recharge
energy cost analysis: -1000 to keep on full, -500 to recharge from empty, -1250 to recharge from 3 layers

Tier 2 shield generator
wide radius one advanced plus one basic factory wide
6 layer shield -500 upkeep -1000 recharge
energy cost analysis: -3000 to keep on full, -1000 to recharge from empty, -3500 to recharge from 5 layers

Tier 2 mobile shield
small radius could just barely cover a basic factory
3 layer shield -100 upkeep -200 recharge
energy cost analysis: -300 to keep on full, -200 to recharge from empty, -400 to recharge from 2 layers



each has a very low health pool each hit deals 1 damage. this means multiple units or fast firing units can easily penetrate shield defenses in a short time. single slow firing units will however be unable to penetrate even the 3 layer mobile shield no matter how long they try (as long as the shield has energy).

with this type of shielding you could even buff artillery making them cheaper or giving them long more epic ranges. it would also give a more pronounced niche to tier 1 bots due to their fast fire rate giving them very powerful shield busting power.


just putting it into the conversation

I just had a thought...

Imagine the overhaul the A.I would need if shields were implemented? I would assume it be a bit more than number tweaks.

Make it so no weapons can fire through shields.

If you want to shoot the things laying siege to your base, then you have to go outside and expose yourself to the same risk that not having shields presents.

Someone said they wanted shields to give them more time to react when being attacked because their attention is split over multiple fronts. This does that, without benefiting defensive fire-power.


Of course this does nothing to treat the problem of stacking many layers of shields on top of each other so that one can recharge while others are being shot at.

And thank you for taking part, no ill will intended.

Ahh yes, additive is what I should have said.

Still, the exchange I feel is massively powerful for the HP gained to the power lost, compared to the metal cost of everything else, the shield generators metal cost is only once, for a regenerating shield.

That is like a factory that builds units for free.

I just feel like the unit it's self is kinda flawed, on top of my other reservations.

I just want to say, that you really twisted the knife in me when you suggesting buffing artillery.

I really love the current artillery range as it prevents the artillery map crossing insanity that plagued the previous games.

I LOVE that now if a opponent is going to use any kind of artillery on me, that they have to move within striking distance, its a counter-play that I frigging love.

As to your suggestion as a specific anti-artillery shield, it does exactly as you are suggesting so long as no normal enemy unit is within range, artillery will be blocked by this generator.

But there in lies the problem, it does as you suggest, defends from artillery, when really the counter to any unit, id to kill the enemy unit.

As is the problem with all shield generators, they don't kill anything, and especially not artillery.

That's the main problem, as if you need shields to defend against enemy artillery, that shield should kill the artillery, not it's shells.

I'm surprised that this thread is not a big flamewar any more. I honestly thought the hostility would never stop.

I'm glad I was wrong.

That is probably the most logical out of everything thats been posted as to not having shields. Dunno if you would need to do much as they'd still pound down the shields and would most likely still walk right through them as if they weren't there anyway.

Directional shields could work.


Alternately, for bubble shields, the shield layering problem could be solved by making shields that touch each other count as one single shield. So if one goes down, all the connected shields go down.

This would give you the option of covering your base in shields to have one single shield protect it, or create smaller pockets with each their own shield. Adds strategy.

Giving shields a constant high power drain (2-4 T2 power gens worth per shield) would also add in a layer of strategy. Take out enough energy gens and your opponent will be forced to take down and keep his shields down until he fixes the energy issue.


Personally I love to turtle. But I do only play skirmish modes in RTS games, long multi hour games against several AI are, for me, really fun. I really dislike super weapons and artillery constantly hitting my base forcing me to attack and win. Super weapons and orbital stuff can be countered so far in PA. But long range cannot unless I constantly attack, and if I can attack his long range artillery, then I may as well win the match and quit :|

And shields do have a function.

I just layed out some reasons to include shields beside force multipliers.

We already went over the downside of patroles. And if you as you suggest later on spread out your base as much as possible the efficency of patroles starts to degrade rapidly, as you need a bigger force than the attacking side in order to counter the attacking side.

Yes of course you still need a defense force. As everyone pointed out shields dont shoot. They are there to give an edge to the defending side.

Shields wont negate the function of combat fabbers and other units. You will still need a standing army in order to defend yourself.

I think its fair to assume that most people who join a game do so with the intention to win. And if all it takes to win is to build 5 units and rightclick then that will happen.

Shields dont negate map control either. But map control does not protect you from everything. The more land you control the more land you have to protect. You have to protect all your land all the time while the attacker only needs to attack a certain point on your land.

With shields you have a way of dealing wiht harassing forces. A way of actually counterattacking. And as an attacker you can actually lose an attack, a thing that I feel is not happening at all at the moment.

By spreading out as much as possible as you suggest you also increase by default your response time to incoming threats. I also dont like to HAVE to put my commander in a field of umbrellas surrounded by anti nukes in order to protect it.

No I need shields in order to gather my army. I need shields in order to retreat. I need shields in order to launch a counterattack.

Its quite fun how you say that on one hand shields are those impossibly strong units and on the other hand that they wont do me any good at all. Maybe I am missing something but I do feel that these statements dont mix well with each other.

Shields are strong, but they are pointless.

You don't need shields as every function that they can do is done better by other units.

Also, the comment about not wanting to keep your commander under umbrellas and anti-nukes if funny when you are suggesting keeping him under shields.

Shields do a function, but do not have a purpose.

Shields will not protect you if your army fails, full stop.

And if all it takes is a player to do one click to beat you every time, then maybe you should be doing more to counter that strategy, then maybe it won't be so effective against you.

Advocating that with out shields you cant counter a single unit type just shows that you need to build more of that units counters.

Umbrellas ans anchors are excellent against the SXX as are orbital fighters.

You cannot ignore orbital if you hope to succeed.

Map control gives you the best assets in the game, Intel. With Intel you will see every opponent and attack long before it reaches you.

The actual space controlled doesn't mean anything other then giving you time to react, and space to build.

Use them, and you will never be sniped again.


As to what I am lead to believe is why you are arguing for shields, isn't it? Not for a counter to artillery, which is a agreeable cause, but to prevent yourself from being sniped.

If being sniped is your problem, then no amount of shields are going to save you, you need to use your army as a shield and NOT let your enemy ignore it.

I dont feel the same way. No other unit can slow down your enemys air assault. No other unit can prevent you from behing hit with rockets and artillery. No other unit can protect your forces as they land on an enemy planet.

Yeah I guess you are right there if we only take sattelites and nukes into consideration. But in order for your commander to be truly protected you are going to need shields.

If they have a function they have a purpose. If they have a function I can use them. That is all that is needed for them to be included.

Your army will not protect you if your army fails, full stop.

Your map controll will not protect you if your map controll failes, full stop.

Nothing can protect you if you fail. That is the nature of every RTS game ever.

Shields cant counter anything. That is in their very nature. They cant attack. They can only add to what you already have but they cant stand on their own.

I am only talking as much about Com Sniping because you guys are bringing it up. Of course there are many other things shields can do for you other than protecting you from snipes.

You cant ignore any unit type and hope to win that is essential to the game. Shields wont change the dynamic of that at all.

Yes and shields wont negate the usfulness of map controll.

But then again in this game it is possible for an enemy force to appear anywhere in mere seconds so I think you are overestimating the effectiveness of map controll.

I have said it myself. Shields by themselfs wont protect you from anything. They can only slow your enemy down and give you time to react.

I am arguing pro shields for ALL their benefits not just one niche use. Just becuase we happen to be talking about one niche use of them a lot does not mean thats the one and only reason why I want them to be included.

Other then, you know AA and anything that can shoot at ground targets?

The point of the game is that you destroy each others stuff, don't go and ignore planes and artillery, build AA and bombers.

Shields do nothing against either of them.

Not if your enemy's forces can't get to you, or even find you.

You are dearly mistaken if you think shields will change a situation where you enemy actually gets to you.

Nope, that's not how it works.

Just because something works, doesn't make it useful, or have a point.

Nice how you copied me there, really proves that you have a point.

Your military is your defence, and if your military fails, then you have failed, shields or not.

Shields will do nothing to change this.

If they cannot destroy something, and cannot build something, then they are either a wall (The vacancies filled) or pointless.

Building a shield is a waste when you should be building more units that can either attack, or construct.

A meat shield has limited use, especially when your units are all designed to be meat shields too.

So you admit, they are pointless.

If you have actual map control, then you enemy won't simply appear, you will see them ahead of time.

If your enemy's are appearing within seconds and destroying you, then learn to scout, build radar, assign patrols or not complain about knife fights on a moon.

Intel is the key to stopping all of this, if you can see the enemy before they get to you, then you have time to react.

Scout more.

It doesn't exclude it either.

If you need to buy yourself time, then you have failed as a commander.

You were beaten by a better equipped player with better scouting and intelligence.

Counter that opponents strategy, don't while on the forums because you won't adapt.

You are wrong, they have been left out because it was determined early in Alpha and through lengthy and, at times, heated discussion between the developers and the community that shields would be a drag on the game.

This game has been designed from the ground up to reward the aggressive and expansive player.

If I can't throw my death blob at your base and wear it down what am I supposed to use to wear down your base? Are you proposing that the only way to crack a fortified base should be nukes or a planet? Cause that sounds kind of limited to me.

Your attitude is wonderful, please continue with the victimisation some more.

I don't post particularly regularly. I am not bullying you. Stop making this into some kind of attack-facilitated farce.

1. If both thread are inaccurate, then why reference them at all? Why refer to anyone's posts in this thread at all? Everybody's opinion is worthless, we're all an incredibly minor sample size which isn't indicative of the playerbase as a whole.

You're using some kind of "they don't matter argument" (I can't be bothered looking up if it's fallacious or not), when that same logic (without any reduction ad absurdium or whatever the phrase is) can apply to all of our posts here.

2. My honest apologies, I thought brian had linked the huge shield-based rant thread that went on for quite a few pages. I'm pretty sure he has linked that, before you got yourself involved. Or maybe I'm just remembering that thread.

I will find it for you, hopefully sometime today, when I'm not too busy.

3. You are accusing me (and others) of smoke and mirrors. Of shooting ourselves in the foot (feet?). Of us squirming around. Of fallaciously declaring that we secretly agree with you, but we're too stuck-up to realise this.

And then you play the victim card. These are pretty standard trolling tactics, though I don't think that you're in this thread solely to troll. I think you truly believe shields are the way forward, and you use this type of argument as it usually drives people to make emotional arguments and weakens their objective reasoning.

Unfortunately, that won't work on me, and probably others besides (forum experience, yada yada, forum moderation, yada yada). I've dealt with far better attempts at circumventing the argument, personal attacks and hiding behind the "you're ganging up on me" line (especially when there seems to be a roughly even spread of people arguing for each side in this thread. At least, in a constructive manner).

Read your posts please, and see how you're coming across. Maybe realise that the reason people are opposing you so vehemently isn't necessarily because of the points you're making, but how you're making them.

And yes, I do truly think shields are bad for the game. Don't put words into my mouth

Destroying each others stuff is the point in nearly any RTS there is.

As for AA slowing down air assaults - they just dont do that. All they do is shoot at each other and whoever has the bigger army present at the moment wins the encounter. Its as simple as that. And since the attacker has the advantage of choosing when to engage in an encounter I think its only fair to give the defending side some time to react to an assault.

Once again Shields dont replace any units. They are not meant to do that. You cant build shields to then not build any AA or no counter units to anything else. Shields are meant to give you time. If you have a faulty strategy or a bad unit compsition you still lose wich is a good thing in my book.

I never said that shields give you the ability to ignore anything at all. They just dont do that. You have to play just as well with them present.

The only thing that changes is that the attacker now has to evauate weakpoints in my defense in order to maximise his damage. This isnt needed as much without shields since any attack at all will much likely result in your enemy losing some buildings.

I think this is where we disagree. If the enemy can get to my commander either by dropping an attack force or an airstrike any second I can buy for my commander can be the deciding factor between win and lose.

Yet again shields have many functions. They were pointed out be me and tatsujb multiple times by now. Most of those purposes and upsides of shields are not even being discussed here.

And once again we agree on this. Without any units to support them shields are nothing. They are not meant to be the end all solution to every problem ever.

In the same way a single unit type army will be defeated quite quickly.

Clearly not every unit is designed to be a meat shield.

Just because shields dont fit your narrow view of useful units they are not pointless.

No I dont. Just because shields are added to the mix does not mean that the whole gameplay is suddenly shifted. That is all I'm saying.

And thats a good thing. Shields wont rock the boat. They will be an addition that will bring some changes and additions but they wont redefine how the game is played.

The point is that your enemy can drop off units from his moon onto your planet. Of course you can say that I have to scout every moon in the game but it is easier for my opponent to destroy my radars than it is for me to protect every single one of them.

In oder to get a surprise attack the enemy commander needs to only controll one blindspot on the map. In order for me to prevent a surprise attack I need to see the whole battlefield. I hope you can see the dynamic there. It is way easier to pull of a sneak attack than it is to prepare against it. It is way harder to defend than it is to attack. In my opinion that leads to dull gameplay where you will attack every time the chance arises to do so. There is simply not enough to lose by attacking. You dont need to see the enemies base. If your deathblob has a good composition then you can just send it to annihilate without much to lose.

Yes because clearly I am the worst noob of them all because I want shields and only losers who dont know how to play will ever want shields.

I was really hoping that we may get along discussing shields here but yet again you cant just do that can you? You have to bring personal attacks into the mix just to spice it up a little I guess right?

Lets turn that argument around just for fun:

You are just afraid of shields because you dont know how to deal with them. You are afraid that someone might outplay your bad attack.

You are afraid that with shields you may just read a situation wrong and attack when you should not have attacked. You are afraid that you will lose your forces because the enemy was prepared for your assault and was able to counterattack imediatly since he didnt lose an equal amount of units.

You are just scared because you are not skilled enough for shields to be included.

You are afraid that you might get beaten by an oponents strategy that you refuse to adapt to.

(I have removed the relating quotations in your post, but my post was getting to long and it would not let me post, I hope that is no problem - If anyone has a problem understanding what we are arguing about please read the comment of igncom1 before reading mine)

I don't remember doing either.

that's more to the point. that's the shields from the faf I know the shields you don't feed inclined to spend cash on rather than something else.

which is my playstyle I only ever put the absolute bare minimum of static shields, And until long range artillery becomes a reality I don't use them at all, but I consider that shields won't solve my artillery problem : because it won't; and that if I don't go over there and kill the artillery fast, I'll be dead in a very short while. Which is an inevitability if your response is shields.

My first biggest use of shields is mobile shields, as they make for a battle force that is complex to fight and requires more firepower or some micro on the part of my opponent to tackle. I use them in navy as well as on land.

My second biggest use of shields is commander personal shield, and any other upgrade than can add HP to it, as as you get further into the game, the numbers in damage dealt get ever higher. And given a split second reaction time on your part you could save your commander with just that extra bit of HP (although most believe this to be superstition since the numbers in damage are so high towards the end of the game that a max upgraded commander's HP bar pales in comparison).

lastly I always cover up my nuke defense. The nuke defense is still incredibly prone to getting taken out as often players will put HUGE amounts of money into taking it down but it serves in the case of a teleportation attack to up it's chances of staying alive while the turrets work away at the intruder. It also is dissuasive, not that it impresses anybody... just that if they scout and see an unshielded nuke defense, there's a party inbound

....I GUARANTEE IT.

so perhaps you see now that the shield doesn't play the role everyone (who doesn't know it) imagines it in, rather something much more underpowered that fits it's prescribed role just right.