Balancing shields and artillery to make them interesting

It seems that the idea so far is to go with the Total Annihilation route with artillery but no shields.

Personally, I think shields could make a great addition (imagine a whole planet shielded from artillery shells, spending all its energy to keep them up, before the protective sphere eventually gives way).

The problem, of course, is that they didn't turn out to be such an interesting mechanic in Supreme Commander, where the situation often boiled down to one player spamming artillery and the other spamming shields (or both spamming both).

If somehow both artillery spam and shield spam can be eradicated as valid tactics, I think that shields could really bring something interesting to the gameplay and also to the atmosphere of the game.
In addition, I like the idea of even late-game armament having counters (e.g. anti-nukes in Supreme Commander, even though again that didn't work out to be very interesting either).
For instance, I hope we'll be able to alter our planet orbit to move out of the way of an incoming player-driven asteroid.
In this case, I hope interesting strategies will be available against artillery, that aren't just "go and wipe it out". I think shields can be one part of that puzzle if balanced properly.

I'd like to hear whether you think they could be incorporated and benefit the game, or if we're really better without them.

Pardon for being so primitive, but I think I prefer walls over shields. Depending the direction of the artillery, I tended to put Bertha walls next to buildings, to act as extra armor in TA.

TA had anti-nukes as well.

I like both walls and shields. Shields can defend from all directions, and presumably, can be turned on and off (e.g., turn off to return fire -- hopefully friendly artillery will hold fire until shields are down).

Walls are cheap and prohibit ground units from passing, and can block most localized artillery to the immediate surroundings... shields can block air units and artillery from all directions (but not ground units).

Also, maybe lasers can passthrough shields?

Just some ideas.

Yeah, well I'd really love to see shields too, they have interesting uses and add to the ambiance. But it's only worth it if the mechanics are balanced, and don't revolve around piling up shields and artillery to succeed. I feel that wasn't really done well in Supreme Commander.

I'll always have in mind that ridiculous game between Bhaal and Unconquerable, where Unconquerable got nuked several times etc and still survived for ages. It was fun to watch, but really strategy wise it was dreadful in terms of spamming economy (with SCUs), nukes, artillery, shields...

If it makes sense to use both shields and artillery parsimoniously, it'll be great. Making them ultra-expensive doesn't address that at all.

Walls would be better. Shields are just too imba. But I personally would simply expect that a large cost, highly effective artillery would be balanced in as of itself.

There are certainly pros and cons to area shields. But I wouldn't miss them if they are left out. However, personal shields that hug the units' hull should still be encouraged well at least not discouraged. Like the Obsidian (SupCom Aeon T2 Heavy Tank) is a good example of diversity through the use of personal shields.

Shields might be cool if they couldn't overlap and could be taken down in ways other than shooting them. Also, if they were expensive, they could be an extra bit of defense for your most valuable structures without full-base coverage being practical.

An easy way to balance shields is to bring back the Neutron/Stunner.

I'm fine with having no shields, though. It worked in TA, don't see why it couldn't work in PA.

In SC shields weren't unbalanced, per se, but they definitely had a huge impact on late-game play - and not necessarily for the better. I'm still not sure how I feel about them, to be honest.

In SupCom: how effective was one shield?

Now, what about three shields next to each other?

And a dozen of them together?


The problem with shields lies with the ability to smoosh them together in one spot. Balance them by keeping them apart.

dozens of aeon t2 mobile shields bunched together with t2 navy is pretty much impossible to beat in FA. If you were to put in shields they should not stack. But no shields is fine with me, too.

What if, aside from units with personal shields, shields were regulated to endgmae and only has a base defense, no mobile version?

Mike

Yes, say having planetary defense shields as an endgame defense mechanism. Just a single one per planet, no layering or anything. I'd like to see that.

a single planetary shield to reduce damage from incoming interplanetary(?) missles... well maybe. But I dont think that planetary bombardment will be a big part of the game, apart from throwing asteroids at each other. And seriously I cant imagine ANYTHING that could actually stop a whole rocket-engine-powered-asteroid.

Yeah, I was thinking more in lines of base defense rather than planet defense.

Mike

Shields are almost certainly not going to happen.

See the Confirmed features and suggestions thread for details on other features.