Balancing Shields

I've heard that shields may well not make it into the final game. This is a bit of a disappointment to me, though I can certainly see why. Based on what I've heard, it appears to be because they are just to hard to balance correctly and also due to the fact that they can be 'stacked' thus making it very hard to break through them.

However, I had an idea regarding these issues. If they don't work, feel free to disregard them. Still, I'd love to hear what people think about it.

If you put 2 or more shield generators close together, instead of having several 'layers' of shields, there would be one larger shield. This larger shield would have the power of one generator plus a fraction of the power (say one half) of each subsequent shield added, limiting the effective power of the shield, but will add the total area normally. The fraction would be applied multiple times for each additional shield. Thus, the power and size of the resultant shield if you had 4 generators would look something like this:
Power = 1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 = 1.875
Size = 4

This makes shields more useful if used separately, as you will lose their effectiveness when they are used together.

Let me know what you think as I would love to see shields in PA!

I still dont see and have never seen the problem of shield generators. Other than the hit to performance, they are a good way to ensure you dont get eliminated by some ridiculous bomber snipe.

Shields just apply extra HP to an area, and not very well at that.

Bomber snipes will be much more difficult then in SupCom, as this game more closely follows TA's style of air balance.

Or you could just have decent AA and patrolling fighters.

I never played TA. Can you explain the difference?

Weak aircraft, easily killed but are very good at dodging shots.

So staying in a area with AA was suicide, encouraging hit and run attacks.

The problem i have with shields is, that they just feel unnatural.Thats also the reason why many sci-fi movies dont include features like forcefields or other too futuristic stuff in their content, because the viewer needs a world which is believable and is build up on further development of already existing technological inventions,like a.i controlled drones, robots which build other robots autonomic, laser or railgun weapons... , to be immersed into this world.

Things like forecfields or telekinesis are more fantasylike than sci-fi.Because they are based on no physical fundamentals.


That been said , I like the idea to bunker up, as an gameplaycomponent, especially with all this artillery involved in this game, which even can shoot from planet/asteroid to planet.


There is a heavy need for a gameplaymechanic like this in an artillery based game.
Forcefields are just the wrong way to implement it.
But there should definatly be underground gameplay includet in this game, with the ability of building giant underground caves and bunkers . Like a map under the map.
Underground building should only be able on the same depth . So that the tunnels and caves of you and your enemy should be on the same heigth, otherwhise it would be to caotic and too hard to spot where the enemy is, so that you must only scout in 2D not in 3D!

And it would not be so hard to break as an forcefield, because the enemy could also
build tunnels underground and could try to get into your caves/bunkers without the use of asteroids .

There could be a whole array of units all with special underground gameplay like:
-Diggers which build the caves, maybe by spraying nano-goo on the rock which decomposes the rock, simular to building units in this game just the opposit way araound.
-Cars with ultrasonic vibration boards on their bottom side, driving around and creating a 3d map of the cavesystem below them, like scouts.
-And some giant drillingmachines with bombs inside them which can drill down vertically and explode when they reach the bunker , like in matrix 3.
-Or scouts which digging in a fast motion through the ground to spot enemy bunkers.
-And mines in the ground as an counter against the digging scouts.

All this mechanic would make it more easy for the enemy to reach you compared to an forcefield and would keep the gameplay answer against heavy artillery use versatile and interesting.

Why do people keep going back to shields or underground stuff when the orbital layer already provides plenty of interesting potential ways to counter/balance artillery?

Orbital layer is great.But if someone puts you under heavy artilleryfire and you cant breake his fire, because he has bunkerd up to hard, than undergroundgameplay would be a short term solution, the orbital gameplay is only a long term solution. You need time to build your stuff on an other moon, asteroid or planet. And what is with your old buildings , do you really want to leave them behind, all the resourches which you have invested in them, just to build them on a other planet while running away from your oponent. Thats just not viable!

There need to be a quick way of reacting to this kind of heavy artilelry gameplay from the enemy and underground gameplay is perfect for that.

I like the orbital aspect of the game.
But having additional to that an underground gameplay aspect, would be even better.

The question i have is, why are you so against underground gameplay. Is it your personal taste that you dont like it , which you are selling us as some kind of fact why it should not be in the game ? Or is it something else?

Antille, dunno if you should bother with this one... kinda like arguing with a rock.

No its not, you are just upset that i have not the same opinion as you have.
If your bring up good arguments than i will change my mind, but they must be good.
I have changed my mind regarding something many times in the past.
Im reflective, my proud is not getting in the way of my thinking.

But you must bring up valid arguments, why you are against it and not only say that you are against it.And that others which dont share your opinion are automatically wrong.

Whats wrong with an orbiting geostationary satellite that shoots down artillery shells that pass across its coverage area? It makes going underground totally unnecessary and you don't have to leave you base behind. If you can't even launch a single satellite buy the time the other guy has 3 or 4 berthas then you deserve to loose.

Also what makes you think I am against underground game play? You seem to make an awful lot of assumptions about things that you do not understand.

You think its unnecessary.
I think it would be an additional gameplaymechanic with many different uses.
-building secret bases on the enemy planet unseen from the enemy.
-building tunnels into the enemy base.
-defending against artillery

It would be after ground,naval and air the 4 unitclass and it would make gameplay
even more versatile and suprising.

I like this kind of surprising gameplay where the enemy doesnt know whats up.
I think its just a matter of taste.

I have overlooked this part of your post the first time reading.
Not sure if i should comment it.I love it when people get mad or arrogant.
Plz stay exactly the way you are, i like you this way the most.

Oh I do? Are you sure? I don't think I ever said that.

Of the mechanics you propose only the tunnels are not already present in one of the other layers. What you feel they would add to the mechanics of base assaults over current land/sea/air assault options other than just looking different and using a different set of units?

I assume that you are a fan of radar/sonar jamming and under water units then. Deception is the heart of all warfare and I hope PA lets players express that in a fun way.

Yes it certainty is fun when people get all worked up over something that isn't important. I'm glad that you appreciate my services.

I totally appreciate it.
If you say this kind of mechanics are already in the game than you should
come up with examples.I like the anit-artillery satellite thing. But there is
propably a ability to shoot down such kind of satellites in the game.
So they are propably not a complete solution against atillery but i like the idea.

I said that a particular orbital unit could make going underground unnecessary in a single particular situation. Not that underground game play itself was unnecessary.

.
It is not intended to be a "total" counter to artillery. As you correctly point out it can be shot down, which is the point. It makes controlling the orbital layer important if you want to have domination over the surface layer.

The arty could just have a lower range and be a bit slower and longer to build which from what i have seen seems to be the way they are headed.

No, you did not use the term "in a single particular situation".
What you said word for word is:

I understood you the way, that you have nothing against underground gameplay, but you think its unnecessary because all the gameplaymechanics which it would bring, are already in the game, or could be implementet more easy for example with the orbital anti artillery sattelite.

I disagree there with you , if this is what you think.
This is becoming a quote war. I will use the emergency trip wire to get out of this topic.

Missing the forest for the trees man, missing the forest for the trees. Or was it trolls? Either way it then boils down to a stylistic choice with neither option being significantly different game play wise from the other. I feel that is a perfectly valid thing to disagree on as neither option can really be "correct".

i like shields especially mobile shields because the larger variety of strategy's they open up, even in the later game choosing to have you com under shield protection or not is a risk/ reward situation to protect against com snipes