Balancing Shields

Tanks deal damage to enemy units, that's correct.
A land factory creates units where it stands, that's correct too.

The point is, it's an oversimplification. There is a latin word for that sort of argumentative fallacy that I'd quote here if I was a massive tool, so I won't. Point is, it's a fallacy

I never even herd of fallacy's till I came here.

So I guess that says something about the argumentative type of people here, using what ever explanation they can to discredit each others points.

Not that saying that shields are just HP emitters is oversimplification, because that's exactly what they do.

o·ver·sim·pli·fy (vr-smpl-f)
v. o·ver·sim·pli·fied, o·ver·sim·pli·fy·ing, o·ver·sim·pli·fies
v.tr.
To simplify to the point of causing misrepresentation, misconception, or error.
v.intr.
To cause distortion or error by extreme simplification of a subject.

Fits it to a T. You're trying to wave away shields by saying "they do nothing", sometimes you shift to "artillery isn't supposed to be replacing nukes" ( which btw has ZERO correlation to the subject at hand ). I'm providing actual gameplay reasons for them to be included, but I'm sorry, it seems that you were beaten by a turtler and are now a sour looser who wants to make sure it doesn't happen again by reworking the entire gameplay style to suit your needs.

While this explanation is simplified, it's not wrong. If you want to explain what shields do to someone who doesn't know, that's going to be what you say:
They cover area around them with additional regenerating health that should be depleted before anything else will take damage.
You can dig into nuances, of cource, but they are unnecessary.

I never said it was wrong, I said it was oversimplified
See:

It leaves out all the gameplay implications such a device has and tries to spite it's influence over the overall gameplay style ála "it's not a big deal if we have no shields". Yes, it IS a big deal.

I am not wrong, explain what shields do then?

Shields defend against strategic artillery, strategic artillery does the same job as strategic missiles, so I am certain in the fact that strategic artillery replaces the role of strategic missiles.

A shields job is to defend against strategic artillery, but without strategic artillery, you don't need shields, not that shields don't do anything, they actually do far too much.

Really? Your argument is that I am a sore loser?

Not that I would prefer a game like the original TA that never had problems with artillery.

No? Where did I say that? That's just the impression you're giving off. Because you're not really campaigning against shields, you're campaigning against strategic artillery.

Wrong

Wrong

Wrong

And wrong again. Even without strategic artillery ( which I don't want aswell btw, I already mentioned this before ) shields have a place in the game

I'm seriously starting to think you're not really qualified to argue in this matter in the first place, obviously lacking ALOT of experience with how weapons were used in supcom and TA by good players. Seriously, saying that strategic artillery replaces strategic nukes shows a deep lack of understanding of organic weapon design and balance, which TA and Supcom live and die by

Stop argueing all and join my movement for underground gameplay!

Underwater is good
Underground is ... unfitting is the best word I can come up with

Like, what do you hope to gain from that? Do you want to be able to tunnle into an enemy base and emerge from the ground? Would "underground" only entail a single imaginative Z layer beyond ground or full 3d digging? How would this work out with the expected amount of units ( hint: alot )? The multiple planets? What about planets where digging makes no sense ( eg. gas giants, arguably lava planets )? How would you handle digging, or is it a fixed cave system? As for the digging solution, how would tunnel construction even work, seeing as the game isn't grid based?

Stop quoting your own text and join underground movement.

Fine than underwater im ok with that to.
Yes only one underground layer orelse it gets too confusing.
Yes you would be ablet to tunnel under artillery or into an enemy base.
It would not be a fixed predefined cavesystem.


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 enemyscouts.
-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.



Even , and this is the best part , when the enemy is under a shield.

We have unit cannon for that, and it's far more awesome than digging. Also, tunnels are micro-intensive.

Underground units need functional niche first and I don't see anything fitting well for them that can't be done with just stealthy or heavily armored units.

Underground buildings only differ from regular ones by amount of health and stealthyness. You can add armor by fixing the game balance, and stealth by adding stealth-field generators. Havind two versions of each building doesn't make a lot of sense.

But I agree that underground units can exist. In a weird mod, alongside shields, unit-transformation and other crazy stuff. Have you played Perimeter? They did it all well, in my opinion and you can look there for gameplay example. It's pretty far from TA-style gameplay, through.

Thats the point.

They would add a whole layer of stealth gameplay and suprising attacking tactics.
But i would be ok with stealth generators too.
What do you think about underwatergameplay.

The underground movement will not surrender!
Join us now, we are recruiting at the moment.

PA tries to de-emphasize micro, not encourage it. Make it a mod and don't try to push your wonky ideas into the core game.

Every unit you described only works around underground layer. If you can't make stuff work within the game, it's pointless.

Submarines, like in SupCom. Also, it would be nice to place metal extractors on the bottom of the sea, so they can only be destroyed by torpedoes.

I guess I could see how no shields removes engagement complexity, but there is no such thing as a cheap tactic. Saying that clues me in on what kind of player you are. There is only the optimal way of achieving a gold and a suboptimal one. If you want the devs to balance the game in such a way that your suboptimal way becomes a viable solution, I'm afraid I can't let you do that, Dave.

I DUNNO MAN, TA was as good if not better than SC:FA, and yet there is not a single shield in that game.

They are not wonky, little boy standing at a window and looking grim.They are awesome.
I know that i would love to see underground gameplay in an modern rts game.
The units i gave you where only part of a 5 minute idea scramble, i totally could come up with some solid underground units which interact with normal units, if i want to.
Y maybe i will make a mod for all the micro lovers. So that finally some old starcraft 2 veterans get something fresh to play after heart of the swarm has disappointed so many of us so much.

The reason why people are figthing and forcing their ideas is, that there are rarely any modern sci-fi rts on the market and all the fractions:

-macro(supremecommander)
-macro+micro(command and conquer, starcraft)
-micro (men of war)

want to have new (sci-fi) rts games.
So they are all starve and figthing over content.

And gues what , your group is there propably in the minority . So fans of group 2 and 3 are getting really angry when they see that there is finally comming out a new rts and it has as an developergoal to exclude micro. You cant make a bigger : "plz dont buy" pattern on this game for those 2 interestgroups.

We've already had multiple topics and at least one 30 page topic on why underground gameplay is bad.

How do you define "optimal" and "suboptimal"? Something that you like and something that you don't?

So even the original zerg rush (when you have like 90% chance of winning the game without doing anything that requires any skill) was not a cheap tactic?

So, you want to make a "perfect RTS" that will appeal to everyone? Sorry, man, but there is no perfect pasta sauce. I would rather prefer for PA to have its own taste.

Wrong. You had multiple topics and at least one 30 page topic on why you think underground gameplay is bad.

I know this. I have red them. I have an different opinion about that.

"So, you want to make a "perfect RTS" that will appeal to everyone? Sorry, man, but there is no perfect pasta sauce. I would rather prefer for PA to have its own taste."

No i just explaining the situation why rts fans are getting angry if they visit your forum from time to time and why they try to force ideas.

You enjoy playing with lots of overlays?

Underground warfare isn't necessarily bad. The problem is that it isn't visible by default. The gameplay can be solid, but there will always be a challenge of displaying the information clearly and quickly. Those issues are why it won't be in PA.

You can likely have maps with tunnels and such to let tanks move across the map safe from air units or artillery. But that's not a true underground, so much as creating an anti air terrain feature.