Balancing Shields

Actually, there is a thing called a plasma window; implementing this technology is already possible in this day and age, albeit not like in movies and games. Perhaps making a forcefield, in the future, like in supcom isn't so far fetched as you think. Not that supcom or PA are trying to be realistic.

In regards to stacking shields, maybe you could just have them increase the amount of energy they consume when they touch.

Re: Balancing Shields - In a game without shields

Concerning the current state of the Alpha:
Turrets being so good, they shutdown a lot of potential early aggression.
Artillery (both mobile and static) has modest range, though it typically out-ranges turrets.

This implies that if you want to damage your opponent's infrastructure, you have to ATTACK, you can't shell him from across the map.

In a game without shields, a determined base assault with artillery is guaranteed to do some damage if there is no units nearby to put pressure back on the siege force. In a game without shields, just as you can't attack everywhere at once, you can't perfectly defend every nook of your base: your units cannot be in multiple places at once.

Hence, a game without shields opens a lot of attacking opportunities for the aggressor (from which he can only pick a few). It also rewards the defending player for reactive and smartly placed forces, ingenious base setups and, above all, rigorous scouting (or reconnaissance).

To sum up, a game without shields rewards proactive player, and encourages a mobile game (in opposition of a stationary one), making the concerned game that much more enjoyable to play and to watch.

special credits to yourlocalmadsci, antillie, igncom1, nelec, bobucles and lilbthebasedlord, (you guyz are kick-***).

Personally I wouldn't mind shields as I think the game should appeal to defensive and offensive players alike [and lets face it someone would mod them in anyway if there aren't any].

Although this thread seems to be turning into more of an anti-artillery thread, so if there were no shields how about a non-nuclear icbm missile launcher. You still have to spend resources to build them but they can be used to destroy static artillery emplacements.

You mean the 'catapult' that's currently in the game?

Is that what it does? I built the thing but didn't know what it really did.
Just had a quick play around.

Yeah it's a tactical missile silo.

Some people just might find it too unrealistic when some magic bubble passes through tanks, robots and artillery shells of your own but not artillery shells of your enemy.

There is also graphical issues as I can't image how it would blend well with Planetary annihilations current "cartoonish"-style. Shields also tend to make things looking a bit messy as you can't see very clearly what's under them.

But that's not really so important, point is that there are are much better ways to deal with artillery than shields.

Yes in experimental fusion reactors .But what i meant are starwars like energieshields.
Magnetic fields which spin plasma around are build to consentrate the plasma into a small area and protect the walls of the reactor, they are not meant to function as shield.

But with some modulation plasma shields are propably possible in the future if we are able to build mobil batterys which can safe huge amounts of energie and some magnetic device wich is transportable and creates an bubble like field around it and not in it (like it is the case now).

They could also be selectiv for your fire. So that an k.i. would change the magnetic field if friendly ammunition wants to travel out of the bubble. And lock enemy fire out a short time after.


Put thats all not the point.
The point is that underground gameplay is way more fun.

So join underground movement know we are still recruting and getting bigger every day.

Anyways, what are you all doing here. Why are you not watching the E3 streams rigth now.

Strategy gamer, E3 is no place for me.

Re: Balancing Shields - In a game without shields

Sounds familiar! Next time I won't be eating! :lol:

Sorry, you just disqualified yourself from the discussion, because you clearly don't know what you're talking about

Maybe play on maps bigger than a fingernail next time. LRPC aren't NEARLY game enders, nothing in TA is a "game ender", with the sole exception of stacking like 25 nukes to overload the enemy anti nukes, but if you have the ressources to build that, then the enemy deserves to loose

I support the use of shields/underwater game play.

I enjoyed shields in SupCom FA...

Disadvantages:
1. Encourages you to clump your base together
-loss of shields could result in a loss of a lot when clumped.
2. May keep you from expanding allowing enemies to excel ahead a bit easier.
-your enemy may be grabbing metal points with his army while you focus on bubbling.

Advantages:
1. Allows you to protect against any type of fire for a short amount of time.
-useful for protecting your economy from random fire.
-useful for defending front line turrets.
2. Easier base management, don't have to focus as much on individual structure repairs.

I like the fact it adds a layer of strategy to the game. I recall in SupCom, artillery can take out a shield in several shots. If someone is stacking shields, you can simply build more artillery. Throw in an assault group to weaken/break the shields and lay waste to their clumped base. They are useful for defending underdeveloped outposts from small waves. They are useful for bluffing, making the enemy think you are protecting something behind those shields (combined with a radar jammer of course).

Underwater was another one of my favorite concepts in TA, it allowed almost another layer of stealth. You could generally hide your economy in the water with mass extractors and fusions on the ocean floor and still be undetectable by radar... the enemy would have to use sonar. I was always annoyed that you could not however, build an amphibious army underwater or even a submerged shipyard. It all had to be done above water which was pretty annoying. Resources underwater allowed easier pick up and move type play where if you were forced to start a new. It was also fun to send your army through a river to your enemies base undetected.

They both add to the flexibility of game play. Why limit the options? SupCom FA I felt did it right with shields.... but disliked the navy aspect of game play. I support endless conflict!

Shields would not add to the flexibility of the gameplay, that has been explained multiple times in this thread. Look at wisem0nkeys recent post for example, there's one reason why.

Here's the summary from the post:

Underground/underwater gameplay in the other hand would add quite a bit of flexibility to the gameplay but remember that it has been confirmed that in the game you can build on orbit, moons and asteroids for example.

And while underground gameplay sounds like turtles wet dream it also sounds like something which would take weeks, even months to implement to the game. It also would be kind of hard to balance right. It could be added in later in form of mod if somebody feels necessary to do so. I think this has also been covered in this very thread once or twice.

You are funny.

:lol: coh2 open beta is worth checking out though - it's free until june 18th

If it took this long to disqualify me from discussion, then how did you make it past the first post?

Long range weapons can never match the raw power of dedicated mobile, shorter range units. Players who use them are addressing some other issue, such as an inability to attack through a crippled choke point, or bringing a long game to a close. They do NOT work in standard gameplay.

Sadly it's one of the few strategy games that never really caught me.

But it feel its a problem with how you control the infantry, too finicky for my personal tastes.

fair enough, it's all about positional play. micro exists but it's more like recognizing that you may have to micro and then doing it. definitely not for everyone.