Give us Shields! Come on!

Well first of all it would slow down attacks and make life easier for the defending side all around. Warefare on multiple planets leads to situations on wich you cant just multitask everything, so having a base break down slower would be quite nice.

It would also help you react to artillery and catapult attacks. With a shield you know that there is something hitting you, without a shield there often is no time to react.

Shields will stabilize gameplay by removing or at least slowing down random win tactics - the most famous being the 5 SXX cheese. But then there is also the random artillery hit on your commander that blows it up, 15 gunships just happen to find your commander by chance blowing it up, building some catapults and just attack the commander, sniperbots, and many many more tactics that currently work with very little effort put into them but they need a really high effort to deter.

A shield and a teleporter would give you some more time to bring your troops to a planet in order to invade there - your attack cant simply be stoped by one catapult.

Shields wont counter artillery and long range units, they ll only slow them down.

tatsujb brought up some good points in his post as well here:
https://forums.uberent.com/threads/give-us-shields-come-on.60152/page-14#post-937248

not everything in his post points out things that are fixed in the game but he still points out many of the upsides of shields.

If shields don't do anything unique, then there is no point in building them.

Build a bigger army, or more turrets.


And if you are having trouble with snipes, then get more map control, to prevent your enemy from exploiting your weaknesses.

The best defense in PA is a offense IMO. If the enemy is attacking you somewhere, then attack him as well.

Artillery and catapults are very risk/reward tactics when used to bombard a base. They are very vulnerable when being set up but powerful once built. A PD turret would help if a firebase sneaks up on you.

It has been discussed that orbital units should have a "cool down" after transferring orbits so that orbital defenses can prevent such a tactic from being very successful.

Anti-air bots are pretty cheap and can cover a decently sized area, and even a single air factory with fighters set to infinite build and area patrol is effective.

Sniper bots do not require little work as they are easily the most micro-intensive unit in the game. Get shellers and watch the bots crumble.

I can't deny that the shield/tele combo would be effective, but I'd rather see more ways of invading as tele's are meant for transportation between friendly areas.

I see where you are coming from, but most of these issues have been discussed before and shields never came up as a solution.

If the bottom line is simply slowing down your demise aren't there other ways to go about preventing that then simply adding shields?

invading planets is already difficult because of lacking mobility ... so no need to make that more difficult
unless someone tried some massaustreusdrops to see if that works without being dependant on teleporters

nothing a specialised pd couldn´t do too

non of the things you descripe are random ... if you got in range of artillery then there simply is the chance of you getting hit ... gunships do damage over time and if you dont have anti air nearby ... your fault ...
for ssx use umbrellas and avangers aswell as radar .. no need for shields ...

artillery and missile pd´s and other turrets ... it´s always better to build stuff that destroys ... not just tanks damage

so why waste your power and resources on that in the first place when you instead just could build more bombers and shellers to quicker overrun that shield ...

That was on the previous page, I didn't see it. People are not always on topic in threads m8. Oh, and don't be an *** about it.

nehekaras has already nailed most of what I wanted to point out. The main reason I want them in, is the fact that it's really hard to maintain multi-tasking between planets, especially on big systems mid to late game. I don't believe every avenue of shields has been thought upon yet, and I think they could be implemented in such a way that could help this problem that some of us have with multi tasking. For me, I would just like them couple extra seconds of grace while my shields are up to scramble my units on a biggish queue on whatever task I'm currently doing, make my way back to the planet and maybe still have a fighting chance of saving my ***. All this while being really thankful I don't have to spend the next 15 minutes fixing most of my buildings and units

Maybe you could use the same system used for shield template, as any other template currently in game, they cannot overlap at all or build on top of each other. They suck your economy in such a way that its only really viable when you are harvesting a whole planet and want to leave that planet to go to a new one or start focusing on cracking another. Maybe when they take damage, they affect your economy per-shot-hit at the bubble/dome/shield-wall/shield-thing to the extent that they are drained quicker by you're economy rather than the shield health.

Whatever the rule, it "could" be balanced right, and in such a way that it not only works in PA, that it actually compliments it!

Another big reason for me is the visual look and appeal of shields, the vibe it gives off, the sound effects one could attach to such technology, and the overall satisfaction on the appearance of blue/yellow/green/whatever colour bubble/wall/shield-thingies you would see from a decent zoom. Obviously 100% opinion.

This next part doesn't really only apply to Shields, but other technologies or units/abilities or aspect of the game.

I just want lots of options at my disposal, I want to be able to make the wrong choice if I have to make a tough decision in the heat of the battle. I don't just want to have to build more of the same wall or unit or tower because it's easier or because its the "winning" tactic. I for one love variety, and hope to see not only shields in the game, but more advanced stuff.

Also, I would just like to add that tatsujb has made some very good cases for balancing shields that nobody has bothered to debate about, and his points for me, make the idea for shields even more tastier.

It's all down to how Uber wants it, really. Shields can seriously mess with the feel of the game (open and dynamic vs. closed and turtly – not because shield-turtling is a good strategy, but it's still slowing things down). When they say they want it to feel more like TA than SupCom, I'll take their word for it. But even in the game's current condition, I'm not sure that's even the case. Adding shields would further push it towards the mind-numbingly-slow-game end of the spectrum. I personally don't want that, but who cares.

Still, my take is this: If the enemy got artillery up and you don't know about it, it's your own fault and you should face the consequences (whether or not it actually kills you). Scouting is essential. It's not so much random wins as you being oblivious about what they're doing.

One argument I can see against is the scale of the gameplay, which is already rather bigger and more SupCom-like than TA (despite what I said up there). That means your attention needs to be all over the place, and it's hard to focus on every little thing. So maybe you shouldn't have small scale, yet game-winning events; only macro-wins.

I like tactical wins myself. It makes it more interesting, and it makes people more inventive. Yea, cheesy tactics and all, but that's the price you pay for having it – cheesy players will pick up a reputation soon enough. I don't want games that last forever (maybe Uber does), and even using shields offensively, it's still a shield you're poking at rather than the units and structures themselves. No thanks.

As far as the TA feel goes, I fear they may already have failed.

You could play on a smaller planet. If you watch the tournaments, you'll see that the top players play 1v1's on small planets, Small wins and tactical victories do matter and decide games.

its not really about slowing down my demise, its about giving me time to react. Giving me time to gather my army, maybe even time for a hasty retreat to deal with a sudden threat appearing.

Of course if you have insufficient means of defending yourself shields wont do you any good and as such will just slow down your inevitable demise, you are correct there. But then again you always lose if you cant defend yourself.

Well first off shields dont need to be special in order to be of use. We have many units wich dont fill any special role, and I am totally fine by that.

Anyways I feel that shields do give you something special - the ability to prioritise parts of your base. The ability to say - allright this is the most curcial part of my base - I need this protected as well as possible and if I get attacked I need a chance to defend here.

Shields will also give you a way of slowing down air attacks, something that simply cant be done at this time.

Also you can have all the mapcontroll you want, your enemy can still kill easily with very little effort involved.

I think you misunderstood my point. Invading planets will be easier with shields present. You can now quickly protect your teleporter at least for a while in order to get some more troops onto the ground. You cant just get countered by one building or unit.

Obvioulsy for that to work we would need the Orbital builder to construct a shield, but maybe thats the way to go. Putting shield generators onto the orbital layer and let them generate their shield below them.

I dont know what you mean by pd. But I know of no unit that can give you time in order to react to threats currently in the game other than walls.

Sure none of the things I described are random, everything has to be initiated by your enemy.

As for umbrellas against SXX the SXX can fire before they are destroyed thus no matter how many umbrellas are present the SXX wins.

You dont have to walk into artillery fire. Given how fast you can construct a holkin right now it is a feasible tactic to just build one next to the enemys base. And since you cant have your eyes everywhere all the time there is a chance you wont see artillery before it can fire - and then its to late.

Again I'm sorry but I dont get what you mean by pd.

Yes that is your combat philosophy and thats fine by me but I beg to differ. It is important to protect the stuff you have, its important to have a good backbone to your army in order to support your forces.

Of course no one of us is right or wrong, we just have different opinions on how an enemy should be dealt with.

Because by that logic I would need a holkins in every single one of my firebases. I would actually need 4, right at the edges of every base in order to outrange incoming artillery. If I have a shield I can take a hit. I can react to the artillery and take it down if the enemy didnt protect it.

care to explain?

sounds horrible ... and no i don´t think you make them easier at all ... because you are not the only one who would have shields but the enemy on the planet you want to invade as well ...

point defense against missiles or artilery ... not yet in game but eventualy ...
options to react early to threads? radar and scouts ... get your information then send anything that fires or drops something at your enemy ...

you still have avengers and scout options

**** happens ...

every turret and tank you build is hp aswell as dps ... every one of those being in the way of your enemies army slows it more down and decimates it as well, preferably entirely ... something a shield doesn´t do ... it doesn´t even render any of the attacking units inefficient in anyway it merely becomes a bigger target for the whole firepower that army has ... anti missile and artillery defenses however stop those shells and missiles doing no damage at all to whatever they get launched to ... the shield ineviteably will go down

if your enemy doesn´t protect them
you can use bombers and gunships to send in patrolroutes ... no artillery will ever able to hit those ... even better you can launch a counterattack with those ...

Well, being a feeling, it's a highly subjective matter. What is the essential feel of TA, anyway? Probably a topic better left for a thread of its own, but I'll say this: I don't find myself microing nearly as much as in TA. A good thing for some, and yet, it takes something away. It's still more than SupCom, so it's closer to TA than SupCom was. I suppose it's the scale, but also the cost of units; how valuable each of them is, how much impact each can have, how easily they die, etc. I find myself spamming more, caring less. And that gives a different feel. The question is, with the scale and scope they've committed themselves to, is it an inevitable difference? Maybe.

If it's to add a grace period or a moment to think don't you think that's when it becomes a user factor? The better you can multitask the better you are to handle a situation.

Are shields really the answer to players having a slower reaction time? When does player skill and execution become center stage to unit integration? If a greater group of players are unable to execute a specific strategy is the next logical step of balance to add a new units to help them along? Or is iterating and improving on already existing tech the better and more practical route to forgo?

Sure.......the small group thats insulting the devs and bashing the people that dont want shields, real mature indeed.

gameplaywise this game definitively has a well ammount from TA in it ...
flair wise? i say the more essential thing is the conflict between arm and core and their story ...
because you had that in TA and people were atached to that it might be that this is what feels lost in PA
TA i think had that we bit more personality to it because of that bit more love for those 2 factions ... that´s what i like to think at least ... PA´s factions are simply a different kind of ... love ... i guess ...

Idk, besides that, has anyone here actually played PA lol, shield supporters included? Artillery in PA has no more than 2x range of standard turrets. You need to build artillery close, and they barely shoot out of range enough to peck a bit at a base with it's weakish shots and sluggish rate of fire.

That is actually the main reason shields aren't needed. Shielding from what? AA is superior to air as far as stingers and flak and hummingbirds go, two of those is mobile and two of those are ground based, one is both. Artillery has to be so close, it can not be defended by any more than 1 row of turrets and such and still be in range of the base. That is easily within response time of a tank and grenadier army. If tanks even get in range, grenadiers can suicide rush and lob nades over the wall to snipe the artillery. Xept holkins, which are expensive, rare, even more sluggish, and useable damage and AOE but not enough to level a base even with 2 of them, just to snipe single structures with scouting if you can.

Shields are a counter to artillery, which is underpowered-but-useable currently. Now, a whole lot of games don't use artillery because they aren't that that great for their cost. A lot of games do, because artillery is a t1 that can kill from a safe distance. Still, to level a base takes 4, and 4 can peck at an incoming army but not flatten it. A base with shields, pfft, I am starting to think with current game design, just adding shields would not see them used except gimmickly like commander protection, because shields would have nothing to really protect against.

I don't know, I still think shields would be fun. I just think, for nearly no metal at all, you can slap a wall in front of a turret, be immuned to the one type of fire that matters, tank and unit fire, and have no need for a shield afterwards. Especially if the shield costed a pelter, you would rather have the pelter or the army to stop the pelter, than a shield.

Yea, see now, my answer would be different. And that is precisely my point: It depends who you ask; how they played the game, and indeed what aspect of the game they liked. And thus, what aspect(s) of TA they would most like to see reborn in PA. It's a rather unfruitful discussion; we may as well just see what Uber makes of it, and in the end, who likes it and who doesn't. Though some people prefer warring it out on the forums.

warring it out is fun but yea i agree ... we´ll just have to wait and see ...

Sure, sometimes. But what I see here is a lot of people trying to logic their way through to something that isn't all about what makes sense, but rather very opinion-based and down to what sort of feel one would like the game to have. Or flavor, if you prefer. And I don't think you can condense that into an argument. Not that I haven't tried myself.

Anyway.

Every unit has a use, or a purpose.

Adding HP to units is massively powerful in a game like this, because it gets better the more units it interacts with.

Having a HP boosting unit is a massive force multiplier for essentially free, even with a localised economy.

And if shields aren't supposed to be force multipliers, then they have no role whatsoever, and thus shouldn't be included.


Patrols are your second point, if you need to automatically defend a base you use patrols, engineers bots and fighters are all very good in this role, and can be told to patrol directly from their factory's, as every unit can.

Combat fabbers are dedicated repair units, and are designed for this kind of role exactly.


Slowing down a attack force is done by having a defence force, and more importantly, walls.

Walls are designed to slow enemy forces down and provide a limited barrier against enemy weapons, they do have their counter in flame tanks and enemy infernos, but that is the point of the game, to find strategys that counter your enemy's.

A force of combat fabbers and bombers, along with a little static defence of walls, turrets, AA and a few factorys to keep your numbers high will do wonders, not to mention provide you with a bunch of reinforcements should you need them.

A skilled enemy is a human, a living person who is actually trying to beat you and win the game.

Map control makes this harder, by preventing a lightning assault from toppling you, as well as making scouting on their part easier.

Spreading out will make any planet side enemy's easier to keep away from your commander not to mention that a large base will also give you plenty of room for umbrellas, orbital fighters and anchors.

As well as mitigating the effects of a nuke strike.

Spread out enough and your enemy will struggle to even destroy your buildings in quick succession, let alone find your commander.


If you feel you need shields, it's because you are already to late, you army's have fallen, you enemy has found your unprotected stuff and is going for the kill.

A energy shield is always a device of last resort, as you enemy has driven you away form the battlefield, and your defences aren't going to cut it from their artillery.


If you need shields, they aren't going to save you, they don't even shoot.