My Thoughts on Shields

Indeed, but I am interesting in these new strategy's you guys are talking about.

More like enhancements/improvements/ease-of-use to existing strats, you know like spices added to what otherwise might be a bland recipe. Now some people like their food that way but others might like it hot or just well different; This debate exists at least in part because people feel that way about their game.

That there is always room for improvement? Precisely Dan.

seems this thread has taken a turn for the better

I'm glad for it.

I am trying to have a constructive attitude about it.

I feel there is a lot of confusion here over the statement "shields are a counter to long range artillery"
when we are saying this, it obviously doesn't mean shields can kill the artillery.
what we ARE saying, is that it blocks the artillery fire from hitting critical parts of our base, allowing us to strike the artillery before a lot of damage is done.

it's like saying anti-nukes are not a counter to nuke launchers because anti nukes don't destroy the launcher. that's not what it's made to do, it's made to stop/slow down the incoming nukes long enough for you to do something about it.

I hope this clears that up.

--edit: and this is not a new concept either... it's effectively the same thing as when warriors would have large shields to protect themselves from incoming arrows so they can get closer.
The shield doesn't kill the archer... but it does allow them to get closer TO kill said archer.
again, same thing.

Which is one of the fundamental reason I have a problem with them.

Even walls can fit into this, but they do block actual movement too.

I only really like units that are actual counters, I have never really liked meat-shield units for the sake of just and only tanking.

I would hate the vanguard without a gun, or without a engineering tool.

This is completely true, but it's also worth note there have been a couple dozen threads debating the best implementation of the Nuke and Anti-Nuke. Among the community many of the same members that oppose shields are also unhappy with the anti-nuke and in general dislike binary counters. I tend to agree with them, though less outspokenly.

I would very much like to see the nuke-anti-nuke relationship changed a lot because it is too specific. The anti-nuke has no other role, and likewise there is no other defense once a nuke is launched. I would like to see multiple defenses able to engage nukes but with varying effectiveness and separate incentives to use each.

On a related while I support an anti-artillery defensive option I don't think it should be a dedicated defense like shields because they are too generalized. Shields protect against everything and risk upsetting basic balance between all units and defenses and overly enables the defender. A shield is too "all encompassing" and I would rather the gameplay mechanics not extend beyond the scope of the problem.

I would rather see a new means to defend against artillery, but I don't support a dedicated anti-artillery point defense as it is an extension of the same problem I (and many others) have with the anti-nuke. It is my opinion that allowing an existing AA unit/structure to target the shells, or allowing radar to paint the shells for targeting by AA both seem more reasonable in my opinion.

I'm open minded to alternative solutions. The "layer-shield" has potential promise but I do still have some reservations because while it's scope is more specific than the infamous SupCom shields they still extend an effect on the game that exceeds simple "anti-artillery"

The reason why we have made up our mind before is because we've discussed this before. In great detail. Many times.

Each time this topic is brought up, I don't see any new ideas brought forth. So if nothing new is presented, how can I change my mind?

I'm not sure you sifted through because there are new ideas each time .
Not only that but the veteran participants in these threads, by quoting past threads, allow newcomers to be quickly briefed. As a result the debate gets deeper and deeper into the heart of the matter, and never ceases to unveil new, rich matter.

So I disagree.

I think what's going on here is that each time you didn't read the threads.

Pop quiz : what new idea did this thread add?

Shields with the flt charges or layers?

OOOoooOOoo OOooo!!! *Raises hand*

I have actually read every post in this thread, and also read every post in the locked thread from earlier this week.

Slight variations of ideas do not count as new ideas.

Your pop quiz in attempting to catch me in a trap is flawed in that, I don't think any of the ideas in this thread are unique enough to be considered a new idea.

While the concepts of specific shields are debatably old I would point out that this thread specifically has had a more productive dialog about the legitimate problems with the game that encourage people to implement shields, as well as some decent dialog on non-shield alternatives to address these same issues.

i do.

I guess you can only blame your impression that nothing is new and your unchangeability on yourself then, not us or the people making these threads.

Here is an idea (probably not new):
Perhaps we get rid of all shields and anti-nukes and require that all weapons (including nukes) to have and maintain radar vision or actual line of sight to fire on a target much like laser guided projectiles. No free fire at all, loss of sight of launched projectiles would miss direct targets, and missiles (including nukes) would detonate prematurely. Then we can add in radar jammers that would act as shields from both nukes and artillery. Radar jammers are not effective against mobile units that attack via line of sight but are effective against long range artillery and nukes. Information warfare would be pushed forward, mobile/orbital variants of jammers/radars would have a bigger role in the fight.

And the personal attacks start again...

One of the many reasons why I avoid these threads. Not sure why I rejoined.

Adios.

I like this a whole lot.

Another viable option is to affect the accuracy of a weapon based on the quality of the targeting info. Long range artillery could be made terrifyingly precise if you have actual line of sight, and it could have it's normal "pretty accurate" with a radar lock only. If you are blind firing with a forced attack ground order the cannon should be so inaccurate that you're lucky to hit the base, much less a specific building.

WYSIWYG can be preserved by showing the accuracy of the weapon by drawing a circle around the target. This is similar to how DoW handled long range artillery attack orders.

that was not a personal attack man. he is trying to convey that there are definitely new ideas emerging from these threads and ideas an being per-mutated through feedback and discussion. just because you disagree that they are better does not mean they are not changed based on what we been discussing.



I have seen you post in a very productive manner and I know you can. But for some reason you tend to come back to the same argument when it comes to sheilds. even in the first shield threads ages ago you started on the

line of reasoning when there are clearly permutations on ideas based on feedback happening in almost every thread barring the personal attack ones.



If you are finding yourself posting this argument please think before submitting that your view on the matter is subjective, you have stated as much yourself. will it add to or detract from the quality of the thread? will it attract personally directed attacks due to the subjective nature of your view?


I enjoy your videos and most of our discussions on the forums (even if i disagree with you on some ideas) but you do tend to bring arguments sometimes that entice personal attacks from others that aren't entirely necessary to the discussion.

not meaning offense just something to think about.

fouquet, trust me, I know the urge to post these kinds of replies. It's an appeal to Brian's inner good person... I almost posted one myself, but the simple truth of it is that it's better to just let it go. The longer we dwell on it, and the more we antagonize responses out him/them/us the further we are straying from the real discussion.

I like Brian, and he might never come around to talking about shields again, but that's ok too.

So... what did you think of the suggestion to Radar Jammer as a counter to artillery? I frigg'n love it!