So, i was one of the people who didn't care for shield tech when it was brought up previously but that's because i never played the supreme commander games lol. Well i got them both, and have been playing them they are so much fun! I find myself REALLY enjoying shield tech. And people always come with the argument stand point of a balance issue, because you could stack them. However unlike in sup com, the shield generators could easily just be a permanent energy drain instead of only 1 time to build it so that alone already tips it some. As it stands there no real short/long artillery range defense except the whole "run out there and find it and destroy it" but that doesn't always work well, especially if your already running behind or got com nuked, etc etc. Why don't we just add a basic smaller shield generator, not the crazy aegis unlocked one but i really don't see the problem. Don't add it to every building or anything like that, just 1 basic smaller range shield gen.
.......That IS how they worked in SupCom.... To be frank, not only is this the wrong place to talk about it, but there are plenty of in depth existing threads on this topic already, and at this point I doubt you'd have anything new to contribute. Mike
i know they have said no to shield gens, and its probable a good idea, but i do thing a defence for artillery and catapults is needed, they should just make them how they where in supcom1 but make it so they cant stack if you put 2 next to each other it should just expand the bubble and when under fire segments of the shield should get damaged and regenerate overtime depending on energy consumption. i know people dont like to turtle but i like using them in a forward base. Also a way to make them a bit more balanced is that the the shield works both ways, enemy's cant fire into your basebut you cant fire out of it. the only way to get threw it it to bombard it untill a segment of it breaks or send a army threw it, also the enemy would be able to fly bombers threw the shield to take it out, but as soon as the shield is down your artillery would be able to start firing out of your base as well as them being able to fire into your base. and if somone has a kick *** base that really is unbreakable you blow up the planet or at least some kind of radar jamming/anti lock on radar thing. if they do put something like this is it would be great but if they dont it will still be good just a slightly different play style
There's a whole lot of possible ways to balance catapults and artillery. Units, buildings, usage costs, strategy, etc. Shield system was a game mechanic choice in supcom. PA seems to have chosen not to use it. Cat/arts will be balanced in some way. It's just too early to tell how. Remember they said the game would have around 100 units... there's just 30 in right now Edit: 30 not 20... forgot naval units for some reason ^^
wasn't there something like "directed shields" like walls that they maybe want to build in? i would have no problems with regenerative unite shields, but the SupCom base shieldbubbles were annoying. Also the idea with directed shields for defense would be interesting, don't know where i have read it
Or you could just blow up the bleeding artillery. Uber (it was either Neutrino or Garat that said this) believes that this is the easiest way to balance artillery. Shields simply cause more balance issues than they solve, they aren't necessarily a balance issue, they incite issues. So please, drop it. Uber's stance on this is a clear "Not now, maybe later."
That's also why I am glad bombers are so powerful in short bursts, to kill artillery but then not be able to continue to level an entire base in one go!
It did work like that in Supcom 2. So you are partially right. Anyway, shields are still topic of discussion. Neutrino said he'll surely look into it in a later stage, but they probably won't work like they did in previous games (Supcom, etc...).
catapults only op on small planets where you can attack enemy buildings from your base with them. in any other way they are realy weak, because they only destroy 1 unit with a hit. so you only need to build 50 ants for example, put them in front of your levelers and they are save to reach the enemy base without any losses. (and if the guy has 10+ catapults you need 10 times more ants, should be not the problem at the stage of the game, else you made something wrong ). and there are the mentioned airstrikes too. in fact catapults are only good vs. small tactical groups of units that were send to destroy single mex or something like that. normal artilery mostly is bugged and doesnt shot, so i cant say mutch about that o.o
I'm personally not too fussed about shields. As someone else said though, I would like a Catapult/artillery counter beyond the 'attack attack!' Option. I like to have more than one tactical choice open to me.
I don't get the hype behind defending. Why defend when you can attack? If you're defending against enemy artillery, you're just prolonging the inevitable; he is going to box you in because the artillery will cut off your expansions, then you're going to wall yourself in, and the game will turn into a stalemate where your enemy is trying to crack your wallnut of a base with infinity tanks, but he can't because you have T2 Metal and turrets. Then your enemy will get Lobbers and Catapults and then you'll die. If you attack the enemy artillery, you just rerouted the inevitable, you can expand again, and now you can attack. Let me Sun Tzu for you: "Invincibility lies in defense; the possibility of victory in attack."
I agree, there are many scenarios where attacking is the sound tactical option. Equally though I can think of a number where it would be beneficial to have a counter structure. While defence will never win you the game-unless your opponent is a novice-there are times when it is incredibly useful/crucial. I feel like supreme commander bread two kinds of gamers, turtles and those who despise turtelling. While I am no means a chronic turteler, I like to have options as to how I can deal with a threat. Defence can be an indirect way of neutralising a threat- especially if you know that base/player is not long for the game. It most certainly does not need to be a prolonging the inevitable structure.
I don't disregard strong defense, doing that would be stupid. Especiallu with the recent health buff to Towers, nestke them in a metal field along with some walls and they should be able to stop attacks indefinitely, except against a major push. But that's why you have a standing army. My big pet peeve is when people start thinking that defense is something you should focus on as a major strategy. Unless you're defending an area or a VIP, and that is your designated objective, defending should be as simple as clicking down a few turrets, some walls to block enemy movement, maybe a Pelter or two for suppressive fire, and be on your merry way. You shouldn't have to have countermeasures, bubble shields, tactical stealth or meatshield units, because if you need those kind of defenses, and you are focused on building them, you have lost the area you're defending and need to retreat and cut your losses. Mind you, if a countermeasure can cost-effectively block all indirect attacks, it is a recipe for absolute disaster. This happens with ASF and Shields in SupCom.
I'll admit i like to turtle and defend, im kind of ridiculous i enjoy a super ridiculous strong defense while i research everything (in this case get to the highest tier) and then just roflstomp with a huge army i gathered for 20 minutes while nothing could get past my shield, catapults, etc. There is always the 2 sides, turtles and super gogogogo attack asap people. But i don't think its right either that the super go go people are here trying to determine how EVERYONE'S play style should be. If there is already going to be so many unit types, why not add these defense options honestly i like the idea earlier in this thread of directional shields, like walls kind of but not bubble shields. All though even if its directional this still doesn't solve the artillery problem. I know it's alpha, i know there's time. I KNOW. But this is a topic for discussion, im not saying "add this now!" Super gogo people stop being biased to your 1 side of play style lol. ===== Edit - I can be offensive by the way, i can be a super gogo player and in things like a ranked ladder thats the obvious way to go. But in casual games i like to turtle and just make people go the fack as they try to send endless things towards me making super little progress.
So currently its very easy to turtle (and according to yourselve you are successfully turtling at the moment). A good turtle is nearly impossible to defeat late game without bomber spam. So why would you even ask for stronger options for a turtle? :| You don't need shields to turtle, its currently a successfull tactic! Without shields.
