Can we talk about shields & artillery?

I disagree re. the limit - if someone builds that many, they're deciding to give up control of the map/resources, and making it very easy to out-maneuver them. No use stopping someone from throwing away those resources - it should be up to them.

Plus, they were really fun to use. and to attack! I loved building crazily-shielded bases, particularly against the AI. I also liking cracking turtles

Yes i like to see the shields and artilhary ,they are part of RTS games long time .

The only way I'd want to see shields in this game is if a hard counter unit is made, such as the absolver from FAF.

As for artillery.. I never understood the whole excitement about the issue.  For one, no one builds t2 static artillery in competitive FAF.  Why would you?  They cost 1.6-2k mass, and you're trading an inaccurate static piece for 5-10 t2 mobile tanks.

The only artillery that could be efficiently useful was t3 static arty.  At this point I guess it just goes to preference.  I nearly fall asleep when FAF games go to silly artillery wars and shield spam.  I know that some people like that kind of docile game play, but I certainly hope Ashes doesn't go this route.

I thought maybe this thread was a couple months old based upon the topic, but nope, created today. The Substrate will have shields as their armor mechanic, but that is nothing like what you are talking about. The last word from devs on SupCom-style shields and artillery is that they are not in the current design, nor is a hard Turtling strategy. They want you expanding your territory, creating lots of units, and fighting with them on multiple fronts. There is a spectrum between rush and turtle. A boom strategy is in the middle, and booming in this game does work, but you still need to expand.

That makes me so happy! I've always wanted a game like this where expansion is nearly forced. 

Well...seems like some people had hard times dealing with shields   . What's the harm in having one? or two? The shields don't just stop you from expanding. They are merely there to protect a bit some key points...and yes, if there's a hard counter unit, I don't see why the shields shouldn't be implemented (or at least a unit with a small/medium mobile shield).

After all, we need to protect some points on the map, right? Retreating to a point and defending a generator should be an option. We all love this aggressive feeling but let's be serious: backfiring an enemy and successfully repelling an attack is amazing too. It's satisfying...and it gives you space to think and manage things.

We plan for the Substrate to be able to have actual SupCom like shield units.

The Post Humans are planned to have a PROJECTRED shield system (i.e. global special ability).  I like the idea of shields and enjoyed them in SupCom.

As for Artillery, indeed. THough the question is, should this artillery be from a UNIT (the Artemis is an artillery unit in effect) OR should it be from a building?

More to the point, in what way is the Artemis failing at being a compelling artillery unit and what changes would you like to see with it?

I feel like trading mobility for strength is tried-and-true: mobile artillery is somewhat weaker than an artillery installation/structure, but can obviously be redeployed. So, my answer to your "OR" is an "AND"

In regards to the Artemis: I feel like it may be a function of the current radar (or lack thereof) - requiring an almost-visual confirmation of enemies can gimp the artillery a bit, and makes the times where they can attack at long range unreliable and surprising. It makes it feel more like a longer-range tank than a proper artillery/bombardment unit.

EDIT: One part of the above is that you can't right-click to attack enemies you can't see. Compare this to the grey icons in SupCom for units not in visual range but which are detected by radar - you can still tell your units to attack them, and so you're still able to utilize their proper range.

Artemis is amazing as an artillery unit. What I would change at it, is the range. I would make it slightly longer because of what HateDread said: it just feels like a long-range tank. As for an artillery building, it would be safe to say that a T3 building with a spread shot across the map could do some damage without affecting the flow of the aggressiveness too much...or a small range T2 artillery building that can slightly defend some generators (or poke them).

Yes, you are absolutely right .

So...we will never have some sort of building that can generate shield-type protection for our base?

Never say never. the focus is to get 1.0 out the door and then expand on that core.

One of the things I like about this game, is the vision aspect aka LOS. Units can be shooting you that you cannot see and target. Your archers, artemis and nemesis may not be able to use there full range(like tat mentioned) because they lack LOS. So what provides better LOS?, I think it should be scouts and air to name a few(or other?). The reason I don't wan't to change the radar schema without upgrade/research, is that the current vision aspect in this game allows for better ambushing in my mind but maybe it would be the same with a better radar. 

It doesn't make sense, though, for a future military to rely on visual line of sight for missiles. I mean, the missiles themselves aren't likely to be using optical recognition (lest they fail in poor weather conditions), but instead heat, radar, etc. We can already shoot far beyond the horizon now - it seems odd to restrict all attacks to visual LoS in such a large-scale futuristic war game.

yes I totally agree with you, except if at this point in time, cloaking and stealth tech has also reached a point of making single unit signature detection by radar very difficult without special counter R&D. 

I imagine, they will do something to address this issue. Maybe scout + archer/artemis = better sensor suite for longer range, or just have the scouts and intel structures show the signatures of the actual units. Still Los should always be more accurate in actual hits and determining the outcome of possible hits.