Shields should be better in every situation

[Sov]

The fact that Stellaris shield technology is like this, shows me that Stallaris was made by developers that have no clue about sci-fi writing.

First off, why are there not different types of shields (EM Spectrum Shielding, Metaphasic Shielding, Kinetic Shielding etc).

This seems to me, to be that the developers are anti-shields because shields are always, in any sci-fi universe 1000% better then armour, which is primitive technology by comparison. (The fact that "missiles" are considered a viable technology in this universe is pretty hilarious as well).

Kinetic weapons have never been shown to be effective against shields (real shields, not the pathetic "ray shields" that Star Wars has) and in actual physics, early concepts of real-life plasma shields have shown to be effective against bullets (which are a Kinetic weapon).

To me, it just stems from the fact that the developers are obviously fans of the more "gritty" (and more depressing) universes of Battlestar Galactic and the Expanse and that is where this ridiculous notion of armour being somehow equal to shields comes from.

Yes, shields consume power, but once you learn Antimatter based reactors, that becomes a non-issue (do they even know the kind of power antimatter/matter reactions produce?) but the fact that armour is considered somehow more powerful in this game is laughable.

[SVaughan]

I'm fairly certain one of the members of the dev team is a Halo fan. And in Halo, most UNSC ships could outright tank incoming energy weapon fire from Covenant warships (Energy versus Hull plating).

The one thing that can never be proven in our current era is how things react to other things. All we have to rely on is what exists in Sci-Fi already. You can't fault the devs for something that can't be proven without a doubt IRL. Humanity IRL is NOT at that stage yet (Probably never will be).

We want to talk armor being superior. Star Trek Enterprise had ZERO shields. And yet, despite lacking that simple thing, tanked against anything using energy weapons.

In terms of Kinetic versus Shields...Plasma can stop bullets but not fire. And most shields in even Star Trek are designed to counter energy-based weapons, so what's to say that they can stop ballistics? Same goes for any other Sci-Fi. The shields on the ships in those were designed to counter whatever weapons are common in that universe.

Stellaris is a Grand Strategy Game that uses aspects of every known Sci-Fi fantasy that humanity can ever come up with, crammed into one game that strives for balance. Of course there's going to be inconsistencies. But saying that the Devs are fans of one thing or another, is just flat-out projection and hostile opinions.

NO ONE is forcing you to play this, and if you do, then that's your problem. Not those of us who actually enjoy this game, despite its inaccuracies.

I play it to escape from reality. I don't want to escape reality only to come into a game that tries to mirror it. Embrace the suck. Because I sure as hell do.

[Sero]

Sorry but your argument boils down to "I like shields". You disregard any existing source that doesn't agree with your notion of shields and armor.
To achieve 100% in favor you ignore all the things that aren't.
Why would shields be inherently better than armor?
Shields need to counter the energy they receive, armor just needs to disperse it.
How do you know how much energy a dark matter generator produces? How do you know there aren't limitations by the size? Could it be that a fictional energy source has no set rules?

[Immortalis]

So, your assumption that shields are 1000% better than armour in “every sci-fi universe” just requires us to ignore the entirety of Star Wars *and* Battlestar Galactica, alongside the Expanse (which is one of the few sci-fi universe that is fairly well grounded in the level of technology we do possess right now, in terms of real world limitations such as gravity and the travel time of people and communications). I would also assume that you must ignore how Halo as well as Andromeda handle shields vs armour and a sizeable chunk of how shields work in the Stargate universe.

If anything it seems you are the one with an extremely narrow minded view of how shields MUST work and, more importantly, that view is supported by nothing else than “I say so”.

It’s sci-fi, by definition there are things that are not realistic according to our technology level and as a result there is no way to determine how something should work nor which would be the “better” way of doing something.

Stellaris has made a very clear decision on how to handle things, using the old triad methods of option A is strong where B is lacking, B is strong where C is lacking and C is strong where A is lacking. You’re free to agree or disagree with how they handled it but it’s a creative decision. If that makes the game unplayable for you, either create a mod that customises the experience how you want it or, even better, create your own game.

[Sov]

Well I didn't expect such a passionate defence for this point. Yes, Battlestar and the Expanse are "grounded" in current levels of technology and I think that's what makes them so dull. Technology changes, people back in the 17th Century could not conceive of concepts such as the internet and global communications and would have seen that as magic.

Its incredibly arrogant of humanity to think that we understand everything about the laws of the physics and this universe in our current era. Humans would be sufficiently more technologically advanced if we had not succumbed to primitive aspects of our nature. Stuff like the Dark Ages, which was caused by religion set back human technological development by centuries, if not aeons.

The fact is that Antimatter Reactors exist in this game and are achieved relatively early, they do not correctly convey the sheer power that is able to be harnessed from these types of reactions, which would make shields significantly more powerful and useful then armour is.

But this game lets you build pointlessly large structures such as Dyson Spheres? Its pretty clear that the developers liked universes like Halo with their incredibly ugly ships which are primitive levels of technology for where humanity is by the 2200's in other universes.

Halo is essentially a dumb shooter and never will be able to flesh out its concept and besides, the only reason humanity is powerful in Halo is that they stole most of their technology from a more advanced and near extinct society.

Lets see how the Pillar of Autumn does against a Particle Weapon... Oh.... and its been split in two. Its basically a hulking lego block with no real design elements.

[EleventhStar]

Originally posted by Vivas:

Kinetic weapons have never been shown to be effective against shields (real shields, not the pathetic "ray shields" that Star Wars has) and in actual physics, early concepts of real-life plasma shields have shown to be effective against bullets (which are a Kinetic weapon).

Yeah no.

Shields are the ultimate waste of energy. constantly maintaining an very energy intensive 360 degree bubble just in case you get struck by a very cheap very energy efficient bullet? that's like using a patriot missile to shoot down a $100 drone, only done as a last resort.

And that isn't even some technological limitation. if you put the same amount of energy into a weapon, it will always win against a shield using the same energy to defend since it has to cover more area.

Look at how things are going IRL, armor works, explosive reactive armor works, you can even get paint that has ablative armor against fire (fire is technically a plasma weapon right). And the next step is active protection systems that take out incoming weapons before they get to you, both kinetic and with laser, not shields or anything.

and even if you have a energy weapon that travels at lightspeed with no weaker target-finding lazer or anything, just evasive maneuvers are way a more energy efficient defense than shields.

[Sov]

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

Originally posted by Vivas:

Kinetic weapons have never been shown to be effective against shields (real shields, not the pathetic "ray shields" that Star Wars has) and in actual physics, early concepts of real-life plasma shields have shown to be effective against bullets (which are a Kinetic weapon).

Yeah no.

Shields are the ultimate waste of energy. constantly maintaining an very energy intensive 360 degree bubble just in case you get struck by a very cheap very energy efficient bullet? that's like using a patriot missile to shoot down a $100 drone, only done as a last resort.

And that isn't even some technological limitation. if you put the same amount of energy into a weapon, it will always win against a shield using the same energy to defend since it has to cover more area.

Look at how things are going IRL, armor works, explosive reactive armor works, you can even get paint that has ablative armor against fire (fire is technically a plasma weapon right). And the next step is active protection systems that take out incoming weapons before they get to you, both kinetic and with laser, not shields or anything.

and even if you have a energy weapon that travels at lightspeed with no weaker target-finding lazer or anything, just evasive maneuvers are way a more energy efficient defense than shields.

Again, Antimatter reactors exist in this game... they are a rather early technology. They can produce huge, almost infinite amounts of power. Powering shields would not be an issue. They created this problem for themselves.

Actually the US Navy has begun working on a prototype for a plasma shield and its extremely promising technology. Shields are the future, armor is just backwards.

[Garatgh Deloi]

Originally posted by Vivas:

Again, Antimatter reactors exist in this game... they are a rather early technology. They can produce huge, almost infinite amounts of power. Powering shields would not be an issue. They created this problem for themselves.

Using said antimatter reactors for weapons would auto counter shields. Again energy focused in a area against energy spread out to cover the whole.

The "energy shields" the US navy are developing aren't shields. It's a laser array that shots down incoming missiles.

Energy shields (as generally depicted in science fiction) is just a stupid concept in general.

[Blood of Kerensky]

Originally posted by Garatgh Deloi:

Originally posted by Vivas:

Again, Antimatter reactors exist in this game... they are a rather early technology. They can produce huge, almost infinite amounts of power. Powering shields would not be an issue. They created this problem for themselves.

Using said antimatter reactors for weapons would auto counter shields. Again energy focused in a area against energy spread out to cover the whole.

The "energy shields" the US navy are developing aren't shields. It's a laser array that shots down incoming missiles.

Energy shields is just a stupid concept in general.

It is stupid, yes. Just as stupid as many fictional tropes in media. But not everything has to make sense to be enjoyed.

[Garatgh Deloi]

Originally posted by Blood of Kerensky:

It is stupid, yes. Just as stupid as many fictional tropes in media. But not everything has to make sense to be enjoyed.

True enough.

My post was more meant as a argument against comments like "Shields are the future" and "Shields are better in any situation". They clearly aren't, at this point in time they are just enjoyable fiction.

[EleventhStar]

Originally posted by Vivas:

Again, Antimatter reactors exist in this game... they are a rather early technology. They can produce huge, almost infinite amounts of power. Powering shields would not be an issue. They created this problem for themselves.

okay so imagine this: i use that antimatter reactor to power my weapon instead of my shield.

Actually the US Navy has begun working on a prototype for a plasma shield and its extremely promising technology. Shields are the future, armor is just backwards.

oh i'm sure it can have some niche applications. but you are never going to see it on things like tanks or airplanes and i doubt even a navy ship will be able to get remotely close to getting the power generation required.

then there is the issue of heat dissipation. (which is much worse in space applications)

[SVaughan]

Originally posted by Vivas:

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

Yeah no.

Shields are the ultimate waste of energy. constantly maintaining an very energy intensive 360 degree bubble just in case you get struck by a very cheap very energy efficient bullet? that's like using a patriot missile to shoot down a $100 drone, only done as a last resort.

And that isn't even some technological limitation. if you put the same amount of energy into a weapon, it will always win against a shield using the same energy to defend since it has to cover more area.

Look at how things are going IRL, armor works, explosive reactive armor works, you can even get paint that has ablative armor against fire (fire is technically a plasma weapon right). And the next step is active protection systems that take out incoming weapons before they get to you, both kinetic and with laser, not shields or anything.

and even if you have a energy weapon that travels at lightspeed with no weaker target-finding lazer or anything, just evasive maneuvers are way a more energy efficient defense than shields.

Again, Antimatter reactors exist in this game... they are a rather early technology. They can produce huge, almost infinite amounts of power. Powering shields would not be an issue. They created this problem for themselves.

Actually the US Navy has begun working on a prototype for a plasma shield and its extremely promising technology. Shields are the future, armor is just backwards.

IF shields are our future, then why are we still using sloped armor? Our most recent "Stealth" ship uses mainly sloped armor (None of these prototype shields you think you know about). If anything we're going along the path of the UNSC. Also I love how you laser-focused on the Halo aspect of my comment, when I did use other series. I call this deflection (Shield puns intended).
Comparatively, we as humanity have two paths that are guaranteed to happen.
Either one path takes along similar lines to Star Trek, and then maybe one day in the far distant future, something along the lines of Star Wars. OR we go down the route of Halo in terms of Human-made technology. We already have early Mini-MACs (Railguns) and are moving towards armored vessels with heavy amounts of counter-measures and point-defenses (Stalwarts, Halberds, Paris-Class, to name a few examples from Halo that do NOT have ANY form of stolen tech on them). You used the Autumn. In Halo, Autumn didn't exist in the early war. Hell even the In Amber Clad didn't even exist. Unironically, the UNSC Spirit of Fire (A weaponized colony ship) had zero shields and held off against a fleet of Covenant warships, by itself. Energy weapons against a armored ship that wasn't even built for combat to begin with.

As for Star Trek, we do see ballistics being effective against shields (Star Trek Online counts as canon, but I'm not talking about that). Certain torpedoes in Star Trek have Kinetic energy to them, mainly anything with "Concussion" in its name or description. A variant of ballistic weaponry. Hammer a ship enough with those and the shields are going to fail regardless.

Let me put it another way. Shields can and will get overloaded in combat. It doesn't matter what kind of energy source is being used (In Star Trek they use Anti-Matter), you WILL guaranteed lose shields. So is it not better to have a second layer of defense? Like stronger hull plating? Every Sci-Fi series I've seen has a balance to the ships in it. Unlike the paper ships in Star Wars, EVERY ship has layered defense. Star Trek, it's shields, deflectors (which often fail), then the hull. In Halo, it's sloped hull armor, and lots of it, and with the shield tech from a dead species, it was still Shields, and hull armor. In BSG it's just mainly the hull plating and pure stubbornness. StarGate, it was Shields and hull armor (see my point yet?).

Your stance is that Shields can stop anything and there's no real need for hull strength. And that shields are impenetrable. And that a singular source of power (Which mind you is dangerously more unstable than even Uranium) can ensure the shields remain online regardless of the circumstances. A good way to kill a shield is to hammer it. And when your enemy is using energy weapons, and has the power to essentially lay siege to your shields, they will fall. Same goes for ballistics. Hammer a shield long enough with ballistics and it does not matter what is powering your shields, they will drop.

War is a game of it's own kind. Strategy and Adaptation. If you build it, the enemy will build to counter it. It's too late in the night for me to go look up the Art of War again, but there is a quote that would fit here.

[SVaughan]

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

Originally posted by Vivas:

Again, Antimatter reactors exist in this game... they are a rather early technology. They can produce huge, almost infinite amounts of power. Powering shields would not be an issue. They created this problem for themselves.

okay so imagine this: i use that antimatter reactor to power my weapon instead of my shield.

Actually the US Navy has begun working on a prototype for a plasma shield and its extremely promising technology. Shields are the future, armor is just backwards.

oh i'm sure it can have some niche applications. but you are never going to see it on things like tanks or airplanes and i doubt even a navy ship will be able to get remotely close to getting the power generation required.

then there is the issue of heat dissipation. (which is much worse in space applications)

I never type in massive paragraphs like I just did, but something about this little debate, awakened an inferno in me.

[Sero]

The only feasible kind of shield are the personal shield in Mass Effect. They aren't up constantly, it's more an all around sensor that triggers a counter to incoming projectiles.
The constant shields wouldn't work because of the attackers advantage.
You need to guard all around but the attacker only has to break through one point.

Doesn't matter how much energy you can produce. The weapon would always focus it more.

[SVaughan]

Originally posted by Sero:

The only feasible kind of shield are the personal shield in Mass Effect. They aren't up constantly, it's more a n all around sensor that triggers a counter to incoming projectiles.
The constant shields wouldn't work because of the attackers advantage.
You need to guard all around but the attacker only has to break through one point.

You summarized my point perfectly. Have some points. :)

[EleventhStar]

Originally posted by SVaughan:

I never type in massive paragraphs like I just did, but something about this little debate, awakened an inferno in me.

quickly bring up the mobility/protection/cost triangle.