Fuel powered shields

[liveware (OP)]

As mentioned in the v1.10 changes thread, there are some who enjoyed the old VB6 mechanic where active shields caused fuel depletion. I for one would be happy to see this mechanic return, as it adds considerable tactical depth to the game. It would also be interesting if shields impacted sensor performance in a negative way. Some possible researchable tech lines which I have thought about that could accompany this feature might be:

1. Reduced fuel consumption while shields are active
2. Reduced reduction in sensor performance while shields are active (possibly with a negative impact on shield performance)
3. The capability to automatically engage shields if a hostile ship/missile is detected within a certain range
4. The capability to automatically disengage shields if fuel falls below a certain level

Just some ideas... anyone else have any?

[Scud]

I actually prefer the implementation of shields as they currently exist, though I think their EM signature should be increased.

Fuel usage was simply an exercise in logistics and micromanagement; it made calculating remaining range a pain, accidentally leaving ships with shields on led to them being forgotten, using up their fuel in orbit. The new refueling mechanics would make this even more complicated. (No way to just equalize fuel if you made the FATAL ERROR of leaving them on)

Ultimately, leaving shields on for 8 hours of combat meant that their fuel use was trivial through the actual length of their use, but they could suddenly cause a huge logistical problem if you left them on for a longer increment.

Making them have a larger EM signature would probably lead to more tactical dynamics, forcing you to consider EMCON until you’re sure the enemy has spotted you, at which point you can scramble to charge your shields before the shooting starts. As it stands with the sensor changes, EM sensors are only good for detecting Active sensors or EXTREMELY shield-heavy designs. (I don’t have the numbers right next to me) Adding depth in this way would be preferable to complicating logistics even further, imo.


I think we can both agree that there is room for them to grow. As it stands now, it’s always a good idea to have them enabled if you have them.

[liveware (OP)]

I suppose I like the concept that shield use should affect sensor range. If your shields are up, you should be blind, IMO.

The fuel use concept I also like, but it should be a decision that borders on the verge of strategy and tactics (again, this is just my opinion). It should be tactically useful to engage shields, but perhaps have a noticeable impact on strategic fuel reserves. This would prevent their indiscriminate use, and encourage thoughtful application, possibly only on very important strategic ships or installations.

[Pedroig]

I suppose I like the concept that shield use should affect sensor range. If your shields are up, you should be blind, IMO.

The fuel use concept I also like, but it should be a decision that borders on the verge of strategy and tactics (again, this is just my opinion). It should be tactically useful to engage shields, but perhaps have a noticeable impact on strategic fuel reserves. This would prevent their indiscriminate use, and encourage thoughtful application, possibly only on very important strategic ships or installations.

Not much stopping you from turning off your active sensors when your shields go active.  But this is a RP decision more so than a mechanical one.

[liveware (OP)]

That's certainly a possibility.

However what I am picturing is more of an interference problem, whereby shields cause a degradation in sensor performance without totally disabling them.

The fuel thing would be much more complicated to micromanage from a RP perspective.

[UberWaffe]

I disliked the fuel usage for shields for similar logistical reasons (forgetting them on, fuel use during the combat engagement negligible, etc.)
I did like that there was a reason to switch them off outside combat, and thus run the risk of being caught 'with your shields down'.

If a change is made, I would want to add a tactical decision.

An idea / suggestion. Not sure how well this would work in practice.
Shields interfere with / diver power from engines
Active shields reducing engine output. With a cap on maximum penalty.
Not sure what the ratio would be, but just for explaining the concept, let us say 5 EP penalty per shield point. Maximum penalty of 50% EP reduction.

Technologies to reduce penalty

• A new technology that reduces the EP penalty per shield point.

Fully researched, maybe it is just 3 EP penalty per shield point. (This would be like fuel efficiency on engines, you always want the most recent research active. Doesn't affect shield build cost.)

• A new technology that exchanges some EP penalty for Power cost.

New design dropdown on shields. Each point of power (supplied by separate power plant) reduces the EP penalty by 1. (Linear, not percentage.)
Tech level determines maximum external power you can supply to the shield this way. Starts off at 0. (Cannot reduce penalty at all.)
At higher tech levels you can have small shields without speed penalty, but would require more power-plant power. Or exchange a part of a large shield's speed penalty for power cost.

Reasoning:
It would give a reason to deactivate shields. But is not 'fatal' for ships just hanging around for long periods. (In fact, favors defenders a bit more than attackers. Not sure if that is good or bad.)
Want to get there with fully charged shields? Slower speed. Get there as fast as possible? Have to enable shields at the last moment. Want to run away? Can disable shields for more speed, but leaves you more vulnerable.
It would be a tactical design choice for combat ships beyond "add some more fuel". (I.e. do you want that kiting ship to have a little less speed and a little more survivability?)
Stations would have a bit of a leg up, in that they won't care about the speed penalty. I see this as a bonus.


I also like the EM sensor blindness, but in practice I think that just means having a shieldless spotter with big sensors in the fleet. Or in a fleet slightly behind the main fleet.

[Vastrat]

Requiring shields to be off in order to jump between systems would interesting as well, if you want to jump you have to turn off your shields.

[Zincat]

Frankly, I don't like any of these suggestions.

Armor is already stronger than shields per-ton, at least up to mid game. Didn't reach late tech yet in any of my new c# games, though it shouold even up a bit there. Shields also require twice the research of armor, and quite a bit of it to be competitive.
Why would you want to make shields even weaker than they already are? Having shields on already have some negatives in the way of EM radiation, which makes it harder to stay hidden. At most, that can be increased a bit.

And also, from a roleplay perspective, anything sci-fi really screams SHIELDS to me. It make no sense to have further limitations in game regarding shields.

As to the fuel thing, in vb6 it was just micro and very, very boring...

[Froggiest1982]

Frankly, I don't like any of these suggestions.

Armor is already stronger than shields per-ton, at least up to mid game. Didn't reach late tech yet in any of my new c# games, though it shouold even up a bit there. Shields also require twice the research of armor, and quite a bit of it to be competitive.
Why would you want to make shields even weaker than they already are? Having shields on already have some negatives in the way of EM radiation, which makes it harder to stay hidden. At most, that can be increased a bit.

And also, from a roleplay perspective, anything sci-fi really screams SHIELDS to me. It make no sense to have further limitations in game regarding shields.

As to the fuel thing, in vb6 it was just micro and very, very boring...

I agree. Shields mechanic it's now working as it supposed to be. The vb6 fuel was an interesting approach but why you should use fuel when there is energy provided by a power plant? I do agree once shields are up the EM signature should increase also as per many sci fi literature and filmography it's reasonable to assume that shields should be detectable once up. So My signature should have an EM xxxx (S) where S is shields.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

Frankly, I don't like any of these suggestions.

Armor is already stronger than shields per-ton, at least up to mid game. Didn't reach late tech yet in any of my new c# games, though it shouold even up a bit there. Shields also require twice the research of armor, and quite a bit of it to be competitive.
Why would you want to make shields even weaker than they already are? Having shields on already have some negatives in the way of EM radiation, which makes it harder to stay hidden. At most, that can be increased a bit.

And also, from a roleplay perspective, anything sci-fi really screams SHIELDS to me. It make no sense to have further limitations in game regarding shields.

As to the fuel thing, in vb6 it was just micro and very, very boring...

I agree. Shields mechanic it's now working as it supposed to be. The vb6 fuel was an interesting approach but why you should use fuel when there is energy provided by a power plant? I do agree once shields are up the EM signature should increase also as per many sci fi literature and filmography it's reasonable to assume that shields should be detectable once up. So My signature should have an EM xxxx (S) where S is shields.

Sorium was never an energy source, otherwise beam weapon reactors would consume it.  Instead it is reaction mass and/or a catalyst for exotic effects.  From a fluff perspective consuming it to run shields was perfectly reasonable, but from a logistics and game-play perspective I agree that a different system would be preferable.

Jumps depleting shields could have interesting implications for gate crashing, and limiting speed with shields up would make you choose between fast closure/escape and risking hits at range.  Another 'fun' possibility would be to make shielded contacts targettable using just passive EM sensors.  Personally I think active sensors should be vulnerable to HARM style targetting, too.

[Shodan13]

I actually prefer the implementation of shields as they currently exist, though I think their EM signature should be increased.

Fuel usage was simply an exercise in logistics and micromanagement; it made calculating remaining range a pain, accidentally leaving ships with shields on led to them being forgotten, using up their fuel in orbit. The new refueling mechanics would make this even more complicated. (No way to just equalize fuel if you made the FATAL ERROR of leaving them on)

Ultimately, leaving shields on for 8 hours of combat meant that their fuel use was trivial through the actual length of their use, but they could suddenly cause a huge logistical problem if you left them on for a longer increment.

Making them have a larger EM signature would probably lead to more tactical dynamics, forcing you to consider EMCON until you’re sure the enemy has spotted you, at which point you can scramble to charge your shields before the shooting starts. As it stands with the sensor changes, EM sensors are only good for detecting Active sensors or EXTREMELY shield-heavy designs. (I don’t have the numbers right next to me) Adding depth in this way would be preferable to complicating logistics even further, imo.


I think we can both agree that there is room for them to grow. As it stands now, it’s always a good idea to have them enabled if you have them.

I agree with this.

Also as I said in the changes discussion thread, there might be some room for shield generator malfunctions, for example when the shield is damaged enough to go down or just an increased rate when on. This would make maintenance supplies more important for shorter confrontations, but not cripple you like fuel can.

[SpikeTheHobbitMage]

I actually prefer the implementation of shields as they currently exist, though I think their EM signature should be increased.

Fuel usage was simply an exercise in logistics and micromanagement; it made calculating remaining range a pain, accidentally leaving ships with shields on led to them being forgotten, using up their fuel in orbit. The new refueling mechanics would make this even more complicated. (No way to just equalize fuel if you made the FATAL ERROR of leaving them on)

Ultimately, leaving shields on for 8 hours of combat meant that their fuel use was trivial through the actual length of their use, but they could suddenly cause a huge logistical problem if you left them on for a longer increment.

Making them have a larger EM signature would probably lead to more tactical dynamics, forcing you to consider EMCON until you’re sure the enemy has spotted you, at which point you can scramble to charge your shields before the shooting starts. As it stands with the sensor changes, EM sensors are only good for detecting Active sensors or EXTREMELY shield-heavy designs. (I don’t have the numbers right next to me) Adding depth in this way would be preferable to complicating logistics even further, imo.


I think we can both agree that there is room for them to grow. As it stands now, it’s always a good idea to have them enabled if you have them.

I agree with this.

Also as I said in the changes discussion thread, there might be some room for shield generator malfunctions, for example when the shield is damaged enough to go down or just an increased rate when on. This would make maintenance supplies more important for shorter confrontations, but not cripple you like fuel can.

Maintenance supplies are already critical for short engagements due to beam weapons drinking them like water.  Please don't add to that.

[Froggiest1982]

Sorium was never an energy source, otherwise beam weapon reactors would consume it.  Instead it is reaction mass and/or a catalyst for exotic effects.  From a fluff perspective consuming it to run shields was perfectly reasonable, but from a logistics and game-play perspective I agree that a different system would be preferable.

I know it wasn't an energy source but I was just talking about the implications of such choice. If you have an independent source of power to feed the shields why you should use more fuel? I agree with what you said anyway. :-)

Maintenance supplies are already critical for short engagements due to beam weapons drinking them like water.  Please don't add to that.

And I agree here too.

I think all mechanics in this department are working fine in terms of depleting resources.

[Jeltz]

I think the shields concern energy, that is power plants, capacitors and energy weapons: when the shields are active, the reloading/ recharging times will extend linearly;increase in the design phase the number of capacitors decreases the recharging time; maybe during the engagement you could decide to favor one system over another: 0/100 - 30/70 - 40/60 - 50/50 -...

Speaking of sensor blindness ... I think shields are a kind of electrostatic dissipative armor, not a sort of reflective magic sphere or something around the hull, so sensors (antennas, scan array, ...) could be external, unprotect but redundant and expendable

[liveware (OP)]

Excellent, I see there is a dissent of opinion on this topic.

I disliked the fuel usage for shields for similar logistical reasons (forgetting them on, fuel use during the combat engagement negligible, etc.)
I did like that there was a reason to switch them off outside combat, and thus run the risk of being caught 'with your shields down'.

If a change is made, I would want to add a tactical decision.

An idea / suggestion. Not sure how well this would work in practice.
Shields interfere with / diver power from engines

The logistical challenge is exactly what I find appealing. It is a challenging balance which may provide a benefit or malus. I also like the concept of using reactor power output to power both shields and weapons, this seems more 'realistic'. Other games implement similar concepts.

Sorium was never an energy source, otherwise beam weapon reactors would consume it.  Instead it is reaction mass and/or a catalyst for exotic effects.  From a fluff perspective consuming it to run shields was perfectly reasonable, but from a logistics and game-play perspective I agree that a different system would be preferable.

I had always assumed sorium was the reactor fuel source and it's combustion products were propellant, but that the reaction rate was so low that refueling was practically never required. This is not the case it seems? If sorium is just a reaction mass then I am curious where the in-game reactors draw their power from?