Exactly. No shields means they will die easily if no measure of protection is given them. What's so bad about not being to lock on at ranges more than 30 cm? Stealth Fighters and Bombers are harder to lock on these days at closer ranges. Again, it is quite fluffy that one cannot Lock On on them.
My proposed holofield rules protect much better than standard shields at range, without needing added rules of gimping the enemy fleet.
But they're not supposed to be protected much better than standard shields. They should be protected about the same. That's for game balance. That was the problem with MSM. They were protected waaaaaay better than they should have been.
I'm definitly not trying to make something better than shields in general, but here are what I consider to be some definites.
1. Eldar ships, shields or no, are much more fragile, point for point, to their counterparts.
2. Eldar ships, point for point, hit much harder than their counterparts.
3. Eldar have almost absolute power to choose where and how they engage an enemy fleet, with their superior speed and agility. Eldar should usually be able to achieve a decisive alpha strike.
4. Holofields, in game-mechanic and fluff, should function increasingly well at further ranges. Thus, at long range, it should average less damage to the Eldar than comparable shields at long range, and equal or more damage at short range.
5. Given the agility of the Eldar, positioning to avoid a lockon order should not be terribly difficult, if there is a ship left that you have not yet pwned.
![Wink ;)](http://www.specialist-arms.com/forum/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
But give the poor sap a chance, so he doesn't hate playing you.
6. Given the playstyle of the Eldar, your goal is to do as much damage as possible to minimize return fire, while being balanced enough that the enemy fleet still has a chance to wreck you.
I think my rules perfectly represent my idea of holofields along with game balance, but I still need to figure out the maths, and then compare to shields.
Of course, they are my ideas, so im biased
![Wink ;)](http://www.specialist-arms.com/forum/Smileys/default/wink.gif)
and would readily admit I'm wrong for the sake of balance
![Smiley :)](http://www.specialist-arms.com/forum/Smileys/default/smiley.gif)