[strategy] Rushing vs tech/economy
pluset...@my-dejanews.com
respond if you have disagreements or additions.
This post concerns an aspect of the game which often decides the outcome: the
difficult allocation of resources between economy, military and tech. I would
guess that half my losses in 1on1 play were ultimately caused by a
misjudgement or mistiming of this balance.
Economy: this means investing in more workers and/or expansions in order to
get a higher rate of income.
Military: self-explanatory. Here you build troops or buildings to attack or
defend.
Tech/Upgrades: increases your combat efficiency against enemy troops. For
example, reavers and tanks do large amounts of damage to basic infantry
units.
The economic and military spheres are closely linked. Building extra drones
early on and getting your spawning pool on, say, drone 12 means you can mass
more zerglings later. However, if your opponent built his spawning pool very
early and rushed with 6 zerglings he could severely weaken or kill you before
you could realise this advantage. This is where the basic rushes win games:
against opponents who are concentrating on building too much economy or tech
early on.
However, the defender always has an advantage in battles because of prepared
positions such as chokepoints, defensive structures, and the fact that he can
produce more units while the attacking ones are on the way. Thus a 9 pool
build would defeat a 6 pool as after the initial rush was held off, the 9
pooler would have a stronger economy and be able to make zerglings/get the
2nd hatchery faster. This means that it isn't always right to concentrate on
troops, and turns zerg vs zerg games on maps such as River Styx into a
guessing game where 6 pool beats early expansion, early expansion beats 9
pool and 9 pool beats 6 pool.
In order to kill your enemy off, then, assuming similar skills in unit
control, you need to have superior numbers or technology. This usually means
developing a stronger economy and/or slowing your opponent's economy down.
Hence the importance of securing expansions as early as possible to get a
larger resource flow and the popularity of climbing the tech tree to execute
reaver/cloaked wraith attacks against workers. If you manage to pull off a
successful raid or expand earlier than your opponent, you will be
outproducing him in troops for a while and may have an opportunity to launch
an all-out attack to decide the game. Failing to exploit this sort of
temporary advantage, however, often means the enemy will rebuild his workers,
get his own expansion and be on an equal footing again. It has cost me
several games. If you don't feel that an all-out attack will be successful
you can channel the resource advantage into technology or expansion.
Therefore the early stages of a game are, strangely, often a contest to see
who can get away with building the least troops. You want the minimum
possible amount of troops necessary to defend yourself against rushes to get
the decisive economy/tech advantage that will allow you to overpower him
later. Conversely, if your opponent goes too light on defence (say, trying to
build lots of expansions simultaneously in mid game, or 1 gate reaver drop
orders on small maps) and leaves you a window of opportunity to strike, and
you have gotten a reasonable sized military, take it before it closes when
the expansions become productive or the reaver lands. Or power up together
with them and build counter techs like tanks/mutas. Don't just keep on
building the same troops! 5 zealots may take a reaver rusher out, but 12
zealots 2 minutes later will just die to reavers. This is why scouting, and
the ability to react quickly based on recon info, is so important.
Mid games are difficult to play because the correct balance of resource
allocation is hard to find particularly with the tech race that is often
taking place. Eventually it comes down to realizing when and where the
opponent is vulnerable. Experience comes in here, but I found that when I
thought in more depth about this resource balance I was able to time attacks
better.
Hope this made some sense.
+Ethereal
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
AARON WARD
: Again this post is meant to stimulate meaningful discussion on the forum, so
Yeah, good luck. I hope this catches on.
: guess that half my losses in 1on1 play were ultimately caused by a
: misjudgement or mistiming of this balance.
: Mid games are difficult to play because the correct balance of resource
: allocation is hard to find particularly with the tech race that is often
Everything you mentioned, all the problems, are solved one way: Recon. It
is of paramount importance. Likewise, preventing recon by your opponent
is equally important. You should try to make your opponent think you are
doing one thing, when you are doing the opposite. That way, he will
prepare for the wrong thing. Example (Protoss vs. Zerg): make it seem as
though you are going hard zealots/reavers. He will go mutalisk. In
reality, you have allowed him to see a pack of all your zealots and a
couple reavers, when in fact you have been massing scouts in 4 starports.
Make sure he doesn't see this trick. Likewise for all the other races.
Know what he is doing, when he is attacking, etc. and don't let him know
anything about what you are doing.
: Hope this made some sense.
Very excellent post. Keep them coming.
--
*******************************************************************
Rider Aaron 1987 CBR600F "Hurricane"
"Who is the Great Cornholio, and why is he taking my toilet paper?"
Jesse
Tribe"@littleboxes.com> wrote:
> here's my build order/strat:
>
> 1) build tons of stuff
> 2) upgrade it if i'm still alive
> 3) build more stuff if i'm still alive once the stuff i've got is upgraded
> 4) DON'T spend hours pondering what could have been...IT'S A GAME, PEOPLE. I
> HOPE EVERYONE WRITING NOVELS IN THIS NEWSGROUP ALREADY HAS A DOCTORAL THESIS
> DONE. Otherwise, this is a waste of precious time.
[snip]
This was probably the most depressing moment of my day.
Ethereal, that was an excellent post. It's good to see that not everyone
on this newsgroup understands the concept of a "strategy game."
Unfortunately I can't play on battle.net right now, so a lot of the things
I might say are useless. Before you freak out, I'm only using a cracked
copy of SC on my roomie's PC until SC is available for the mac.
I was having a discussion with one of my friend's about his protoss
strategy the other day. Basically he plays heavy D at the beginning of
the game, using many zealots/cannons and templars to defend his bases.
The difference between this, and say, a terran defense is that he doesn't
ONLY worry only about defending his main base and never leaves his shell,
but instead he focuses on grabbing all the extra expansions he can take.
This is fairly efficient for a number of reasons, 4 templars backed up by
4 cannons and zealots for ground support is a fairly formiddable defense
for fairly cheap resources. Of course you can argue that with 3-4
expansions his forces are so divided that one full scale attack will crush
an expansion. No kidding. But in the time the expansion has existed it
has probably paid for itself already, used up your opponent's resources
trying to take it out, AND used up their time managing the troops. Even
if the expansion wasn't permanent it still gives him a huge advantage.
While he's building his economy he won't leave his opponent alone though,
well placed reaver drops, and minor but threatening attacks keep his
opponent busy so they don't have free roam of the board.
One thing I must also mention is that this is not a static strategy. If
through good scouting he sees a hole in his opponent's defenses, his fluid
forces should be able to go from the defense onto offense fairly quickly
to take advantage of it. 2 reavers and 8 zealots against equal or
somewhat greater numbers of any other race will tear them to shreds. Even
without air support they will live long enough to do considerable damage.
Throw in a couple templars or scouts for air defense and this is a fast
moving blitzkrieg force.
How effective is this? I don't know. Unfortunately I can't play with him
since I've left for college and don't have any way to play SC over the
net, yet.
This is one example of going for HEAVY resources. After his operations
are decently set up there should be no way his opponent has any chance of
winning if they are only harvesting half the resources. This coupled with
the protoss unit-unit advantage should be devastating.
-- jesse
Horus
(boohoo, some one thought of it first)
Nexus 6
But I have to say that you ca nt play the numbers game to win in any combat.
That is, if you do rushes, you are banking on the fact that your opponent
skipped out on building defenses. If he did, you win. If not, you lose.
pluset...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6vvqlr$ptf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Again this post is meant to stimulate meaningful discussion on the forum,
so
>
>However, the defender always has an advantage in battles because of
prepared
>positions such as chokepoints, defensive structures, and the fact that he
can
The computer AI [control of your units] sucks at offense, and is good at
defense. Funny how on offense, your units split up, but the defenders will
all go for one unit at a time ...
>produce more units while the attacking ones are on the way. Thus a 9 pool
>build would defeat a 6 pool as after the initial rush was held off, the 9
>In order to kill your enemy off, then, assuming similar skills in unit
>control, you need to have superior numbers or technology. This usually
means
>developing a stronger economy and/or slowing your opponent's economy down.
The key to battle is the difference of each unit's strength and weakness.
Tanks and zerglings punish but easily killed by air.
Air can be killed easy by turrets or goliaths.
Turrets killed easy by tanks and zerglings.
>Hence the importance of securing expansions as early as possible to get a
>larger resource flow and the
I've played with everything visible once (vs computer), and there are gaps
when you could overrun him given a good army.
>zealots 2 minutes later will just die to reavers. This is why scouting, and
>the ability to react quickly based on recon info, is so important.
Here are my objectives when I play:
1. Defend well
2. Terran -> grow tanks, battlecruisers
Zerg -> zerglings, hydras and guardians
Protoss -> tons of zealots with all upgrades (very vuln to air attacks).
3. Outstrip him in minerals growth
4. Wait till defense rips up his army
5. Finish him (workers first then buildings or key buildings { like pylons
by gateways } )
:)
>
>Mid games are difficult to play because the correct balance of resource
>allocation is hard to find particularly with the tech race that is often
>taking place. Eventually it comes down to realizing when and where the
>opponent is vulnerable. Experience comes in here, but I found that when I
>thought in more depth about this resource balance I was able to time
attacks
>better.
>
>Hope this made some sense.
>
>
The Lost Tribe
1) build tons of stuff
2) upgrade it if i'm still alive
3) build more stuff if i'm still alive once the stuff i've got is upgraded
4) DON'T spend hours pondering what could have been...IT'S A GAME, PEOPLE. I
HOPE EVERYONE WRITING NOVELS IN THIS NEWSGROUP ALREADY HAS A DOCTORAL THESIS
DONE. Otherwise, this is a waste of precious time.
End of sermon.
-lost
pluset...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> Again this post is meant to stimulate meaningful discussion on the forum, so
> respond if you have disagreements or additions.
>
> This post concerns an aspect of the game which often decides the outcome: the
> difficult allocation of resources between economy, military and tech. I would
> guess that half my losses in 1on1 play were ultimately caused by a
> misjudgement or mistiming of this balance.
>
> Economy: this means investing in more workers and/or
SNIP.....goes on forever.....
Sheitan
already have Mutalisks and b) Guess that the meagre troops you have are not
your whole army.
--
- Sheitan
"Blessed are the Meek for they are fun to chase."
AARON WARD wrote in message <7003i7$r3r$1...@news.nevada.edu>...
>pluset...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
>: Again this post is meant to stimulate meaningful discussion on the forum,
so
>
>Yeah, good luck. I hope this catches on.
>
>: guess that half my losses in 1on1 play were ultimately caused by a
>: misjudgement or mistiming of this balance.
>
>: Mid games are difficult to play because the correct balance of resource
>: allocation is hard to find particularly with the tech race that is often
>
pluset...@my-dejanews.com
lie...@primenet.com (Jesse) wrote:
> I was having a discussion with one of my friend's about his protoss
> strategy the other day. Basically he plays heavy D at the beginning of
> the game, using many zealots/cannons and templars to defend his bases.
> The difference between this, and say, a terran defense is that he doesn't
> ONLY worry only about defending his main base and never leaves his shell,
> but instead he focuses on grabbing all the extra expansions he can take.
This is a pretty powerful strategy especially on island maps and FFAs. The
main difficulty lies in setting up the expansions on land maps 1v1, which can
be hard even against zerg players who just use the simple strategy of out
expanding you and swarming in zerglings/hydra/muta before your expansion is
properly set up.
Actually on a slightly different point I think a game imbalance exists here
on maps with easily accessible/defendable expansions such as most ladder
maps, as the zerg can expand early and safely with their 2nd hatchery and
build a stronger economy with little risk and no diversion of resources.
> This is one example of going for HEAVY resources. After his operations
> are decently set up there should be no way his opponent has any chance of
> winning if they are only harvesting half the resources.
Against zerg, I agree the protoss have the advantage in late game (if you can
get to that stage.) Terrans are a more even match and you really have to
out-resource them to win as protoss.
Matthew Flowers
: Again this post is meant to stimulate meaningful discussion on the forum, so
Thank you for attempting to elevate this group to something of a civilized
status. I never cease to be amazed at the absolute banality of 99% of the
posts to this group.
======
My $.02:
Rushing is boorish, dull, brutish, and unsporting. Unfortunately, the
unwashed masses seem to have taken to this strategy. It would undoubtedly
be inappropriate to speculate about the psyche of someone for whom a
simple strategy such as this appeals, but I am left with the impression
that a certain immaturity is common among most practitioners, if not a
simple lack of patience.
In term of winning games though, I would say that an early rush is
probably the best way to go. Look at the average game times of the top
ladder players. They're right around 20 minutes. Although I have no way
of proving this, I'm guessing it breaks down to one very long game and a
bunch of short games for an average of 20 minutes.
I play zerg. I defend against just about everything with a mass of hydras
and the plague/ensnare combo. I have never had any spells cast upon me
except for parasite and a TON of irradiate (which a friend of mine
favors).
The key to winning the game is to master the spells. A terran town can
usually be pulled down by a few dark swarms and 2 dozen zerglings.
Twenty four hallucinated zealots attacking an opponent's secondary base
may distract him long enough to take out some of his key buildings in his
main base. Lockdown those Carriers and the BC/Carrier debate is over.
Nuke massed units! Recall your reavers!
I lose to the rush quite a bit, but I also survive it occasionally.
Whenever I do survive it, the rushing opponent is always the weakest
obstacle to victory. There are only so many uses for masses of zealots.
Pity that something as simple as defending themselves from air attacks is
not one of them -- these players would become more of a challenge.
Lost games are of no concern to me as long as I feel that I played well.
When I lose to the rush it is as though I had never played that game.
There was not enough time for the game to develop a flavor. I simply
imagine the the shit-eating grin on the face of the person who rushed me,
and am glad that I could bring happiness to the life of a simpleton by
being the object of his aggression.
I only get to play a few "real" games of SC per week, because I am a
working professional. It can get annoying when you have to play three or
four games before you find a like-minded opponent who likes to use all the
units.
Nonetheless, I'd like to take a moment to honor the rushers out there.
*Ahem*.
Congratulations to all who have defeated me with their rushes in the past!
I would give you a little pat on the head, but alas, this is the internet.
So all you Killaz out there should give yourselves a pat on the head from
me.
Hell, I might as well give out pats on the head to all who deserve it.
Without further ado, here is my Starcraft/Battle.net enemies list
(apologies to P.J. O'Rourke). This list is not intended to be fair. It
simply is what it is:
Anyone with "killa" in their nick
Anyone with "69" in their nick
Anyone with a bunch of ASCII crap in their nick
People who post the same thing three times or more in a row to b'net
People who rush when you ask for a no-rush game
Anyone who cries "cheater" when they begin to lose
People who use "z" to make a plural rather than "s"
Anyone who flames me (This one is selfish but it is *my* enemies list.)
Anyone with "dark", "doom", or "evil" as part of their nick (Except
Dr_evil whose nick is funny)
Anyone who is recruiting for a clan outside of the appropriate channel
(If we wanted to be part of the "Dark Legion of Evil 69 Doom
Killaz" we'd let you know.)
People who don't know the difference between "Your" and "You're"
People who don't know the difference between "There", "Their", and
"They're"
People who pirate the game and then post questions to this group along
the lines of "What's a ghost do?"
People who don't RTFM
People who don't read the FAQ
People who flame the idiots who post about Hitler, causing a thread called
"Nazi Terror" to linger for weeks. (We all agree that the
pro-Hitler asshole is a bastard, but flaming him encourages him
to reiterate his viewpoint. It's been done to death in better
groups than this. Check Dejanews.)
Creationist kooks who post to this group
Pro-Darwin fascist atheists who reply
Everyone who asks about Zerg 2
Anyone who brings up Starcraft 2
People who use any form of the word "suck" in a post to this group
Anyone with a WebTV account
Thank you for your time. I feel much better now.
Hmmm...
Pax Hvmanvs
--matt--
Bob Nicholson
The Lost Tribe wrote:
> here's my build order/strat:
>
> 1) build tons of stuff
> 2) upgrade it if i'm still alive
> 3) build more stuff if i'm still alive once the stuff i've got is upgraded
> 4) DON'T spend hours pondering what could have been...IT'S A GAME, PEOPLE. I
> HOPE EVERYONE WRITING NOVELS IN THIS NEWSGROUP ALREADY HAS A DOCTORAL THESIS
> DONE. Otherwise, this is a waste of precious time.
Notice how his strat has no 'Win' involved
That's my strat.
His is basicly 'If I'm alive...'
Stimmed.Pig
player:
1) Those who can control, or micro-manage, units better. No matter it is
the use of spells (at the better moments, faster, more effectively etc) or
simply the fighting units (queue attacks instead of blindly move attacks,
super-fast seige/unseige tanks, etc).
2) Those who can use different strats and are able to respond to different
strats. There is a cool Terran player I know who use different strats
against his opponants almost every time. Now this kind of player is tough,
much more than those who you know will definitely do the "6 ling rush",
"million man march", or "reaver drop" tactics.
My 2 cents.
Piglet
Matthew Flowers wrote in message <7032o1$5vt$1...@news.cudenver.edu>...
Chris McAnally
Rushing does have some value it helps me prune out the weaklings who
wouldn't provide even mild entertainment later in the game. I've grown
tired of not rushing only to find my opponent doesn't understand that more
resource gatherers would pull in more resources, and that turtling is a slow
form of suicide.
Basically I see it this way, if my opponent survives the rush he's good
enough to give me an interesting game, if not then lets finish this quickly
and find another opponent.
>My $.02:
>
>Rushing is boorish, dull, brutish, and unsporting. Unfortunately, the
>unwashed masses seem to have taken to this strategy. It would undoubtedly
>be inappropriate to speculate about the psyche of someone for whom a
>simple strategy such as this appeals, but I am left with the impression
>that a certain immaturity is common among most practitioners, if not a
>simple lack of patience.
BTW: The enemies list was rather amusing. I hope my name doesn't qualify!
Chris McAnally
-^Dragon^ on Battlenet
Are Wold
play balance. I think for instance Zerg have a greater opportunity to win if
they're not rushed.
Don't kill me for this, okay? But I believe rushing is simply a part of the
game.
Are Wold (aka Red_Pilot)
Wistil
Are Wold wrote in message <705htr$e9p$1...@readme.online.no>...
Wistil
Clay
Flowers) wrote:
>Without further ado, here is my Starcraft/Battle.net enemies list
>(apologies to P.J. O'Rourke). This list is not intended to be fair. It
>simply is what it is:
Hell, Matt...that list covered just about everyone.
_______________________________
Clay Niemann
www.dillonet.com
Remove NO_JUNK to reply by E-Mail
Poet
Though I agree with alot of things there (Especially the list.. I may have
to save & circulate it at work since it's so damn funny), one thing I've
learned on B.net -
Rushing is a hard fact ya have to deal with. It's part of the game, and you
need to learn how to counter it, not cry about it. I can't rush myself.. I'm
completely incompetent at doing so. But I can stop 9 out of 10 rushes,
regardless of what race the opponent's playing.
It IS a wargame, and the object IS to kill the other guy. Sure, it's fun
to have a 2 hour drawn out war, but it's also fun to storm in and shred the
other guy and piss on his ashes.
If ya don't like the rush, that's fine. But ya need to cope.. either by
learning how to stop 'em or just shrug and move on.
As a side note, 'm also a working professional, and time meted out
sparingly to play. But the game's always there to come back to, and it's
usually not too hard a thing to find the guy who rushed, play him again and
slam his face into the dirt repeatedly until he resembles so much humiliated
incompetence.
William Qian
4 gateways, and go zealots, and nothing but zealots. Unless they get air
fast, which is highly unlikely, I usually win cuz 24 zealots early game can
take out almost any base, and my teammates usually like go marines or
something as extra firepower
--
William Qian
w...@linkonline.net
pluset...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<6vvqlr$ptf$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>Again this post is meant to stimulate meaningful discussion on the forum,
so
>respond if you have disagreements or additions.
>
>This post concerns an aspect of the game which often decides the outcome:
the
>difficult allocation of resources between economy, military and tech. I
would
>guess that half my losses in 1on1 play were ultimately caused by a
>misjudgement or mistiming of this balance.
>
>
>Economy: this means investing in more workers and/or expansions in order to
>get a higher rate of income.
>
>Military: self-explanatory. Here you build troops or buildings to attack or
>defend.
>
>Tech/Upgrades: increases your combat efficiency against enemy troops. For
>example, reavers and tanks do large amounts of damage to basic infantry
>units.
>
>The economic and military spheres are closely linked. Building extra drones
>early on and getting your spawning pool on, say, drone 12 means you can
mass
>more zerglings later. However, if your opponent built his spawning pool
very
>early and rushed with 6 zerglings he could severely weaken or kill you
before
>you could realise this advantage. This is where the basic rushes win games:
>against opponents who are concentrating on building too much economy or
tech
>early on.
>
>However, the defender always has an advantage in battles because of
prepared
>positions such as chokepoints, defensive structures, and the fact that he
can
>produce more units while the attacking ones are on the way. Thus a 9 pool
>build would defeat a 6 pool as after the initial rush was held off, the 9
>pooler would have a stronger economy and be able to make zerglings/get the
>2nd hatchery faster. This means that it isn't always right to concentrate
on
>troops, and turns zerg vs zerg games on maps such as River Styx into a
>guessing game where 6 pool beats early expansion, early expansion beats 9
>pool and 9 pool beats 6 pool.
>
>In order to kill your enemy off, then, assuming similar skills in unit
>control, you need to have superior numbers or technology. This usually
means
>developing a stronger economy and/or slowing your opponent's economy down.
>Hence the importance of securing expansions as early as possible to get a
>zealots 2 minutes later will just die to reavers. This is why scouting, and
>the ability to react quickly based on recon info, is so important.
>
>Mid games are difficult to play because the correct balance of resource
>allocation is hard to find particularly with the tech race that is often
>taking place. Eventually it comes down to realizing when and where the
>opponent is vulnerable. Experience comes in here, but I found that when I
>thought in more depth about this resource balance I was able to time
attacks
>better.
>
>Hope this made some sense.
>
>
Hanazono (Matthew Flowers)
A lot of people have posted sentiments similar to this. I must say that
I agree with them now. the "rush" is a fact of life on b'net. After I
made the original post, I noticed that it was a tad bit on the whiny
side, so I decided to see what I could do about the meeting the rush.
perhaps I had been playing too many games against opponents who favored
tech tree climbing like myself which resulted in a kind of "inbred"
mentality about rushing. Herewith is an account of what happened. I
still think the *strategic* component of the game is the most important
(and that was the original point of this thread), so I have emphasized
the strategic plan in this narrative.
BTW: I'm Hanazono on b'net (and sometimes =Sticky). My partner goes by
LordThorn and GenMills. I'm posting this from my home account, but the
original post came from the account I use while at work. I hope this
doesn't cause undue confusion.
(NOTE, my definition of the rush is: A strategy characterized by an
early assault on your opponent followed by continuous waves of attacking
units thereafter, the goal of which is to destroy your opponent before
he has a chance to build up any defenses, or at least before the
"expansion" phase of the game. Rushing players rarely research any tech
beyond what may be helpful for their basic units and often forego even
that in favor of raw numbers of units. A player who attacks early, but
who also goes for tech tree expansions is not strictly a rusher in my
opinion.)
I played last night with my usual partner LordThorn, a guy I have known
since Freshman year in high school and a great gamer. We set up a
public 2 on 2: map Ashrigo (or whatever is the name of the v1.03 4-p
ladder map). Not too much later we found some opponents and began.
I was zerg as usual. LordThorn played terran, and we faced a camp each
of protoss and zerg. For those unfamiliar with the map, the four
corners are the starting locations. Each base is on a plateau with only
one ramp. As is often our luck, LordThorn and I were as far apart as is
possible while still on the same map -- opposite corners in this case --
but we weren't overly concerned since out opponents were saddled with
the same problem.
For the first time ever on Battle.net, I played a "rush" build order.
My intent was simply to meet the rushers claw for claw, tooth for
tooth. Before the game, LordThorn and I decided that he would go for
his usual strategy of harassing the enemy, setting up strategic choke
points, strip mining the planet, and aiding my attacking units with
defensive matrix. I would play for the rush. I would do all the things
that rushing players do short of actually rushing. This strategy I
would carry out until recon discovered that the plans of the enemy did
not include rushing. Our hope was that the rushers would come after me
(they always choose the zerg guy as a target) and that LordThorn could
sneak a few stimmed marines into the base of the rushers while I held
them off in the hopes of crippling their economy by taking out the
worker units, which would presumably be lightly guarded. If no one
rushes, then I'm stuck with a bunch of zerglings, and in the worst case
LT lends me a few marines for air defense until I can manage a hydra
mass and a couple defilers.
I went for the spawning pool on my 7th drone. Everything went well -- I
made six 'lings just as the pool finished. Right about then, an
overlord showed up at my town from the south. He parked right next to
my hatchery. What gall! I continued to make zerglings, drones, and
overlords.
'Lings number 7 and 8 (twins!) were sent to recon the zerg player's base
(which I knew to be south of me because of the direction from which the
overlord approached) while LordThorn took a look at the protoss forces.
En route to the enemy base, my zerglings were attacked by a 6 pack of
zerglings headed the other way (toward my base). They fought and died,
but their efforts had revealed to me that the zerg player was indeed
going for the rush. I continued with the original plan.
By the time his forces arrived in my town, they numbered four. I had
ten zerglings and more on the way. I wondered what would drive him to
attack my town even though he knew that his forces would be
outnumbered. Maybe the overlord hovering above my town was vision
impaired. I don't know. Undaunted by the overwhelming odds against
them, they invaded my town. We responded with spite and malice. I lost
a few 'lings. I guessed that he was probably trying to soften me up for
the zealots LordThorn was beginning to find running all over the place,
and built up under that assumption.
Over time I made more and more zerglings, drones, and overlords. My
zerg opponent -- who knew very well how many forces I had -- sent two
more waves of 'lings to meet their doom against greater and greater
numbers of defenders. With each attack they were more and more
outnumbered.
LordThorn held off a few zealots that tried to sneak into his town and
kill his SCV's. About a half dozen were found on the high ground on my
side of the map by a patrolling marine, so I knew to be wary of an
attack. I was sure that the zerg player was merely softening me up for
an all out assault to come. LordThorn started building an attack force
which would invade the zerg town when they came after me. We gambled on
my ability to hold my ground.
As soon as I had the surplus minerals, I built a second hatchery.
Somewhere in there I had already built the refinery and had one drone
sucking gas. I built the Den. When the big attack came I massed my
zerglings at the ramp (I had 3 and a half squadrons of them -- forty-two
-- and 4 hydras with more on the way.) The enemy overlord had been
dispatched by my first two hydras, so they didn't have recon or the
luxury of the knowledge that I was planning on holding them at bay at
the choke point with my 'lings. I had enough overlords around to see
them massing near the ramp to my plateau. I saw about six hydras, six
zealots, and maybe twenty-five zerglings (LordThorn had graciously been
engaging many of the zealots or I would have faced more). They stormed
the ramp. We held our position at the top of the ramp for a while as
wave after wave of my zerglings hit their front lines while my hydras
concentrated on the zealots from high ground. Pity that I forgot to get
even one screenshot! When my ranks started to thin, I ordered a
tactical retreat back to the bosom of my town where freshly hatched
reinforcements waited and let their remaining forces in. As my
opponents charged, they strung themselves into a single file line which
we overpowered easily. A single sunken colony drew their attention as
my hydras rained green spittle upon them. When the dust had cleared, my
remaining forces consisted of about twenty-five zerglings and eight
hydras (with more on the way) because we built through the entire
battle.
While all of this was going on, LordThorn walked eight stimmed marines
into the zerg player's town and took the whole thing down. Everything
went like clockwork. He met a grand total of three hydras and four
'lings (which were built as LT destroyed the town).
He went first for the three hydras standing dumbly at the front of the
town, then the spawning pool, then the drones, then the hydralisk den,
all the while expecting a retaliation that never came. The second wave
of marines which he was going to use in the zerg town he sent to my
defense as a precaution. By the time I got a chance to check out how he
was doing, his marines were tearing down the hatchery. Those stimmed
marines can really eat up buildings pretty fast! When all was finished
he had suffered not one casualty in his attack.
I set up my second base and was ready for a vengeance counter strike
with twenty-four hydras, a half dozen muties, and innumerable zerglings
when our protoss opponent excused himself by disconnecting from the
game.
I had about seventy-five kills and forty losses. Lord Thorn lost maybe
a dozen marines, if that.
Now that we have a strategy for use against the rush, we will
undoubtedly use it again. Though I am loathe to admit it, last night's
game was a pretty satisfying victory for us, even if we did have to play
for the rush.
The key to our new strategy will be using the early masses of units as a
springboard up the tech tree. I had a spire built by the end of the
grand assault in the last game, so I know it is possible to defend the
rush (if it could still be called that so late in the game) and still
make your way up the tech tree. Having all those extra zerglings will
still be handy in non rush environments since I will be able to use them
against enemy expansions when the time is right (with defilers, of
course).
Pax Hvmanvs
--matt--
Dan Kozar
Thanks for your two recent posts. It's refreshing to read something in this
newsgroup
that is simultaneously thoughtful and literate. I especially liked this bit:
> Lost games are of no concern to me as long as I feel that I played well.
> When I lose to the rush it is as though I had never played that game.
> There was not enough time for the game to develop a flavor. I simply
> imagine the the shit-eating grin on the face of the person who rushed me,
> and am glad that I could bring happiness to the life of a simpleton by
> being the object of his aggression.
How true!
But like you, I eventually came to realize that rushing is a fact of SC-Life, and
one
must learn to deal with it. My strategy for countering it is the same as yours
(build
up as if you yourself will rush, etc) and I have varying degrees of success with
it.
I'm still learning. :-)
Your story of the Battle of Ashrigo was mighty fine reading. Thanks for sharing.
Dan
Stimmed.Pig
This is the most literate posting I ever seen on this forum, in fact in most
forums I've been in. Wonder whether you're a writer or what. LOL
Anyway, for players who like to go tech, there are two ways of doing it.
The first strat is to build up the defense, then gradually climb the tech
tree. This is conservative, and takes longer time to get your advance units
or researches/upgrades. However you are less vulunable to rushes (or early
assaults).
The other strat is to go tech without having a lot of (or even no) defense.
By doing this you can tech up real fast, but you are also taking a bet. If
your opponant goes for rush, or if he finds you and know what you're doing
and what you have, you are very likely dead meat.
If both players go tech, one conservative, the other opts for the risky fast
tech strat, then likely the latter player will have the upper hand. So
unless you know what your opponant is doing, whatever you do involves a risk
of going the wrong way. This is one of the funs in playing strategic games
like SC, and its why early scouting is so important.
Moreover the map also has a determining factor to how you should play, such
as choke point maps, long travelling time maps (like the new ladder maps),
or air maps. I lost many games in maps that I was not acquainted with, and
I have a terribly bad memory (I even did 2 gates before figuring out I was
in an island map once).
Every player has his/her own style. If you can play mutliple strategies and
you do it in different occassions you should be able to slaughter your
opponants more than lossing the games. I do know a player whom you never
know what he is going to do in a game, from marine rush to wraith rush, from
tank drop to early BC's, or million tank march. This is the kind of player
I believe most difficult to handle.
Again my 2 cents.
Hanazono (Matthew Flowers) wrote in message
<3626C250...@nobody.home.com>...
Stimmed.Pig
I wouldn't call 24 zealot assault a rush. It takes at least 10 mins to get
that. I like doing 3-4 gate _rushes_ too cuz I hate all those
micro-managements. But usually by the time I have a substantial force I
will also have my Citadel and/or Reavers.
Anyway, if my zealots and reavers can't win the war for me I usually am
stuck. I really can't manage the more complex situations thereafter. I
hate the situation when I lit up a cigeratte, and I see many red dots in the
mini map, and have throw away the cigeratte, grap my mouse, find my damn
troops or templars, and find out where the hell had I thrown my cig to. I
can't handle 4 gates, 2 stargates, 2 Robotics, plus the upgrade facilities
and damn expansions all at once. I guess I am just not a born RTS player.
Regards,
Piglet
William Qian wrote in message <706qci$3k9$1...@supernews.com>...
AJ Dunlop
Stimmed.Pig wrote:
> Hiya Hanazono,
>
> This is the most literate posting I ever seen on this forum, in fact in most
> forums I've been in. Wonder whether you're a writer or what. LOL
>
I agree, and he copped a bit of flak for posting it too. Shows the level of
intelligence on this group.
>
> Anyway, for players who like to go tech, there are two ways of doing it.
> The first strat is to build up the defense, then gradually climb the tech
> tree. This is conservative, and takes longer time to get your advance units
> or researches/upgrades. However you are less vulunable to rushes (or early
> assaults).
>
Only terran can effectively defend against early rushes. Protoss and zerg can
only defend against rushes by building more units, which is effectively a rush.
At this point it comes down the unit control, who can gain the slight edge,
expand first, and climb the tech ladder.
>
> The other strat is to go tech without having a lot of (or even no) defense.
> By doing this you can tech up real fast, but you are also taking a bet. If
> your opponant goes for rush, or if he finds you and know what you're doing
> and what you have, you are very likely dead meat.
>
I never do this. Too many people rush, and most others are smart enough to check
up on you.
>
> If both players go tech, one conservative, the other opts for the risky fast
> tech strat, then likely the latter player will have the upper hand. So
> unless you know what your opponant is doing, whatever you do involves a risk
> of going the wrong way. This is one of the funs in playing strategic games
> like SC, and its why early scouting is so important.
>
I agree. This is one of the reasons zerg do so well at higher levels. It aint
the 6 pool rush, at that level of play people can beat that easily. It's not
hydra hordes or muta rushes, the best players in the world have seen and beaten
all that before. It's their kickass recon. When I go zerg (rarely) I always
build early zerglings and burrow em around my opponents base before going to
hydras. A bit later when the zerglings are found you should have queens, and
parasite is the best recon tool in the game. Burrowed zerglings at expansion
points etc. make the zerg to best recon race, period.
Terrans have the easiest recon with the comsat, but it's temporary. Parasites,
burrowers, and observers are passive and can monitor for ages, which is
invaluable.
>
> Moreover the map also has a determining factor to how you should play, such
> as choke point maps, long travelling time maps (like the new ladder maps),
> or air maps. I lost many games in maps that I was not acquainted with, and
> I have a terribly bad memory (I even did 2 gates before figuring out I was
> in an island map once).
>
I avoid island maps like the plague. Something about em makes my skin crawl.
>
> Every player has his/her own style. If you can play mutliple strategies and
> you do it in different occassions you should be able to slaughter your
> opponants more than lossing the games. I do know a player whom you never
> know what he is going to do in a game, from marine rush to wraith rush, from
> tank drop to early BC's, or million tank march. This is the kind of player
> I believe most difficult to handle.
>
> Again my 2 cents.
>
I find my biggest downfall is that I try to do everything. I'll go marine rush,
while building tanks, while going for wraiths and getting to BCs, all at once.
My opponents has been going pure hydras and he overwhelms me with numbers.
-Sas
Giles Hjort-Tyson
AJ Dunlop wrote in message <362746ED...@labyrinth.net.au>...
>Only terran can effectively defend against early rushes. Protoss and zerg
can
>only defend against rushes by building more units, which is effectively a
rush.
>At this point it comes down the unit control, who can gain the slight edge,
>expand first, and climb the tech ladder.
I disagree. Terrans may have the easiest way to stop a rush, but not the
only way. I usually play zerg, and it is possible to stop a rush without
just 'building more'. One sunken coloney can often make a big difference,
and burrowing is incredibly usefull vs terrans. If your base has a chaok
point, set up a sunken and burrow 20 or so zerglings out past the sunken,
those zerglings will easily chew up any marines or hydras. Zealots are the
biggest problem, but they can be beaten by equal cost in zerglings in
wide-open maps, and with a choak point 15 hydras or so can hold off a huge
amount of zealots. Usually if I'm against a heavy zealot user, I'll just
rush to queens and guardians, spawn broodling to take out templars, and then
the guardians do pretty well for defence. I don't usually attack before I
have full tech, because I like to use small but effective groups, like 12
hydras +8 queens+ 4 defilers+ 12 zerglings. Very little can stop a group
like that, and if you do lose it, it all costs a lot less to rebuild then
150 hydras or 12 battlecruisers. (and it would beat 12 cruisers or 150
hydras)
>> The other strat is to go tech without having a lot of (or even no)
defense.
>> By doing this you can tech up real fast, but you are also taking a bet.
If
>> your opponant goes for rush, or if he finds you and know what you're
doing
>> and what you have, you are very likely dead meat.
>I never do this. Too many people rush, and most others are smart enough to
check
>up on you.
Well, I always do. Fact is you can only build so many units with one
hatchery as zerg, and if you constantly build units you will still have
plenty of cash left over for tech and upgrades. Yes I could always build a
second hatchery, but most rushes would happen before it's finished morphing.
I'd usually rather build it at an expansion anyway. On island maps 'tech
rushing' is even more important, and easy to do. I also do this with
terrans, I my build order is barracks, depot, refinery, depot,
factory,depot, starport, factory, depot, depot, science building. With one
barracks I can constanly build marines while still climbing tech, and if
needed i'll build a bunker, but i usually have vultures pretty early and
they just shred marine or zergling rushes, and a short time later I get
siege tanks which takes care of anything else. The biggest problem is
zealots, so I have to adjust and build a second barracks after the factory
and build an academy after the refinery.
-Drakantus on battle.net
Syxx
> the guardians do pretty well for defence. I don't usually attack before I
> have full tech, because I like to use small but effective groups, like 12
> hydras +8 queens+ 4 defilers+ 12 zerglings. Very little can stop a group
> like that, and if you do lose it, it all costs a lot less to rebuild then
> 150 hydras or 12 battlecruisers. (and it would beat 12 cruisers or 150
> hydras)
I have to question this strat when used by the Zerg. Their
strength is numbers, and any Terran worth a damn will EMP
Queens and Defilers(both weak and defenseless) on sight.
Without the requisite infantry backup the spellcasters go
down easy. It seems to me that sitting around and tech
climbing is a strat better suited to Protoss or Terrans, as
the Zerg's heavy units just can't stand up to theirs. The
new ultras might change this, but we'll have to see. Queens
and Defilers are great, but they draw too much fire to go in
undersupported like that. This is sort of the same gripe I
have with the Arbiter. It might as well have a flashing
neon bullseye on it.
Also, how do you figure that group will beat 150 hydras? I
don't think the 150 hydras would take much damage, even
assuming the full complement of plagues, ensnares, dark
swarms, etc. I get the theory but in practice I don't think
any human could coordinate that sort of thing before the
hydras wiped them all out, considering their range and rate
of fire.
--
T
to...@ix.netcom.com, ICQ #17499647
Stimmed.Pig
If we are talking 1on1, all races can do pretty well against early rushes.
Note that I am talking about EARLY rush. Terran can build bunkers, protoss
can do zealot and/or cannons, zerg can either mass zerlings for and/or
colonies for defense.
However when it comes to ally games (ie 2v2, 3v3 or whatever), then it
becomes true that Terran has the best ability to defend against an early
rush even by more than one opponants. Again I am saying best, and not that
the other races can't. Other factors (such as map) come into determination
as well.
Regards,
Piglet
AJ Dunlop wrote in message <362746ED...@labyrinth.net.au>...
>
>
>Stimmed.Pig wrote:
>
>> Hiya Hanazono,
>>
>> This is the most literate posting I ever seen on this forum, in fact in
most
>> forums I've been in. Wonder whether you're a writer or what. LOL
>>
>
>I agree, and he copped a bit of flak for posting it too. Shows the level of
>intelligence on this group.
>
>>
>> Anyway, for players who like to go tech, there are two ways of doing it.
>> The first strat is to build up the defense, then gradually climb the tech
>> tree. This is conservative, and takes longer time to get your advance
units
>> or researches/upgrades. However you are less vulunable to rushes (or
early
>> assaults).
>>
>
>Only terran can effectively defend against early rushes. Protoss and zerg
can
>only defend against rushes by building more units, which is effectively a
rush.
>At this point it comes down the unit control, who can gain the slight edge,
>expand first, and climb the tech ladder.
>
>>
>> The other strat is to go tech without having a lot of (or even no)
defense.
>> By doing this you can tech up real fast, but you are also taking a bet.
If
>> your opponant goes for rush, or if he finds you and know what you're
doing
>> and what you have, you are very likely dead meat.
>>
>
>I never do this. Too many people rush, and most others are smart enough to
check
>up on you.
>
>>
>> If both players go tech, one conservative, the other opts for the risky
fast
>> tech strat, then likely the latter player will have the upper hand. So
>> unless you know what your opponant is doing, whatever you do involves a
risk
>> of going the wrong way. This is one of the funs in playing strategic
games
>> like SC, and its why early scouting is so important.
>>
>
>I agree. This is one of the reasons zerg do so well at higher levels. It
aint
>the 6 pool rush, at that level of play people can beat that easily. It's
not
>hydra hordes or muta rushes, the best players in the world have seen and
beaten
>all that before. It's their kickass recon. When I go zerg (rarely) I always
>build early zerglings and burrow em around my opponents base before going
to
>hydras. A bit later when the zerglings are found you should have queens,
and
>parasite is the best recon tool in the game. Burrowed zerglings at
expansion
>points etc. make the zerg to best recon race, period.
>
>Terrans have the easiest recon with the comsat, but it's temporary.
Parasites,
>burrowers, and observers are passive and can monitor for ages, which is
>invaluable.
>
>>
>> Moreover the map also has a determining factor to how you should play,
such
>> as choke point maps, long travelling time maps (like the new ladder
maps),
>> or air maps. I lost many games in maps that I was not acquainted with,
and
>> I have a terribly bad memory (I even did 2 gates before figuring out I
was
>> in an island map once).
>>
>
>I avoid island maps like the plague. Something about em makes my skin
crawl.
>
>>
>> Every player has his/her own style. If you can play mutliple strategies
and
>> you do it in different occassions you should be able to slaughter your
>> opponants more than lossing the games. I do know a player whom you never
>> know what he is going to do in a game, from marine rush to wraith rush,
from
>> tank drop to early BC's, or million tank march. This is the kind of
player
>> I believe most difficult to handle.
>>
>> Again my 2 cents.
>>
>
Giles Hjort-Tyson
Syxx wrote in message <362918C8...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Giles Hjort-Tyson wrote:
>
>> the guardians do pretty well for defence. I don't usually attack before I
>> have full tech, because I like to use small but effective groups, like 12
>> hydras +8 queens+ 4 defilers+ 12 zerglings. Very little can stop a group
>> like that, and if you do lose it, it all costs a lot less to rebuild then
>> 150 hydras or 12 battlecruisers. (and it would beat 12 cruisers or 150
>> hydras)
>
>I have to question this strat when used by the Zerg. Their
>strength is numbers, and any Terran worth a damn will EMP
>Queens and Defilers(both weak and defenseless) on sight.
>Without the requisite infantry backup the spellcasters go
>down easy. It seems to me that sitting around and tech
>climbing is a strat better suited to Protoss or Terrans, as
>the Zerg's heavy units just can't stand up to theirs. The
>new ultras might change this, but we'll have to see. Queens
>and Defilers are great, but they draw too much fire to go in
>undersupported like that. This is sort of the same gripe I
>have with the Arbiter. It might as well have a flashing
>neon bullseye on it.
Not really. Very few people use the science vessals, and when they do they
are only annoying.. yes they kill queens and defilers, but they cost 300
gas. An erradiated defilers always has time to plague a sci vessal, and it
practicly costs more to repair the vessal then it does to morph another
defiler. With queens it's a little worse of a trade, but it's easier to keep
the queens further back unless you need them. Now as for the magic units
being 'unsupported', they aren't... didn't you see the 12 hydras + 12
zerglings? It's not much but it's enough to kill any science vessals that
come too close. And science vessals are the biggest threat. Templars are
slow, and if they are in shuttles they take time to come out, so it's
usually pretty easy to take one or 2 queens away from the rest and broodling
any templars. Just about any combat unit will die to between darkswarm and
spawn broodling, and ensnare is good for killing wraiths or other fast
flyers. Plague is just a luxury, not usually needed but still helpfull,
mainly used to discourge huge groups of battlecruisers or scouts or
guardians or anything else that flies.
>Also, how do you figure that group will beat 150 hydras? I
>don't think the 150 hydras would take much damage, even
>assuming the full complement of plagues, ensnares, dark
>swarms, etc.
It's very easy. Assuming the other player does the usually attack-move or
patrol or whatever, you just set up a dark swarm over your hydras and sit
them there, dark swarm lasts a long time and between 4 defilers they will
regain energy faster then it's used up to maintain one swarm, but besides
that it would only take 2 or 3 to kill 150 hydras. If the player with the
hydras is smarter, he can put his hydras under the swarm also, well some but
not all 150... but that wont work because of the zerglings which would be
unborrowed then. The only real option is to turn around and run, after
taking some 20-30 losses most likely. You don't even use plague btw, and
queens aren't really that usefull either vs hydras.
>I get the theory but in practice I don't think
>any human could coordinate that sort of thing before the
>hydras wiped them all out, considering their range and rate
>of fire.
It's actually very easy. Select defiler, cast darkswarm, move all units
under swarm, order 'hold position', burrow zerglings.
William Qian
Broodling doesn't work, Plague doesn't work, and they got a hecka lot of
points, 350, and cheap too, 100/300, especialy on those mucho money maps
wehre you have 4 geysers at each bae. send in 36 archons against the zergs,
ad you are literally unstoppable. To make things even more swwet, send in
36 archons and 2 temps, and storm those guys, or just hallucinate a bunch
for a front line
--
William Qian
w...@linkonline.net
Giles Hjort-Tyson wrote in message <355f9...@newsprime.tidalwave.net>...
Syxx
> Not really. Very few people use the science vessals, and when they do they
> are only annoying.. yes they kill queens and defilers, but they cost 300
I love SV's.
> gas. An erradiated defilers always has time to plague a sci vessal, and it
> practicly costs more to repair the vessal then it does to morph another
> defiler.
Interesting point, is there any sort of scale for the amount
of resources used to repair various Terran units?
> It's actually very easy. Select defiler, cast darkswarm, move all units
> under swarm, order 'hold position', burrow zerglings.
I see. I rarely play Zerg on bnet, so maybe i'm just a
little behind on this topic. But how would this strat work
in actual practice? Dark Swarm seems like almost
exclusively a defensive spell(esp. vs. terrans, due to tanks
and firebats), so laying siege to an enemy base with it
seems like more trouble than it's worth(and you can't swarm
guardians, which seem to be the best defense breakers
anyway). Now the BC scenario would be a real bitch. It's
been my experience that 12 BC's pretty much have free reign
but against swarmed hydras they would have a real problem.
This is one reason I'm a little disappointed in the
Valkyrie, it's just a flying siege tank. I would have like
a moderately cheap air to ground unit to ease the burden of
BC's.
Thomas Furber
It would apear I ahve worked my way onto your enmies list on 2 counts.
1 my grammer not being quite up to standard
2 rushing:What i will not do though is rush when a no rush game is accpeted
by both sides.
I see rushing as a valuable tactic. If you can beat someone in the first 10 minutes
then why not try. A rush is easy to defend against all you have do is build
an early atack force at the same time as your opponent if you stay at your
base you will have more troops than him and you will win the ensuring conflict.
Other ways to avoid rushes are to play 3 way ffa or island maps.
--
Tom Furber I have always hoped for the best but life
has led me to expect the worst
P.S this is not a flame
Matthew Flowers
: matt
: It would apear I ahve worked my way onto your enmies list on 2 counts.
: 1 my grammer not being quite up to standard
: 2 rushing:What i will not do though is rush when a no rush game is accpeted
: by both sides.
Thomas,
Ahhh, but by your own admission, you do not rush when a "no rush"
is called. This is honest behavior. Your #2 item is invalid.
as to #1, lets <cut to studio audience shouting in unison>: "Ask Dr.
Grammar!"
Everyone: Dr. Grammar, what is the difference between "your" and "you're"?
Dr. Grammar: I'm glad you asked. It seems that "you're" is the contracted
form of "You are" while "your" is the possessive form of "you." Here is an
example sentence that uses both words. "You're going to lose because your
Battlecruisers have been plagued and ensnared by my forces. Ha ha."
Remember to use "you're" wherever "you are" would be appropriate and
"your" whenever you wish to refer to something owned by someone.
Everyone: Thanks, Dr. Grammar!
Dr. Grammar: *You're* welcome kids.
There you have it, straight from the source.
Pax Hvmanvs
--matt--
"Your marines are swimming in my spawning pool."
p.s. This isn't a flame either. I'm just playing.
Giles Hjort-Tyson
Syxx wrote in message <362B7A4F...@ix.netcom.com>...
>Giles Hjort-Tyson wrote:
>I love SV's.
As I usually only play against them, I hate em :)
>Interesting point, is there any sort of scale for the amount
>of resources used to repair various Terran units?
Not sure, but I have a feeling it's either 1/3rd or 1/4th the normal cost to
fully repair from 1 hp to full hp.
>I see. I rarely play Zerg on bnet, so maybe i'm just a
>little behind on this topic. But how would this strat work
>in actual practice? Dark Swarm seems like almost
>exclusively a defensive spell(esp. vs. terrans, due to tanks
>and firebats), so laying siege to an enemy base with it
>seems like more trouble than it's worth(and you can't swarm
>guardians, which seem to be the best defense breakers
>anyway). Now the BC scenario would be a real bitch. It's
>been my experience that 12 BC's pretty much have free reign
>but against swarmed hydras they would have a real problem.
>This is one reason I'm a little disappointed in the
>Valkyrie, it's just a flying siege tank. I would have like
>a moderately cheap air to ground unit to ease the burden of
>BC's.
Yeah it kills battlecruisers, really anything flying, extreamly well. While
it is sorta defensive, it can be used ofensivly very easily. It just takes
more time. I'll usually first scout with queens, parasite a few units, then
broodling any tanks. Assuming there is a bunker, i'll either plague it and
let it burn, or if the terran is paying attention I'll darkswarm infront of
it and move in the hydras. Or I could swarm on the bunker and use zerglings,
but that wouldn't be very good if the bunker had firebats. Anyway the trick
is to just advance slowly, with dark swarm your units are basicly invincible
against the average zerg or terran player, and vs protoss reavers and
zealots can be a bitch, thats why you need guardians if going against
protoss.
Thomas Furber
Thank you(or should i say Docter Drammer) for enlighting me about the grammer.
After rereading the post you are right that I was not techicly on his enimes
list.But from the way he talked about rushers in genral i got the picture
i was deifinatly not on his friends list.
Peter Tang
I've seen on this NG. WTG!!!
pluset...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
> In article <lieschj-1310...@jliesch.reshall.ucsd.edu>,
> lie...@primenet.com (Jesse) wrote:
>
> > I was having a discussion with one of my friend's about his protoss
> > strategy the other day. Basically he plays heavy D at the beginning of
> > the game, using many zealots/cannons and templars to defend his bases.
> > The difference between this, and say, a terran defense is that he doesn't
> > ONLY worry only about defending his main base and never leaves his shell,
> > but instead he focuses on grabbing all the extra expansions he can take.
>
> This is a pretty powerful strategy especially on island maps and FFAs. The
> main difficulty lies in setting up the expansions on land maps 1v1, which can
> be hard even against zerg players who just use the simple strategy of out
> expanding you and swarming in zerglings/hydra/muta before your expansion is
> properly set up.
>
> Actually on a slightly different point I think a game imbalance exists here
> on maps with easily accessible/defendable expansions such as most ladder
> maps, as the zerg can expand early and safely with their 2nd hatchery and
> build a stronger economy with little risk and no diversion of resources.
An imbalance in favor of the zerg does exist in my opinion. But I fail to see
your point. A terran or protoss player could just as easily expand with the same
risk no?
> > This is one example of going for HEAVY resources. After his operations
> > are decently set up there should be no way his opponent has any chance of
> > winning if they are only harvesting half the resources.
>
> Against zerg, I agree the protoss have the advantage in late game (if you can
> get to that stage.) Terrans are a more even match and you really have to
> out-resource them to win as protoss.
I am not sure how you came to this conclusion. The only time I can possibly see
a weakness in the zerg is in the early game when their only unit is the zergling
and their base consist of 2 buildings.