Valkyrie - Do they suck or is it just me?
Rodley
The manual says the missiles fire in volleys of fourteen. I see two at a
time, with a substantial pause between firing. Even fully upgraded,
their damage is minimal unless in a large group, but we all know how
vulnerable a large group of identical units can be. Especially ones that
can't target ground units!
I have tried them a few times now, each time thinking, "I didn't do
something right... why are these so whimpy!"
Has anyone had any luck with this, IMO... shitty unit?
Wouldn't you just LOVE to see the Goliath Charon Booster upgrade the
rate of fire for the Valkyrie! I can live with the low damage, but at
least fire faster!!!
--
Rodley
Jung Moon
They are good for ground unit backup, great against any flying zerg units,
good against EMPed protoss flying units, and great support for battle
cruisers, waiths and science vessals.
I love it when i see couple of muties, overlords, etc, blow up all at once.
The unfortunate part is the cost. No one would build a valk unless they
know they can get lots of resources.
Plus it is only good in large numbers, just like the battle cruisers,
but who in there right minds would pick a valk over a battle cruiser?
Jung Moon
Rodley wrote in message <36B6DC0A...@home.com>...
Alaric
1) Heavy air support. Valkryies, when used for attack, should be used as
air support to back up Wraiths or BCs.
2) Mutie killer. Valks in groups of 8 or more are GREAT for mutie hunting.
Instead of weakening the mutalisks in BW, Blizzard simply created a way for
each race to beat the mutalisks (Valks and Corsairs).
But if you really want my opinion, Valks aren't worth the money they cost.
-Alaric
Rodley <rod...@home.com> wrote in message news:36B6DC0A...@home.com...
Alaric
delo...@bellsouth.net
overlords built first. if you set up a crucible, where the zerg throw there forces and get destroyed, with no over lords, there are no
replacements.....Before long, they have nothing to fight with, so taking them out is an exercise in killing buildings.....
Very interesting.
Comte
Wayne To
skimppy but I've never been able to upgrade Multas' Armor and Weapon at the
same time until the end of the game. The cost of another spire + 2 x
upgrade cost simply doesn't budget. So I always Upgrade weapon first and
Multas comes with no armor =(. Valkyrie does 5 / 2 (explosive) X 8
rockets = 20 damage + splash ( more or less about 10 nearest multas and 5 on
surrounding multas).
Each volley would do about 80 - 100 Damage on a group of 8-12 Multas.
That's only one Valkyrie. 8 Multas x 120 Hp can be complete wiped out 8
multas in 10 Volleys. Where a BC shot them one at a time for 25 damage. 5
shots per multas = 40 shots to kill them all. So you can say Valkyries are 4
times more effective vs large group of multas( which is how multas always
attack.)
Upgrades: Air Weapons upgrade give Valkyries +20% damage for first + 16.7%
2nd and + 14.3% 3rd. Where BC are +12% +10.7% + 9.7%.
Armor: Valkyries come with 2 armor which help greatly vs the 9-4-1 damage of
the multas.
Cost: 250+125 / 3 Isn't that much compare to BCs' 400+300 / 8. That's 8
supply unit. 4% of your max unit limit. Valkyrie only 1.5 %.
Rodley
>
> Valkyries are anti-air swarm weapon( i.e. Multas). It's 5+1 damage is
> skimppy but I've never been able to upgrade Multas' Armor and Weapon at the
> same time until the end of the game. The cost of another spire + 2 x
> upgrade cost simply doesn't budget. So I always Upgrade weapon first and
> Multas comes with no armor =(. Valkyrie does 5 / 2 (explosive) X 8
> rockets = 20 damage + splash ( more or less about 10 nearest multas and 5 on
> surrounding multas).
> Each volley would do about 80 - 100 Damage on a group of 8-12 Multas.
> That's only one Valkyrie. 8 Multas x 120 Hp can be complete wiped out 8
> multas in 10 Volleys. Where a BC shot them one at a time for 25 damage. 5
> shots per multas = 40 shots to kill them all. So you can say Valkyries are 4
> times more effective vs large group of multas( which is how multas always
> attack.)
> Upgrades: Air Weapons upgrade give Valkyries +20% damage for first + 16.7%
> 2nd and + 14.3% 3rd. Where BC are +12% +10.7% + 9.7%.
> Armor: Valkyries come with 2 armor which help greatly vs the 9-4-1 damage of
> the multas.
> Cost: 250+125 / 3 Isn't that much compare to BCs' 400+300 / 8. That's 8
> supply unit. 4% of your max unit limit. Valkyrie only 1.5 %.
You don't mess around when you play Starcraft, do you! Seems that you
have it down to a science... do you still have FUN with it?
Thanks though, for a good breakdown of the Valkyrie. I guess they are
Mutalisk killers, and that's about it. I gotta test this out though...
10 volleys from 1 Valkyrie to kill 8 of 'em? That's 20 missiles? It
just seems unbelievable.
--
Rodley
_____
\Play\ "Darters live life
-------====¤¤¤¤¤¤---- on the wire."
/More/ -RickZ
¯¯¯¯¯
Brad Olney
then again thats a lot of minerals and gas.
Wayne To
targets decrease =)
Rodley wrote in message <36B7651...@home.com>...
alan...@my-dejanews.com
defensive vulnerability. I usually build some because they ARE more durable
than wraiths and I'm not tempted to send them off on strafing missions (from
which wraith squadrons suffer terribly).
I'm interested in your comment about the second spire. I almost ALWAYS build
a second spire because I don't want to have to choose between upgrading
fliers and mutating to greater spire (both of which take far too long).
Having build the second spire, however, sometimes I still don't get around to
spending the resources on armor upgrades.
I almost never build a second evolution chamber. When playing as Terran I may
build a second armory but not a second engineering bay. As Protoss, I won't
build multiple forges or cybernetics cores, or templar archives.
Finally, I will often upgrade a second hatchery to lair for the purpose of
faster evolution of overlord upgrades. Of course, its nice to have the extra
hitpoints too.
Among buildings that produce units, I can't think of any I wouldn't build
multiples of. As a practical matter, though, as Terran or Protoss I almost
always build 2 or more barracks or gateways (naturally), usually build at
least 2 starports or gates, and am more likely to build a second robotics
facility than I am to build a second factory.
Anyone have any thoughts on this?
In article <E2It2.3$nt.2...@news2.randori.com>,
"Wayne To" <way...@ccinet.com> wrote:
> Valkyries are anti-air swarm weapon( i.e. Multas). It's 5+1 damage is
> skimppy but I've never been able to upgrade Multas' Armor and Weapon at the
> same time until the end of the game. The cost of another spire + 2 x
> upgrade cost simply doesn't budget. So I always Upgrade weapon first and
> Multas comes with no armor =(. Valkyrie does 5 / 2 (explosive) X 8
> rockets = 20 damage + splash ( more or less about 10 nearest multas and 5 on
> surrounding multas).
> Each volley would do about 80 - 100 Damage on a group of 8-12 Multas.
> That's only one Valkyrie. 8 Multas x 120 Hp can be complete wiped out 8
> multas in 10 Volleys. Where a BC shot them one at a time for 25 damage. 5
> shots per multas = 40 shots to kill them all. So you can say Valkyries are 4
> times more effective vs large group of multas( which is how multas always
> attack.)
> Upgrades: Air Weapons upgrade give Valkyries +20% damage for first + 16.7%
> 2nd and + 14.3% 3rd. Where BC are +12% +10.7% + 9.7%.
> Armor: Valkyries come with 2 armor which help greatly vs the 9-4-1 damage of
> the multas.
> Cost: 250+125 / 3 Isn't that much compare to BCs' 400+300 / 8. That's 8
> supply unit. 4% of your max unit limit. Valkyrie only 1.5 %.
> Rodley wrote in message <36B6DC0A...@home.com>...
> >Well.... the subject says it all.
> >
> >The manual says the missiles fire in volleys of fourteen. I see two at a
> >time, with a substantial pause between firing. Even fully upgraded,
> >their damage is minimal unless in a large group, but we all know how
> >vulnerable a large group of identical units can be. Especially ones that
> >can't target ground units!
> >
> >I have tried them a few times now, each time thinking, "I didn't do
> >something right... why are these so whimpy!"
> >
> >Has anyone had any luck with this, IMO... shitty unit?
> >
> >Wouldn't you just LOVE to see the Goliath Charon Booster upgrade the
> >rate of fire for the Valkyrie! I can live with the low damage, but at
> >least fire faster!!!
> >--
> >Rodley
>
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Gamma
>Valks are good if you know how to use em.
>They are good for ground unit backup, great against any flying zerg units,
>good against EMPed protoss flying units, and great support for battle
>cruisers, waiths and science vessals.
If you build six valks, they'll kill twelve of any minor air unit
and need only minor repairs (esp. if their weapons are fully upgraded).
They'll also hold off up to six large air units (carriers, cruisers,
devourers) until you can bring something more effective to bear.
>I love it when i see couple of muties, overlords, etc, blow up all at once.
>The unfortunate part is the cost. No one would build a valk unless they
>know they can get lots of resources.
True. And, lots of extra supply units.
>Plus it is only good in large numbers, just like the battle cruisers,
>but who in there right minds would pick a valk over a battle cruiser?
Well, valks only use 3 supply to a cruiser's 8. They're almost as
tough, and build a LOT faster. The upside to cruisers is the
yamato, and that 12 cruisers seem to hold their own better than
any other single-unit group.
One thing seems certain: if you build valks in reasonable numbers,
a cruiser fleet is almost impossible to cram in under that 200 supply
limit. (I tend to give up wraiths and follow cruisers around with
medics. Probably a good idea anyway, on non-island maps.)
--
Paul Brinkley
ga...@clark.net
Rotpar
wimpy, 200 hp, 2 armor, decent speed, and they will DESVESTATE groups of air
units. They happen to be the best Terran air/anti-Scrouge. I'd say their
biggest problem is once they start shooting you can't cancel until all
rockets have fired, and sometimes they start firing again. Of course use
them when they have ground attack support and in groups.
Rotpar
der_R...@juno.com
Dan
important), makes them re-build olords, and did I mention is funnier than
hel!!
John B. Williston wrote in message <36b9b9d3...@news.pacificnet.net>...
>On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 10:07:20 GMT, Rodley <rod...@home.com> wrote:
>
>
>Use them in moderate to large packs (i.e., 6 - 12). With 8 Valks,
>making "hit and run" forays into a Zerg base for overlord killing is a
>lot of fun :)
>
>John
John B. Williston
Rygar1
>I have tried them a few times now, each time thinking, "I didn't do
>something right... why are these so whimpy!"
>
>Has anyone had any luck with this, IMO... shitty unit?
Personally, I have to agree with you. The few times I got them didn't
seem to be effective. People say, "it's a support unit".. well, of
course. You have to mix your units up to win, as always... but it
still seems useless to me even *as* a support unit.
As someone else claimed, it seems to only do well against hoards of
Wraiths and Muties. Other than that... <shrug>
alan...@my-dejanews.com
ga...@clark.net (Gamma) wrote:
> (I tend to give up wraiths and follow cruisers around with
> medics. Probably a good idea anyway, on non-island maps.)
>
>
Gamma
>ga...@clark.net (Gamma) wrote:
>> (I tend to give up wraiths and follow cruisers around with
>> medics. Probably a good idea anyway, on non-island maps.)
>>
>>
>Medics can heal cruisers?
No, but they can restore them when locked down or affected by acid
spores. I should probably have said "a good idea on non-island maps
when playing against Terrans or Zerg".
Major Protoss threats can't be overcome with medics, except maybe
maelstrom. (Restoration doesn't work on stasis; mind control is
just a huge pain; a team of SCVs is much more useful vs. psi-storms
or feedback raids.)
--
Paul Brinkley
ga...@clark.net
CyRRiX
Devourer, they suck! The Lurker Aspect, and Medic are really cool though.
I think Blizzard should have incorporated more changes in the existing
units, then go out and make whole new ones.
Rygar1 wrote in message <36b88f3c...@news.sprint.ca>...
alan...@my-dejanews.com
Thanks, Paul. I had overlooked the restore feature. I don't play terran
often enough, I guess.
MuuMiMan
<799g9q$8ec$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
> In article <797r2a$lpv$1...@callisto.clark.net>,
> ga...@clark.net (Gamma) wrote:
> > (I tend to give up wraiths and follow cruisers around with
> > medics. Probably a good idea anyway, on non-island maps.)
> >
> >
> Medics can heal cruisers?
>
and irritating things as lockdown and plague from your cruiser.
--
Nil novi sub sole.
Remove the nospam-thing for valid E-mail
adress.
MuuMiMan
<307u2.2467$b4.1...@alfalfa.thegrid.net>...
> Some of the new units in BroodWare are plain our useless. Valkrie,
> Devourer, they suck! The Lurker Aspect, and Medic are really cool
though.
> I think Blizzard should have incorporated more changes in the existing
> units, then go out and make whole new ones.
>
the corsair, they have thier uses. Devourers in combiantion with mutas is a
veary deadly mix aginst all normal fighters... And valkyries are there to
support the wraith aginst mutas...
--
Nil novi sub sole.
Remove the nospam-thing for valid E-mail
adress.
> Rygar1 wrote in message <36b88f3c...@news.sprint.ca>...
Rygar1
wrote:
> Some of the new units in BroodWare are plain our useless. Valkrie,
>Devourer, they suck!
Devourers do not suck. They kick serious ass when used with muties.
Valkyries are much less effective, in my opinion anyway :)
HYDE TROY
combination i find they work well with goliaths and tanks
CyRRiX wrote:
>
> Some of the new units in BroodWare are plain our useless. Valkrie,
> Devourer, they suck! The Lurker Aspect, and Medic are really cool though.
> I think Blizzard should have incorporated more changes in the existing
> units, then go out and make whole new ones.
>
nick dawg
deffinatley cost too much to be that effective...
-nick-
jel...@interport.net
> CyRRiX wrote:
> >
> > Some of the new units in BroodWare are plain our useless. Valkrie,
> > Devourer, they suck! The Lurker Aspect, and Medic are really cool though.
> > I think Blizzard should have incorporated more changes in the existing
> > units, then go out and make whole new ones.
> >
> > Rygar1 wrote in message <36b88f3c...@news.sprint.ca>...
> > >On Tue, 02 Feb 1999 10:07:20 GMT, Rodley <rod...@home.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >>I have tried them a few times now, each time thinking, "I didn't do
> > >>something right... why are these so whimpy!"
> > >>
> > >>Has anyone had any luck with this, IMO... shitty unit?
> > >
Valkiries are really only good in the event that your opponent is massing
mutas,corsairs,scouts, or wraiths. If the opponent is massing these troops,
3 or 4 valkieries can make a TREMENDOUS difference in battle. The reason
that they seem so useless is you havent quite gotten a feel for the balance
of them. I had 3 valkieries being attacked by about 9 or 10 mutalisks, they
fought and fought, but none of the mutas were going down. After one of my
valks was dead, I was thinking "geez these things aren't good for shit".
Then, suddenly ALL of the mutas died simultaneously. That's when i
understood. Good use of the valkieries means supporting them with marines or
wraiths. If you have 4 wraiths and 2 valks you can easilly take out 12
mutas. The valks basically mean the difference between fighting a fresh army
and fighting a heavily wounded one. Valkiries are specialized, but useful.
Devourers on the other hand are INCREDIBLY NASTY. And, if you're allied, a
Devourer/Valkirie combo can take out ANY air force. I'll post why if there
seems to be any
Chris Byler
wrote:
>valkyries can be damn effective (with their splash and high power) but they
>deffinatley cost too much to be that effective...
4 Valk = 1000/500
12 Muta = 1200/1200
Now which one costs too much to be effective?
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"I'm not a speed reader. I'm a speed understander."
-- Isaac Asimov
PxSx25h
virtually useless except against early air units. Although they have the
awesome range now, they are still too bulky to get into good positioning like
the hydras. If they acted in groups like hydras, they would rule but their
size and bulky movement hinder them from being useful. On the other hand, the
Valks are supposed to be used for Muta rushes and such. Blizzard should have
made them cheaper and able to be gotten earlier. Players can get mutas way
early but valks must go through the Starport+Control Tower+Armory and if that
isn't enough, they are very expensive and do eat up some of the supply depot.
Valks should be like Corsairs in that they come with the Starport.
Tobias Reckhard (jester)
>i think Blizzard screwed up with a couple of Terran units. The goliath is
>virtually useless except against early air units.
Actually, I think they're a lot better against mid to late air units,
because their missiles do explosive damage.
> Although they have the
>awesome range now, they are still too bulky to get into good positioning like
>the hydras.
Ah, but the difference is that they have that range, so guardians
can't attack with impunity from water anymore. Of course they
(guardians) still have the advantage inherent to all the air units
that they can stack and thus concentrate fire, but that makes them
vulnerable to valkyries and irradiate. And goliaths should be much
more of a threat to queens than before.
> If they acted in groups like hydras, they would rule but their
>size and bulky movement hinder them from being useful.
I agree that they are very clumsy indeed.. But maybe it's better for
balance reasons?
> On the other hand, the
>Valks are supposed to be used for Muta rushes and such. Blizzard should have
>made them cheaper and able to be gotten earlier. Players can get mutas way
>early but valks must go through the Starport+Control Tower+Armory and if that
>isn't enough, they are very expensive and do eat up some of the supply depot.
>Valks should be like Corsairs in that they come with the Starport.
But they're not corsairs. And I'm under the impression that they do a
lot more damage to mutas and guardians than corsairs. Before guardians
come a-knocking on your door, marines are perfect to handle mutas,
they do full damage even against small targets and they have a high
rate of fire. Their only drawback is that they can't follow the mutas.
Another problem was that they were so frail, but that has changed with
the appearance of the medic.
Tobias / jester
Rodley
> > > >
> > > >>I have tried them a few times now, each time thinking, "I didn't do
> > > >>something right... why are these so whimpy!"
> > > >>
> > > >>Has anyone had any luck with this, IMO... shitty unit?
Well... now that I've played with them a bit, they arent as bad as I first
though. I agree with everyone that they are a tad expensive and not useful in an
early game setting, mainly because of what needs to be built. Usually throw a
couple in with an air force now.
Another thing I love to do, instead of 12 marine squads, I like 7 or 8 with the
rest medics. In original SC, I never bothered with stim-pac, but now... it's
like having 14-16 marines in a pack and they can close in on tanks REAL quick!
And I do like the Goliath hellfire missiles. Never used them too much but now
I'll skip a few towers and make some Goliaths now. I don't know the damage of
each, but the manuverability sure is nice. And the range is nothing to laugh at
either!! I hate it when an enemy gets through a spot where there's no missile
towers yet!!
I don't know what level# I'm on, but it's the terran one where you have to
destroy the nuke silos or the physics labs. Maybe I'm just doing something
wrong, but damn if I haven't restarted it 5 or 6 times now! I die misserably
each time!!! I don't want a walkthrough or anything, but what base, top or
bottom, should I go for first? Any luck with one over the other? I take it the
purpose is to determine which is the next level... the one with BCs or the one
with Ghosts. I hate having my stuff nuked so I'd LIKE to go after the silos. But
then again, I'll have to put up with lockdown, and I hate that too!
Well, thats enough for now. Later...
waih...@my-dejanews.com
Rodley <rod...@home.com> wrote:
> Another thing I love to do, instead of 12 marine squads, I like 7 or 8 with
the
> rest medics. In original SC, I never bothered with stim-pac, but now... it's
> like having 14-16 marines in a pack and they can close in on tanks REAL quick!
Unfortunately, it seems like stims are no longer as powerful as before.
> And I do like the Goliath hellfire missiles. Never used them too much but now
> I'll skip a few towers and make some Goliaths now. I don't know the damage of
> each, but the manuverability sure is nice. And the range is nothing to laugh
at
> either!! I hate it when an enemy gets through a spot where there's no missile
> towers yet!!
>
> I don't know what level# I'm on, but it's the terran one where you have to
> destroy the nuke silos or the physics labs. Maybe I'm just doing something
> wrong, but damn if I haven't restarted it 5 or 6 times now! I die misserably
> each time!!! I don't want a walkthrough or anything, but what base, top or
> bottom, should I go for first? Any luck with one over the other? I take it the
> purpose is to determine which is the next level... the one with BCs or the one
> with Ghosts. I hate having my stuff nuked so I'd LIKE to go after the silos.
But
> then again, I'll have to put up with lockdown, and I hate that too!
Don't know about others, but I managed to clear most of the enemy forces on
that level with only ONE group of marines + 4 tanks + 1 sci vessel + 3 medics
on the offensive and another similar group on the defence.
Well.. my base actually had more units than that, but they weren't doing much.
(maybe just to replace the odd ones that got killed along the way)
I just took the high ground on the left next to starting base (seems like
natural place to go) Placed marines at choke point, and seige my tanks to
pound their SCVs to shreads. (sighting by Sci Vessel or Wraiths) The Medics
are simply wonderful. Made those marines a real force to be feared.
From there, this group just slowly advanced across the bottom where I found
their nukes.
> Well, thats enough for now. Later...
>
> --
> Rodley
>
> _____
> \Play\ "Darters live life
> -------====¤¤¤¤¤¤---- on the wire."
> /More/ -RickZ
> ¯¯¯¯¯
>
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
YoungBeard
>destroy the nuke silos or the physics labs. Maybe I'm just doing something
>wrong, but damn if I haven't restarted it 5 or 6 times now! I die misserably
>each time!!! I don't want a walkthrough or anything, but what base, top or
>bottom, should I go for first?
Theres a couple empty expansion sites in that scenario, plus you can easily
take the high ground above the enemy base to your southwest. Boot them out of
there with tanks. That should give you enough resources to just swarm the
enemy (at least that's what I did).
chris
---
meow.
Peter Tang
1 Valkyrie. In my experience, three mutilisks will kill a lone Valkyrie.
Rodley wrote:
> Wayne To wrote:
> >
> > Valkyries are anti-air swarm weapon( i.e. Multas). It's 5+1 damage is
> > skimppy but I've never been able to upgrade Multas' Armor and Weapon at the
> > same time until the end of the game. The cost of another spire + 2 x
> > upgrade cost simply doesn't budget. So I always Upgrade weapon first and
> > Multas comes with no armor =(. Valkyrie does 5 / 2 (explosive) X 8
> > rockets = 20 damage + splash ( more or less about 10 nearest multas and 5 on
> > surrounding multas).
> > Each volley would do about 80 - 100 Damage on a group of 8-12 Multas.
> > That's only one Valkyrie. 8 Multas x 120 Hp can be complete wiped out 8
> > multas in 10 Volleys. Where a BC shot them one at a time for 25 damage. 5
> > shots per multas = 40 shots to kill them all. So you can say Valkyries are 4
> > times more effective vs large group of multas( which is how multas always
> > attack.)
> > Upgrades: Air Weapons upgrade give Valkyries +20% damage for first + 16.7%
> > 2nd and + 14.3% 3rd. Where BC are +12% +10.7% + 9.7%.
> > Armor: Valkyries come with 2 armor which help greatly vs the 9-4-1 damage of
> > the multas.
> > Cost: 250+125 / 3 Isn't that much compare to BCs' 400+300 / 8. That's 8
> > supply unit. 4% of your max unit limit. Valkyrie only 1.5 %.
>
> You don't mess around when you play Starcraft, do you! Seems that you
> have it down to a science... do you still have FUN with it?
>
> Thanks though, for a good breakdown of the Valkyrie. I guess they are
> Mutalisk killers, and that's about it. I gotta test this out though...
> 10 volleys from 1 Valkyrie to kill 8 of 'em? That's 20 missiles? It
> just seems unbelievable.
S. Wilson
> Valkyries are pretty good against zerg. But, you can't even kill 3 mutilisks with
> 1 Valkyrie. In my experience, three mutilisks will kill a lone Valkyrie.
Yes. Don't *use* a lone Valkyrie. Use at least three valks, and combine
them with a more traditional attacker for best effect. (E.g. a Goliath or
Wraith.) A Valk will still take forever to kill a unit with 40 hit points
left, while a Goliath or Wraith will dispose of it fairly quickly.
Then again, maybe that was the above poster's point. :)
Hemlock
T. Lai
and valks in small numbers do kinda suck, but their armor is very good for
scouting the map and killing overlords :)
On Fri, 12 Feb 1999, Peter Tang wrote:
> Valkyries are pretty good against zerg. But, you can't even kill 3 mutilisks with
> 1 Valkyrie. In my experience, three mutilisks will kill a lone Valkyrie.
>
JRD80
attacks.
Blue Knight
Random Task
--
Remington Chang
Random Task
rando...@bigfoot.com
AOL IM: RandomTax
ICQ: 17187535
Battle.net s/n: troopakoopa
JRD80 <jr...@aol.com> wrote in article
<19990217144840...@ng37.aol.com>...
PPKHans
PxSx25h
in a second or two (and since wraiths suck against mutas, if ur opponent is
going for mass mutas, get a few valks, u should kno by constantly comsatting to
c wut he is exactly going for) and they do have a pretty quick build time.
They can also leave Carriers unarmed as they can take out a lot of the
Intercepters.
Other than that, they are overpriced and useless.
YoungBeard
Another use: they wipe out Protoss Corsairs faster than anything.
chris
---
meow.
Brian Graff
Adrock-(DOH)
Squad Leader Mossad
Director of Recruiting
for the Almighty DOH
"Pride, Unity, Brotherhood
YoungBeard <young...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:19990224110043...@ng152.aol.com...
PxSx25h
useful. Unless you are planning a suicide mission for the valks, if the path
is left open to eliminate OLs, use packs of wraiths to finish em off and start
kicking the base's @$$. Now i know that Valks elminate the OLs much faster but
if the zerg forgets the defensive aspect, wraiths are a lot more damaging and a
lot more cheaper.
Rob
a counter-attacking type of ship. When I play Zerg and my teammate
plays Terrans, I'll use Guardians to hit ground targets hard, and
they're usually counter attacked by various air units they can't
attack. So, I pull the guardians back a little bit and draw his units
into a pack of Valkyries, which when upgraded and there are bunches,
really throw a lot of ammo his way.
Always have something that can act as a detector (OL or SV) nearby, and
keep the Valks JUST out of sight of the opposition so he feels like he
can pound your guardians. And if you're the Terran guy supporting your
Zerg teammate, please don't shoot us his guardians, remember that Valks
do splash damage!
They can compliment a Zerg player's lack of air to air power in some
cases...
Rob
Chris Byler
>I agree with the expensive part for sure.
Valks? They're cheaper than a scout, about the same as a devourer,
way cheaper than BC or carrier. What's expensive about that? They're
more expensive than mutas, cors, or wraiths - any of which they kick
even when outnumbered 12:6.
(Despite being cheaper than scouts, though, they do tend to lose to
them for equal cost. Try some wraiths against scouts instead.)
>They do redeem themselves as
>a counter-attacking type of ship. When I play Zerg and my teammate
>plays Terrans, I'll use Guardians to hit ground targets hard, and
>they're usually counter attacked by various air units they can't
>attack. So, I pull the guardians back a little bit and draw his units
>into a pack of Valkyries, which when upgraded and there are bunches,
>really throw a lot of ammo his way.
>Always have something that can act as a detector (OL or SV) nearby, and
>keep the Valks JUST out of sight of the opposition so he feels like he
>can pound your guardians. And if you're the Terran guy supporting your
>Zerg teammate, please don't shoot us his guardians, remember that Valks
>do splash damage!
Try d-matrix on the guardians. Low HP isn't so much of an issue
anymore. Since valks are mineral heavy, you can probably afford
several SV as well by the time your teammate has the gas for a
substantial guardian strikeforce.
>They can compliment a Zerg player's lack of air to air power in some
>cases...
Valks are very powerful in air-to-air combat. And they're not
particularly expensive. But it is a good idea to have some wraiths
along too, otherwise when all the enemies are at 5hp they are still
all shooting at you. Mixing in wraiths (which concentrate their fire)
can allow you to kill off some of the enemies early, while still
continuing to pound on the rest.
PxSx25h
Valks do serious damage!
Rob
> anymore. Since valks are mineral heavy, you can probably afford
> several SV as well by the time your teammate has the gas for a
> substantial guardian strikeforce.
Now there's a thought... that would buy them some time for sure...
What do valks cost anyhow, something like 250/100/3 or so? I usually play
Zerg so that seems expensive! :)
I like the d-matrix idea, will try it out...
Rob
Chris Byler
>> Try d-matrix on the guardians. Low HP isn't so much of an issue
>> anymore. Since valks are mineral heavy, you can probably afford
>> several SV as well by the time your teammate has the gas for a
>> substantial guardian strikeforce.
>Now there's a thought... that would buy them some time for sure...
>What do valks cost anyhow, something like 250/100/3 or so? I usually play
>Zerg so that seems expensive! :)
250/125/3. Like I said, about the same as a devourer (250/150/?).
Guardians are what, 150/200/4? Usually more expensive in real terms
since gas is scarcer than minerals on most maps.
>I like the d-matrix idea, will try it out...
--
Chris Byler cby...@vt.edu
"Therefore, determine the enemy's plans and you will know
which strategy will be successful and which will not."
-- Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_
Rob
> >Zerg so that seems expensive! :)
>
> 250/125/3. Like I said, about the same as a devourer (250/150/?).
> Guardians are what, 150/200/4? Usually more expensive in real terms
> since gas is scarcer than minerals on most maps.
Yeah, Guardians are 150/200/2 and Devourers are 250/150/2. But if you think
about it, gas is "infinite" but at a decreasing rate. One game though I had
one geyser and after it was gone, I was in trouble. Usually if you've got
three or four bases, you can build a big reserve and then the trickle in will
keep you alive til the end. But you've got to have those 3 or 4 bases...
Rob