|
Maybe I'm noob and I've only played around 15-20 games but the battles in SC2 seem much faster than in SC1?
In SC1 you have the satisfaction of watching your units do battle for a while, zealots engage die to mines or tank/vulture fire, then stasis or something, then goons come in, and templars storm. In SC2 I have an army of marine, marauder, ghost and I do 1 emp and the battle's over already. Either I'm dead or the other guy's army is dead. It's a bit weird and hard to micro.
I also noticed you have to be super paranoid in SC2. It's beta so everyone uses 1-base strats and proxies very often. And there's so many harass units, maps with back-doors, or ways to warp/move units long distances really quickly so it's you have to be paranoid about everything everywhere at the same time.
|
I think everything you brought up is just a question of playing more than a handful of games.
|
In BW, usually one player set up a position, for example using tanks, mines, lurkers, dark swarm. The other player was often trying to break such a position which led to long and technical battles.
This is much less the case in SC2 (at least right now). Tanks, bunkers and turrets still work to some extent. Forcefields are also useful, but you can't do anything about forcefields, so you either keep attacking or pull back. In BW, mines could be defused or dragged with Zealots, Lurkers could be outmicroed. Dark Swarm was such a fight or retreat spell but it played out a bit differently.
The new highground mechanic also adds to this imo.
|
I may be completely off, but in SC1 there seem to be more retreating. When I'm losing a battle, I can retreat some of my units and come back stronger. In SC2, it's much more difficult to retreat. Marauder slows, force fields, infestor ensnare thing.
So in my theory, battles just end quicker instead of what spinesheath said not as many 'technical' battles.
|
sc2 units look like a big blob of stuff and just 2 blobs crashing into eachother
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
