|
Dear Brood War Enjoyers,
I wished to share some basic theory crafting, that perhaps marines may not be as bad in the Terran and Protoss matchup, as is currently thought.
First, is the commonly held convention, that marines matchup poorly into dragoons. This is largely held due to dragoon's higher supply efficiency, superior range, and higher bulk.
However, in truth, I believe this is a far more even interaction, than is otherwise thought, that only becomes a major issue when dragoons and marines are massed in very high quantities without support.
Marines cost 50 minerals, while dragoons cost 125 minerals and 50 gas. We'll estimate that gas is roughly 50% more valuable than minerals, particularly in early builds, which means a dragoon costs effectively as much as 4 marines. Dragoons have much worse cost efficiency, to make up for their supply efficiency.
4 marines with stim pack and range upgrades, beat one dragoon, as far as a raw damage calculation is concerned, while possibly losing 1 marine. With factors like terrain buildings, and micro/collision, it becomes much more complicated, and an even matchup, based off of circumstances.
It takes three dragoon hits to kill a stimmed marine, the stimmed marine outruns the dragoon, and the range deficit is only by one range unit. Dragoons only have roughly 8 dps against marines, who meanwhile with stim, have roughly 16 dps.
With roughly 120 hp, vs around 190-195 hp, the 4 marines will take roughly 3.5 seconds to dps a dragoon down, while the dragoon will take just that long to only kill a single marine. This is just a mathematical exploration of the matchup, and naturally the interaction is very different in practice, however this clearly disproves the commonly held conception that marines are "bad" into goons.
2 rax is very powerful against early protoss, if supported with factory production. If medics are added into the equation, it changes significantly. The primary weakness that bio has, is against templar storm, and reavers, which can be handled with vessel emp and ghost lockdown.
I would classify the dragoon and marine matchup as a "skill" matchup.
2 rax of marine production is equivalent to a protoss player supporting 1 gate of dragoon production. It can be quite favorable, and very useful to add into mech.
|
There are some early timings with 2 rax or mixed bio compositions with mech that have some validity, but no. Overall bio is very weak. Mid game dt and reaver devastate it and the opportunity cost of fully transitioning back to mech gives too much of an advantage to protoss. It really always be a very cheesy opener.
|
On October 24 2025 08:06 Ze'ev wrote:
There are some early timings with 2 rax or mixed bio compositions with mech that have some validity, but no. Overall bio is very weak. Mid game dt and reaver devastate it and the opportunity cost of fully transitioning back to mech gives too much of an advantage to protoss. It really always be a very cheesy opener.
I see, maybe if you get in a post cheese game state with one of these builds, it might be more advantageous to try to add tech rather than transition to a full mech build. I could definitely see how it is weak against protoss mid-game, but Terran does have answers to Protoss tech. I've seen vessel timings pre 7 minutes on the TvZ, emp and lockdown are not unattainable pre-10 minutes. The advantage I'd suppose of bio is that losing a bunch of bio or a mixed bio is not as punishing as losing a full mech roll out can be.
It might be worth developing. Mech struggles in similar ways with reavers, the saved gas might go towards other counters, and dts are always more of a cheese all in, or harass tool, you shouldn't be losing to dts because of army composition imo.
|
I also dream of Marines TvP.
I think the big challenges are goon range, reavers and storm.
Here are some of my thoughts on ways that Marines might be incorporated in the matchup:
1) Ranged Bunkers (Range+Bunker to counter Goon Range)
Good for defense, good for sieging down some position.
4 marine+bunker should have a cost efficiency similar to a siege tank while being lighter on gas.
The supply efficiency is less than tanks but more than vultures, suggesting this may be a good late-game mineral dump (not all your minerals mind you, still need to fight in the field).
I think maybe mech armies should take SCVs and 4 or 8 marines when they go to war.
For so little supply it's a powerful tool to have bunkers.
2) Combined Arms
Perhaps a large marine (plus presumably medics) force can be secured by siege tanks pre-splash (to deal with goon range) or other units (to zone out splash, such as ranged gols to pick off shuttles).
3) Chaff among Mech
I think small numbers of marines can be mixed into a mech army to help prevent tanks from clumping too badly (since they walk at the same speed). They also have similar DPS vs interceptors as Goliaths (while costing less than half as much) so mixing them in should help vs Carrier too.
|
On October 24 2025 09:07 thuunderstruck wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2025 08:06 Ze'ev wrote:
There are some early timings with 2 rax or mixed bio compositions with mech that have some validity, but no. Overall bio is very weak. Mid game dt and reaver devastate it and the opportunity cost of fully transitioning back to mech gives too much of an advantage to protoss. It really always be a very cheesy opener. I see, maybe if you get in a post cheese game state with one of these builds, it might be more advantageous to try to add tech rather than transition to a full mech build. I could definitely see how it is weak against protoss mid-game, but Terran does have answers to Protoss tech. I've seen vessel timings pre 7 minutes on the TvZ, emp and lockdown are not unattainable pre-10 minutes. The advantage I'd suppose of bio is that losing a bunch of bio or a mixed bio is not as punishing as losing a full mech roll out can be. It might be worth developing. Mech struggles in similar ways with reavers, the saved gas might go towards other counters, and dts are always more of a cheese all in, or harass tool, you shouldn't be losing to dts because of army composition imo. this is where theory meets reality. Yeah you can use EMP that's true-- it's just really hard to run around with fragile bio and emping protoss. Odds are he's going to win just because it's mechanically easier. Same thing with reavers. You can back off, use a couple tanks, split your marines...but it's way harder than what protoss is doing. It also won't be long till you lose your window because he gets out like four or five reavers and a bunch of speed lots and some ht and he takes a bunch of bases etc. The window is real it's just narrow and hard mechanically. I'd say ten minutes is where that transition happens: if you haven't done serious damage by minute 11 you are in all probability going to lose.
|
On October 24 2025 23:56 Ze'ev wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2025 09:07 thuunderstruck wrote:On October 24 2025 08:06 Ze'ev wrote:
There are some early timings with 2 rax or mixed bio compositions with mech that have some validity, but no. Overall bio is very weak. Mid game dt and reaver devastate it and the opportunity cost of fully transitioning back to mech gives too much of an advantage to protoss. It really always be a very cheesy opener. I see, maybe if you get in a post cheese game state with one of these builds, it might be more advantageous to try to add tech rather than transition to a full mech build. I could definitely see how it is weak against protoss mid-game, but Terran does have answers to Protoss tech. I've seen vessel timings pre 7 minutes on the TvZ, emp and lockdown are not unattainable pre-10 minutes. The advantage I'd suppose of bio is that losing a bunch of bio or a mixed bio is not as punishing as losing a full mech roll out can be. It might be worth developing. Mech struggles in similar ways with reavers, the saved gas might go towards other counters, and dts are always more of a cheese all in, or harass tool, you shouldn't be losing to dts because of army composition imo. this is where theory meets reality. Yeah you can use EMP that's true-- it's just really hard to run around with fragile bio and emping protoss. Odds are he's going to win just because it's mechanically easier. Same thing with reavers. You can back off, use a couple tanks, split your marines...but it's way harder than what protoss is doing. It also won't be long till you lose your window because he gets out like four or five reavers and a bunch of speed lots and some ht and he takes a bunch of bases etc. The window is real it's just narrow and hard mechanically. I'd say ten minutes is where that transition happens: if you haven't done serious damage by minute 11 you are in all probability going to lose.
Agreed, my impression of Terran in general however, is that the race's units are harder to control in general than Protoss'. Tanks have to siege and unsiege unlike reavers, mech moveouts can become incredibly mechanically intensive. I figure zerg is the race to play for easier unit control, hence why they're so far ahead in their strategies. Terran race just seems the most mechanically intense in general.
The thing with reavers is that ghosts might actually be a good counter. Getting four or 5 ghosts with lockdown is much cheaper than getting four or five reavers, much less supply as well, and they can be used to counter the shuttles which reavers require. Definitely not mechanically easy for a player to do in practice, but simple in theory. I see a lot of strong Terran players struggle in the matchup, and I think mech is the problem. I think a player like BarrackS could do very well with a bio style in this matchup, maybe even better than they do with mech builds.
Appreciate the reply.
|
On October 24 2025 20:19 ajfirecracker wrote:
I also dream of Marines TvP.
I think the big challenges are goon range, reavers and storm.
Here are some of my thoughts on ways that Marines might be incorporated in the matchup:
1) Ranged Bunkers (Range+Bunker to counter Goon Range)
Good for defense, good for sieging down some position.
4 marine+bunker should have a cost efficiency similar to a siege tank while being lighter on gas.
The supply efficiency is less than tanks but more than vultures, suggesting this may be a good late-game mineral dump (not all your minerals mind you, still need to fight in the field).
I think maybe mech armies should take SCVs and 4 or 8 marines when they go to war.
For so little supply it's a powerful tool to have bunkers.
2) Combined Arms
Perhaps a large marine (plus presumably medics) force can be secured by siege tanks pre-splash (to deal with goon range) or other units (to zone out splash, such as ranged gols to pick off shuttles).
3) Chaff among Mech
I think small numbers of marines can be mixed into a mech army to help prevent tanks from clumping too badly (since they walk at the same speed). They also have similar DPS vs interceptors as Goliaths (while costing less than half as much) so mixing them in should help vs Carrier too.
I'll go through these point by point from my impressions.
1) I've seen some players do what Artosis has coined as a "forward siege" where they do a very late bunker rush, and follow up with tank siege. Bunkers and turrets are very strong for supporting tank sieges, and can make an unbeatable push, if the bunker is finished, and micro is done right. I figure this is such a strong tactic, you don't even need to do this on an active mining base, it seems like a good way to just secure a map position.
2) Absolutely agreed here, I've only really seen famas2 play like this in TvP.
3) I think this would help a little bit in this matchup. Goliaths' biggest problem is that they compete with tanks for factory production and gas, building goliaths reduces the number of tanks you can build, weakening a mech build significantly. Bio would not cause this, but the build would be very different, as well as the play style.
IMO, the best answer Terran has to carrier is Valkyries, just like liberators in sc2. I think if a Terran scouts Carriers, going double port into 4 Valkyries is a better answer than going mass Goliath.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
