EPT[D] Terran Mid-Game - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
|
Coolzx
United States138 Posts
| ||
|
Xirroh
Canada146 Posts
Terran mid game (and late game) certainly has some unique constraints that need to be accounted for to play effectively. 1. Re-Supplying army: Terran have to build units in a big production facility complex (usually located in their main and natural.). Then these units need to join the main army. This causes problems on large maps when a forward position is established. In the recent Sen vs Boxer TSL games, you see Boxer kept his rally points at his natural and moved the reinforcements up to the main force in large groups. This keeps them protected from being intercepted, as well as preventing counter attacks by having a small force at the natural most of the time. This method however is rather slow, and Boxer was repeatedly overrun by large zerg forces because half his units were at his natural (divided). Brainstorming: Rax, Fac, and Ports can all lift up and move. It is possible to move production facilities forward on the map. This can reduce the supply line. However this creates two problems. 1) Add-ons need to be rebuild (costly in gas) 2) There is a delay in production when buildings are moving. Terran bases however are very strong defensively, with turrets, bunkers, and PF's. They also create chokes and walls, which are good for Terran units.Building a base near the center of the map, would be very strong if you could get it built without dying. Just a thought. Build times: Protoss gateway units build almost instantly. Warp in is crazy good. Terran needs time to re-build. How can we account for this weakness? Brainstorming: It is easy to over extend into Protoss territory, where our re-supply is slow, and theirs is instant, and we find ourselves outnumbered after winning the initial big battle. Terran can't easily push for the win this way. They should be taking a territorial advantage and re-supplying the army. You can win by constricting the opponent's land/bases (think of a python!). Watch some long TvX's on T-Alter. The Terran slowly constricts the opponent, Different from a Toss way of 200 supply pushing into the Opponents main. Map Control: Terran can't control the whole map the way Zerg can (creep lol). Or keep vision of the whole map like Toss can(Obs, Pylon, Cannon). However they can control a smaller area very very well. Tanks/Bunkers/Turrets/PF's etc. Allow you to lock down a smaller map section in a way other races cannot. This power force however is very slow. Brainstorming: Terran can't take whole map control, they must decide what section it wants to hold, what area will be most valuable. This will be map and game dependent. BW Terran would sometimes take a map position to open a safe path for drops. A position that defends multiple bases is also a common tactic. Terran main force is usually slow, but they have many fast/cloke harass units (Hellion, Reaper, Banshee, M-Vac-Drops, Ghost, Nuke) You can even use Raven & Viking. Without Spider-mines Terran map control will never be as good (Good = Easy & Cheep) as BW. Then again, we don't have to deal with lurkers so it's not all bad. Production buildings are very expensive, but how much difference? A Rax costs 150min + 42 lost min from SCV building time = 192min -> Allows us to spend 125 minerals a min on units (2 & 1/3 marines per minute). A gate costs 150min -> Allows Toss to spend 200 min a minute on Zealots (With WGate). -> 250/100 minute with stalkers. With add-ons. Rax + Reactor = 242min + 50 gas -> Can spend 250 min minute. (Double Marine) Rax + Tech = 242 min + 25 gas -> Can spend 200min/50gas minute (Marauder) Gate + Core = 300 minerals. 1 base production 3 gate + core = 600 minerals cost. -> about 700/200 minute in units created. 1 rax + react + 2 rax + tech = 726 min / 100 gas -> about 700min/100gas minute Terran building are a little more expensive, but we have mule, but toss has crono....any exact conclusion would be near impossible... Transitioning to mech or air? I don't see it being effective, although Goody does play Mech... Terran seems to be designed around using bio as a core force, just like toss uses gateway units. Could be wrong here however. Mech/Air as core just seems very fragile. | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10331 Posts
| ||
|
Froadac
United States6733 Posts
Just deal with it. | ||
|
Zombo Joe
Canada850 Posts
On April 20 2011 12:55 Froadac wrote: I'll agree it can be frustrating, but as in broodwar you just need to deal with it. As in broodwar in TvP if terran gets maxed on tanks with shittons of mines, and vultures, and 3-4 vessels, there really isn't shit toss can do. Just deal with it. Okay, how do we deal with a Protoss with a colossus death ball if we don't break it early? | ||
|
MajorityofOne
Canada2506 Posts
However, I do think that Terran and Protoss suffer in the mid-game compared to Zerg, largely because of the massive boost Zerg gets from the larva mechanic once they've secured 2-3 bases. This isn't really a problem though, as Zerg is generally the most fragile early game and needs to be the farthest ahead in the late-game to make up for having the least cost-efficient units. | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
| ||
|
Azzur
Australia6259 Posts
On April 20 2011 07:31 imBLIND wrote:It's generally accepted, whether for the right reasons or the wrong, that the Terran midgame is weaker than the Protoss and Zerg midgames. Some people point that the Terran army is weak and has no durability. Others say the army is immobile. Others point to fundamental problems that aren't going to be fixed anytime soon. This is the first issue I have with the post. Where is the "generally accepted" coming from? If anything, I believe the "generally accepted" at the moment is that zerg is the one weak in ZvP. On April 20 2011 07:31 imBLIND wrote: I've been trying to find real mid-game builds that efficiently solve four key problems with any build: money, map, macro, and timeliness. Can I create a build that allows me to mass units, mass workers/bases, control the map, and do this all in a timely fashion? This is another issue I have. Terrans have their own distinct strengths and weaknesses - it's as if you're trying to make oranges taste like apples. For example, you mentioned that Terrans have the worst worker production ignoring mules. I believe this is short-sighted - any analysis cannot neglect mules as it's critical to the terran economy. On April 20 2011 07:31 imBLIND wrote: This is probably one reason why 2base baneling busts (also known as the Kyrix bust? Need clarification here) is rather difficult to stop: the other race can simply out-produce Terrans before we have a chance to get enough production buildings or enough of the correct unit. The Kyrix-style bust or "high economy baneling bust" is designed to punish greedy terrans. You mention that terrans have to deal with this but neglect to talk about comparisons to other races. For example, zergs have to prepare for: helions, banshees, marine/SCV all-ins, bunker pushes, etc. All races have to learn how to deal with these aggressive styles. In macro, you also talked about how it is difficult to tech-switch. Similarly in BW, terrans don't tech switch. Their army and production is flexible and they vary their unit composition to match what their opponents is producing. If you want to tech switch, play zerg. In the Map section, you talked about the terrans lack of control. Against speedlings, terrans can use helions or banshees to force them off the map. Against protoss, marauders make an aggressive posture risky. You also failed to mention a significant terran asset - the planetary fortress. A PF in a key location exerts alot of map influence and can be used as a springboard to launch attacks. As for timeliness, not sure what you meant here. I believe terrans have a lot of harass options: helions, drops, banshees. On April 20 2011 08:29 KovuTalli wrote: I totally agree with the OP atm, Terran is struggling - In Ladder, Please do not use GSL or any other high level play as an example as there are usually a lot more Terran players at higher levels and/or are just better players generally. Also this comment by KovuTalli. I completely disagree - why shouldn't GSL be used as an example of the strength of the terran race? These are pro players playing the race to the potential. | ||
|
ineffablepwnage
22 Posts
On April 20 2011 09:11 Velladin wrote: I don't understand this post. So, Terran has to continue playing with the units they have and expect to outmicro and outplay the opponent because we can't tech switch? That's not what he's saying at all. As other people have said, terran get to dictate the pace of the game, and through doing that they should force the other player to have to counter them rather than the other way around. As a zerg, I can build a bane nest, roach warren, spire, and infestor pit with minimal losses compared to the other races because those only unlock the tech, not actually produce the units. terran can't build a factory and then make hellions out of his rax, which is basically what zerg does, and protoss to a lesser extent because their buildings don't have add-ons, just separate tech structures. Because of the production mechanics, terrans should force the other player to respond to them. | ||
|
KiLL_ORdeR
United States1518 Posts
On April 20 2011 07:31 imBLIND wrote:It's generally accepted, whether for the right reasons or the wrong, that the Terran midgame is weaker than the Protoss and Zerg midgames. Some people point that the Terran army is weak and has no durability. Others say the army is immobile. Others point to fundamental problems that aren't going to be fixed anytime soon. I think that you are seriously wrong here. in TvP it's the late game that is the problem. The way Terran works in TvP you should actually have a huge advantage foodwise at around the 90 or 100 food mark, so much so that some new tank marine timing pushes are surfacing that are nearly unstoppable from the protoss perspective. In TvZ, a terran player with good gamesense and a strong sense of timings can outproduce zerg at any stage of the game, assuming that they maintain constant pressure. If you watch any TvZ with MarineKing or MVP, it is evident that any weakness Terran may have in this match-up is a byproduct of a lack of aggression. in terms of money, terran has mules. When you consider the fact that a mule is equivalent of four workers, you can watch replays and see how a terran hitting all of his mule drops can keep even pace with a protoss player on the same number of bases, and terran can usually take an extra base over protoss. as for zerg, ya, they'll outproduce you if you let them, hence the reason for maintain aggression or outsmarting them by feigning banshees or pushes while instead expanding, or simply abuse their economy with hellions or octodrops. if zerg is making drones when they want to, terran can easily outproduce them too. in terms of macro, you can make a point that protoss units are faster at building and can warp in anywhere, totally negating defenders advantage, in terms of straight macro, you neglect to mention the fact that terran units are cheaper and more cost effective than protoss units are. additionally, they take less supply so can be massed more easily. in terms of map control, you say that terran can't contain protoss or zerg in the first 10 minutes, but that isn't the mid-game. Have you seen the Genius vs. qxc match in TSL? qxc is able to totally dictate the pace of the game, depsite being basically dead, by constantly harassing genius everywhere, while retaining control of the center and constantly expanding. This game refutes the all three of the previous points in this post, since qxc was able to do all of this while being behind in most of the game. in point 4, who cares how fast terran is? have you seen goody play mech? Terran is all about hitting good timings with stronger, more cost effective units. you don't even need map control, since attacking into a mech army is actually stupid. It allows terran to safely take a third, and then push while taking a fourth. Maybe you should try mech? | ||
|
CatNzHat
United States1599 Posts
I personally have to agree that currently terran is just all around weaker than terran or zerg in pretty much every respect, we had one good timing attack with stim, that's gone now (TvP). TvT is a fun matchup imho, love the viability of all of the terran arsenal, TvZ seems to be balanced apart from the recent addition to infestors of their new storm-you-can't-run-out-of ability-that-doesn't-do-friendly-damage. People pointing to tanks for the answer as a mid game army forget that zerglings and zealots beat tank lines, and tanks are completely immobile, and a good opponent can easily either get you out of position or prevent you from moving forward without having an army that's strong enough to kill their opponent even if the siege tanks aren't sieged, which is ridiculous and means terran won early game. Personally I think that TvX strongly favors the X, and it's really their game to lose right from the start, reading and scouting a terran player is also quite easy due to the nature of our tech tree and production facilities. I'm hoping that they change terran to either be able to compete with zerg, and especially protoss, on the tech front, as terran doesn't have any good AoE damage tech, imagine if hunter seeker was twice as fast and didn't do friendly damage, that would really limit the effectiveness of mass gateway armies late game, or be able to harass mineral lines quite easily. Obviously a change like this would upset the metagame for awhile, but after it adjusted I think that the game would be more balanced. Of course you could always just nerf collosus and fix the infestor bug, however that would mean that Blizzard would have to admit that they've been ignoring an imba unit for all this time... a mistake they could never live down. | ||
|
imBLIND
United States2626 Posts
On April 20 2011 13:42 Azzur wrote: This is the first issue I have with the post. Where is the "generally accepted" coming from? If anything, I believe the "generally accepted" at the moment is that zerg is the one weak in ZvP. This is another issue I have. Terrans have their own distinct strengths and weaknesses - it's as if you're trying to make oranges taste like apples. For example, you mentioned that Terrans have the worst worker production ignoring mules. I believe this is short-sighted - any analysis cannot neglect mules as it's critical to the terran economy. The Kyrix-style bust or "high economy baneling bust" is designed to punish greedy terrans. You mention that terrans have to deal with this but neglect to talk about comparisons to other races. For example, zergs have to prepare for: helions, banshees, marine/SCV all-ins, bunker pushes, etc. All races have to learn how to deal with these aggressive styles. In macro, you also talked about how it is difficult to tech-switch. Similarly in BW, terrans don't tech switch. Their army and production is flexible and they vary their unit composition to match what their opponents is producing. If you want to tech switch, play zerg. In the Map section, you talked about the terrans lack of control. Against speedlings, terrans can use helions or banshees to force them off the map. Against protoss, marauders make an aggressive posture risky. You also failed to mention a significant terran asset - the planetary fortress. A PF in a key location exerts alot of map influence and can be used as a springboard to launch attacks. As for timeliness, not sure what you meant here. I believe terrans have a lot of harass options: helions, drops, banshees. Also this comment by KovuTalli. I completely disagree - why shouldn't GSL be used as an example of the strength of the terran race? These are pro players playing the race to the potential. The generally accepted part comes from that most Terran losses are from the mid game, most Terran wins are in the early game, and when you actually play Terran in the midgame, it becomes increasingly difficult to stay even with the other guy. You say terrans have their own strengths and weaknesses. I'm saying the midgame is a weakness for Terran. Mules are critical, yes, but you need scvs to saturate a base. You can get upwards of 8 mules on a single base, but that doesn't mean you can cut scv production indefinitely after you get two OC's. If you notice, Protoss and Zergs have phases where they mass workers and cut production to increase their mining efficiency. What ends up happening with Terrans is that we either cut scvs and let the mule cover the difference or we produce workers+ fighting units at the same time. This means you're losing an extra -100 minerals on two bases every few seconds for a couple of minutes, leaving your army somewhat handicapped. Or, if you choose to cut scvs, what will happen if you don't do any damage to his econ? Do you see where im trying to go with the scv argument? I'm not talking about other races because this would quickly become a giant shitstorm with the amount of information in one thread. Maybe in the future I'll talk about a different race, but I plan to limit my talks only about the Terran perspective in order to get more organized responses. It's true that Terrans can't tech switch easily. However, my meaning isn't "i want to tech switch cause I want to," but more "how the heck can i get to T2 or T3 without doing a tech switch?" You either transition into T2/T3 or start off with T2/T3. Starting off mech is very shaky in the beginning, and transitioning is even worse. Which one is going to end up working in the future? I don't even know. This works my way into timeliness. In order to maximize the returns you get from getting, say, siege tanks, you need to invest a certain amount of money and a certain amount of time. Right here, you say, "okay, heres 450/300 up front and 600/500 for later." By the time "later" comes around, you're already dead. Terran units have to be in a group to become efficient enough to justify their costs. The only one that doesn't follow this model is the Thor, but that unit has different problems. How many marines do you need in order to justify the cost of making them? A lot. What about marauders? A lot. Tanks? BCs? Banshees? Every other terran tech unit? Tosses have units that are valuable the instant you get one of them, like collosi, immortals, and even void rays. Zergs can simply mass produce everything and don't worry about efficiency as much. Terrans? Even if we successfully transition into or start withT2, we still have to wait even longer for those resources to become justified. | ||
|
Techno
1900 Posts
| ||
|
XXXSmOke
United States1333 Posts
On April 20 2011 14:20 KiLL_ORdeR wrote: I think that you are seriously wrong here. in TvP it's the late game that is the problem. The way Terran works in TvP you should actually have a huge advantage foodwise at around the 90 or 100 food mark, so much so that some new tank marine timing pushes are surfacing that are nearly unstoppable from the protoss perspective. In TvZ, a terran player with good gamesense and a strong sense of timings can outproduce zerg at any stage of the game, assuming that they maintain constant pressure. If you watch any TvZ with MarineKing or MVP, it is evident that any weakness Terran may have in this match-up is a byproduct of a lack of aggression. in terms of money, terran has mules. When you consider the fact that a mule is equivalent of four workers, you can watch replays and see how a terran hitting all of his mule drops can keep even pace with a protoss player on the same number of bases, and terran can usually take an extra base over protoss. as for zerg, ya, they'll outproduce you if you let them, hence the reason for maintain aggression or outsmarting them by feigning banshees or pushes while instead expanding, or simply abuse their economy with hellions or octodrops. if zerg is making drones when they want to, terran can easily outproduce them too. in terms of macro, you can make a point that protoss units are faster at building and can warp in anywhere, totally negating defenders advantage, in terms of straight macro, you neglect to mention the fact that terran units are cheaper and more cost effective than protoss units are. additionally, they take less supply so can be massed more easily. in terms of map control, you say that terran can't contain protoss or zerg in the first 10 minutes, but that isn't the mid-game. Have you seen the Genius vs. qxc match in TSL? qxc is able to totally dictate the pace of the game, depsite being basically dead, by constantly harassing genius everywhere, while retaining control of the center and constantly expanding. This game refutes the all three of the previous points in this post, since qxc was able to do all of this while being behind in most of the game. in point 4, who cares how fast terran is? have you seen goody play mech? Terran is all about hitting good timings with stronger, more cost effective units. you don't even need map control, since attacking into a mech army is actually stupid. It allows terran to safely take a third, and then push while taking a fourth. Maybe you should try mech? Your post is basically saying that T is ok as long as we can magically play mech, bio, attack, and macro at the same time.... I argue that T is very good at the mid-game(less so now because of that terrible stim nerf), once Tier 2 hits we get a multitude of options to punish our oppenant. The problem is that this advantage is short lived and if the other races defend this tier 2 attack, T is in a very weak spot. Transistioning as a Terran is just awful. Once ive got alot of raxes down, thats where il be for the rest of the game. If Z or P can get their 3rd down I feel pretty damn hopeless as a T. Both races have that late game macro that you just know is going to be very very hard to break through hard enough to actully destroy an expo before the millions of reinfrocements arrive. Looking at it the other way, you can go Goody style and play mech, but then you are terrible in the mid and early stages of the game which is enough for an oppenant to secure a good lead. Dont get me wrong mech can work, but its not consistent and is only good on certain maps. Im losing a ton of ladder im 24-25 right now as T and im highly frustrated, I think that last set of nerfs plus new maps plus infestor/charge buff really killed T. | ||
|
ineffablepwnage
22 Posts
On April 20 2011 14:22 CatNzHat wrote: I'm hoping that they change terran to either be able to compete with zerg, and especially protoss, on the tech front, as terran doesn't have any good AoE damage tech I think terran has the best aoe units in the game. I don't count ultras as aoe, as they normally block more units than their cleave does. Banelings are shut down with good scouting and positioning unless they are over produced as a good number of them will die before they even get close. Collossi can be attacked by air which forces a lot more AA from them. Templars have the amulet nerf, although I don't think it's as much of a nerf as most people originally thought as long as you plan a minute or 2 ahead. Infestors did recieve a much needed buff to fungal as before it could only be used to stall for time or gain position, and now zerg as an aoe that actually does some damage against armored units. Terrans have siege tanks, which are godly for contains and do great damage. They have hellions which are super fast, roast any light unit, and are amazing for harass. I count ghosts as having aoe, as their EMP hits a radius and counters other casters in addition to hurting toss shields. I do agree with you that seeker missiles are almost useless, but so is Neural parasite in that neither can be relied on to win a fight, require great positioning, and a little bit of luck. With PDD, detection and turrets, can you really ask for much more from a flying caster though? | ||
|
Curu
Canada2817 Posts
On April 20 2011 12:33 Yoshi Kirishima wrote: I actually have a big problem playing as Terran too, especially against Zerg. Although it is probably also due to a lack of experience, Terran is really hard to play in the midgame. Even if I force Zerg to pump a lot of lings and such after I 2 rax him and make him waste a lot of resources and I get a 2nd base while I'm pressuring him, once midgame hits it's like there's nothing I can do to keep control over the game. Make sure you don't lose your marines from the 2 Rax. If you see the million eggs start morphing as you hit his base, GTFO of there. After that it's basically dropship harass so he can't freely drone and tech up. While you're doing that, you're building a nice tank count. Once you get a decent number of tanks, push out and establish a good position on the map (best is right in between his natural and third so he can't stream reinforcements from one to the other), take your third, run small groups of marines forward to take out creep tumours/harass expansions. From then on, you're constantly pressuring the zerg with drops, marine attacks, and your main tank push. Drop a few tech labs on your Barracks so you can get marauders out in case of ultralisk tech (6 armour ultras mean marines aren't so hot, and tanks don't splash them), be prepared to make vikings in case of broodlord tech. Take a fourth when you can. Once you get into the late game, CONSTANTLY trade marine armies with the zerg (make sure you have LOTS of barracks), force him to have to build lings/roaches instead of getting a good number of T3 units. You want to starve out his gas/larvae, make sure you maintain a strong tank positioning too so he can't just run around countering all your expos. | ||
|
kNightLite
United States408 Posts
I think the OP has alot of good points, but I would classify them as late-game issues rather than mid game issues. Maybe we need to more clearly define the distinctions between early mid and lategame. Personally I consider: 1. Early game is 1 saturated base 2. Mid game is 2 saturated base 3. Late game is everything past the 20 minute mark (ingame clock) because thats when our main starts to dry up On the OP's topics: 1. Money I'm actually okay with Terran money flow in the midgame. Our economy is stupidly strong in the early game because mules let us one-base stronger than any other race (if not longer). The early game is very mineral heavy so mules are goldmines. However in the mid and late game, the limiting resource switches to gas, so mules arnt nearly as useful. Still pretty good, but not as stupid strong. Its only in the late game where I feel Terran economy is weak, because mules also mean that we dry up our bases more quickly than other races. What I'd be interested in seeing is more people experimentating with the planetary fortress in the mid game. I think pretty much everyone gets orbitals on their first two expansions because: 1. The orbital is safe because if your opponent tries to punish your expand with 1-base, the 2nd orbitals mules will eventually offset having a 550 mineral paperweight. 2. The orbital is standard because it helps you put pressure back on your opponent, while the PF only helps you control a limited space 3. The orbital is also our best scouting and detection tool But I'd be interested to seeing people try using PFs as glorified siege tanks to defend against MC-style early/mid game agression. It would also be cool to see people try double expanding with PFs and then using them to power up to a quick 70+ worker count Ret-style. 2. Macro I do feel like mid game Terran macro is a bit weak mostly because addons make for annoying "hidden" gas and build time costs. However I feel that is at least somewhat offset by the fact we usually win base trades because we can float and have higher total structure HP. Its true that its probably toughest to tech-switch as Terran. However I don't think thats nessesarily a bad thing. We have the strongest units in the game in terms of cost-per-unit efficiency. Its only fair that it is balanced by having the worst cost-per-production-facility efficiency. I think that the difference between the two plays a big role in making a Terran economy feel different from a Zerg economy. Yeah it sucks we also have arguably the worst tech structure, but honestly its not that big of a weakness. Sure Protoss tech is nice because they only have 2 tech silos to our 3, however they also need to deal with armor upgrades being worthless on their shields. And Zerg only have half of a tech silo (ground carapace) that gives them a tech structure advantage over us. 3. Map control I'm afraid I'm going to mostly disagree with you here. I think map control is important for two reasons: First, to gain information on your opponent, and second, to deny your opponent from getting information on you. The first half of map control is completely owned with scan. Observers, creep, overlord, and xelnagas are all great, however if you really really want to deny your opponent scouting information, you can do it. But nothing can stop scan. The other half of map control isnt too bad for TvZ either. Sure early speedling/muta does a great job keeping Terran from wandering about the map, but they arent exactly cheap. Speedlings cost a ridiculous amount of larvae and mutas are ridiculously gas intensive. If the Zerg invests heavily in those units in order to dominate map control, then quoeth the Day9, "just-go-and-frikken-kill-him" Things are even better in TvP, where you only lose the other half of map control if you choose to. Early-mid game all you need to worry about are fast stalkers (which are probably the worst ranged attack unit in the game without blink). The only other situation where you definitively lose the second half of map control is if you go Goody-style heavy ground mech. But thats the price to be paid for ground mech's ridiculous AOE firepower. 4. Timeliness 100% agree with the OP's points here. Often I feel like my biggest opponent in the mid game is not Zerg or Protoss, but time. Protoss can instanteously reinforce with chronoboosted warpin and recall. Zerg can gain similar results with inject+nydus, plus each expansion can effectively double as a proxy production facility. I have a tough time imagining what a Terran can do to achieve similar results. The idea of sacking add-ons and production time in order to float production facilities closer to the front is not very enticing. Especially when our units already take so long to build compared to other units. Here's hoping that heart of the swarm will give our production capacity a bump. An upgrade that increases building float speed, or better yet, allows addons to float, would go a long way toward fixing that problem Hiwever when all is said and done, I dont think its a crippling weakness in the Terran midgame. We have plenty of other strengths to lean upon. | ||
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
TvZ basically works like this, generally. The Terran starts the game 'ahead' and has many options. The Zerg has two, one is a random silly all-ins involving mix of lings/banes/roaches or to get as many drones as he can and eventually achieve a lategame composition of infestors and hive tech units with many, many hatcheries. Assuming the Zerg doesn't all in, the Terran tries to execute his strategy and whilst he retains the initiative from the start, the Zerg has to try and react to what the Terran is doing, if the Terran fucks it up at this stage he almost certainly loses. I suppose the best example I can give is the Boxer vs Sen series from TSL3. In the games Boxer lost a bunch of his stuff at a single crucial point and although he played fucking amazing after those 2 points (the fluffed drop on Terminus and the entire loss of his army to Sen's fucking amazing ling/bling defense) there was no real way he could force a win without Sen making a serious fuck up, or at least it seemed that way. That's what I hate about the Terran midgame in TvZ anyway. I hate TvP because I generally have to put in a lot more effort to defeat the Protoss then he does to build collosus and a-move me but ah well. I put a bit of thought into that above dynamic about TvZ and I realised that, compared to BW, Terran plays quite similarly. In BW you had to get tons of marines, maybe some tanks, and drops and you maintained constant aggression because in a 200/200 world the Zerg would lategame you to death, so you maintained supplies at 80-140 (well, unless you were doing something weird like Mech or that flash late game 505005050505050 tank transition). But the main difference between BW and SC2 terran is that in BW you weren't just trading armies constantly and aggressively, you were also retaining Vessels as well. Nowadays it's the Zerg retaining the flying deathcloud; mutalisks. And that kind of sucks. But Zergs lost lurkers and Dark Swarm and Ultras that didn't suck dick, so I guess it's not all bad. | ||
|
link0
United States1071 Posts
This is due to the fact that the only mobile force terran has (bio) isn't good in high supply army battles and isn't supply efficient either. Late game, you will have 4+ bases with a good distance between each of them. 1. If you have a mobile force that can defend all your expansions, you will have a weaker army. 2. If you have a powerful mech army that can actually hold its own in a large battle, you will be too slow to defend all your bases. | ||
|
BEARDiaguz
Australia2362 Posts
In TvP the P is now a lot more stretched out to try and cover 3 bases so your multipronged harassment is still incredibly strong, and a 3 base bio Terran army vs a gateway/collosus composition has enough gas to get ghosts, upgrades and vikings enough to deal with that. But I'm sure we can all agree that 3 base vs 3 base tvp got a lot easier once a certain piece of neck jewelery got removed from the game last patch. | ||
| ||
