|
Please read this before going on: I am not making any attempt at theorycraft; this is just my personal analysis and opinion on Terran mid-game. If you must know, I’m a masters player and I have an experienced background in BW. If you must bring theorycraft into this thread, have legitimate reasoning or a VOD or replay backing that up. Also, please take the time to read at least the opening post; I will be updating it from time to time with my responses if you do not wish to read the entire thread. It’s lengthy, but I tried to organize it as best I could.
_________________________________________________________________
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'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?
Short answer: no.
It is a given fact that no such build exists. You can't get two bases, 6 factories, mobile medivacs with marines, and get all of that within 8 minutes without sacrificing something.
However, I can’t find an efficient way around these four problems with the Terran race. Here’s why:
1) Money
Terrans have the worst worker production out of the three race, ignoring mules for a second. Since we have the slowest time producing workers, it will take more time for us to create enough workers to saturate two bases. This means the risk of starting a second base (I mean base, not command center) won’t be worth the benefit for quite a while.
There have been some creative ways to solve this, like making a PF at the gold or making 4 OC's on two bases to abuse the mule mechanic. However, mules don't need a second base to be effective. You could have 8 OC's on one base before you'll need a second base.
The time it takes for us to get up to our max potential on two bases is at least two or three minutes longer than our zerg and protoss counterparts : enough time for 3 collosi or a swarm of roaches.
My personal approach to this is to basically get the 2nd OC as fast as possible for the extra mule and stay on one base until I get enough of an army to secure the second base, where the transferred scvs are at full potential. I still don’t know if this is the best way, but so far, it is the safest way that I have found that actually works.
2) Macro
Terrans also, unfortunately, own the worst production buildings out of the three races. Technically, our production buildings should be on par with Protoss buildings because we both share similar macro styles. The difference: chronoboost and warpgates. The warpgate mechanic is game-changing in the mid game and chronoboost can be used for everything, making Terran macro games look embarrassingly weak sometimes.
In order to compete with a Protoss, let alone a zerg, we either have to force them down to our level of macro or cut production in order to mass up more production facilities, which is a difficult thing to do before the mid/late game hits. 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.
This is one reason why massing bio is so popular, aside from its raw DPS and mobility, because of how easily barracks are made. This is also the same reason why Terrans have so many problems vs Protoss in the midgame as well; we constantly go past the point-of-no-return in building production buildings where switching to massing starports or factories takes away too many resources from unit and scv production. After investing a hefty sum of minerals and gas, we have to get add-ons, upgrades, and wait even longer for the units to actually build to justify the initial cost…5 minutes ago.
What build, unit, or gameplay can stall long enough for this tech switch to be effective? I still have not found a decent way to cover the transition other than starting straight with hellions or banshees. Even then, harass can get shut down, and adequate defense generally requires a larger or better army, an army that is pretty difficult to get if all my resources are being diverted towards production buildings, upgrades, and waiting on those units to come out.
3) Map
Terrans have the most efficient, but also the flimsiest map control in the game. However, the problem isn’t with our choice or our options of harassment, but due to the fact that our harassment is basically our entire army for a good portion of our game.. Not that harassing and kiting are bad things, but it’s problematic when the midgame comes along and I find that half of my resources were devoted to harassment and I only have half of my resources left to do everything else.
The reason the mutalisk and the vulture in BW were so good at map control wasn’t only due to their cost, their potential in micro, and their usability, but because you didn’t have to invest additional resources to keep that harassment effective. You could always invest more, but you didn’t necessarily have to. In ZvT, you generally made 9 mutalisks and kept them alive until hive tech. In TvP, spider mines generally allowed the Terran to get to siege mode with a second base and 4-6 factories running before the observers could come out and do anything.
In SC2, we have nothing to keep the Protoss or the Zerg contained within the first 10 minutes. In fact, it is often times the Protoss and the Zerg retaining map control with giant speedling balls and sentries. The few times the Terran does manage to get map control, we can barely keep it long enough to get an expo and production buildings up, partially because we barely have enough money to get more scvs, a second cc, and 3+ production facilities and partially because we have to keep spending money to keep the other guy locked in his base.
I also have not found a way to address this problem until I get dropships, which by then is usually too late if I already built an OC at around 19 supply. Hellions, reapers , banshees, and marine/marauder kiting either involve a substantial investment in some way to be effective or are too easily shut down and turn out to be a waste of resources.
4) Timeliness
Without a doubt, Terran is the slowest race out of the three. The larvae mechanic gets rid of the production facility problem for Zergs, and chronoboost/warpgate means that Protosses don’t have to wait as long for a unit to become worth it’s money, which poses a few problems for Terrans if they are always 30 seconds faster than us. Our armies are also not very quick, meaning that speedlings are going to be impossible to catch unless we get lucky. Protosses don’t have to worry about speed as much because of the warpgate mechanic. What do terrans have?
There’s absolutely no way Terrans can compete with Protoss or Zerg for speed. We have to constantly be trading armies, which poses a different problem as I’ve stated up there, or find a decent way to harass and keep their speed at bay, which, again, poses a different problem. People have found hellion drops and pure marines to be rather effective sometimes, but really, how long is that going to last for?
I have not found a reliable, fast, efficient, and timely way to get to massed T2 tech yet. Harass is hit or miss and is heavily based on the reaction and skill level of your opponents. I have no way to keep map control long enough to cover a transition when I have money. I have no money to stay safe when I try to start off early. This, I believe, is the largest obstacle we’ll have to face.
If we stay on massed T1 units forever, Terrans will probably wither out and die to more refined and safer play from Zerg and Protoss. The marine may be all-powerful, but he is not invincible, and we cannot afford to put the responsibility of the entire army on this one little dude for very much longer.
Discussion
Whenever I see a Terran win a midgame battle, it is usually more the other side’s fault for not reacting properly rather than outstanding play from the Terran. I’m not talking about single, stellar games, but rather the general trend of mid-game Terran.
My current goal is to find a build that gets me safely to 6 gases and enough scvs in a timely fashion to support that gas in order to get enough tanks, ravens, banshees, and whatever other units I need in a large enough quantity where I have enough money to build enough production buildings to cover for the slow build times of the Terran.
Currently, the only build I have come up with is a 1raxFE TvZ build revolving around keeping a single reaper alive and dragging as much crap down with me as possible. I am at a lost in midgame TvP and constantly resort to bad habits (i.e. 7 raxes on 2 bases and hope he doesn't have colossi).
Am I right assuming these things? Has anyone found a legitimate method to cover a transitional build, such as one that switches from bio to biomech? I’ve seen guides on hellion drops and pure marine games, but those seem directed at hoping the other guy reacts or overreacts and dies – not to mention the amount of resources you have to invest in rushing for drops or massing pure marines is enormous.
Also, what are your general builds going about the midgame and what kind of problems do you guys face? Are those problems related to the one's I've mentioned or are they different ones that I haven't mentioned?
|
I don't know why you want to do a Banshee/Tank/Raven/whatever composition. Until Siege Tanks become 2 supply and it's viable to do full turtle Mech like BW (the maxed tank army in SC2 is horribly weak as you get so few tanks), primarily Bio armies remain the best answer.
1 Rax FE is safe against zerg on most maps as long as you make a good wall at your natural with your second/third Rax (not applicable on maps like Xel Naga or Metalopolis - you need to invest heavily in Bunkers). 1 Rax FE into 3 or 4 Rax is generally fine against Protoss too on maps where you can build the CC at your natural and protect it with 2 Bunkers, otherwise it's not really worth it since they can keep you stuck up your ramp forever.
Terran T1 tech is their strongest, there's not much point to massing T2. Maybe to hit a timing push (Thor/Banshee/Marine/Raven timing pushes are pretty strong against Protoss, as are Marine/Tank/Raven pushes) but really the Siege Tank costing 3 supply just kills it as a late game power unit.
|
Terran and Timing Attacks = synonyms
Terran has always been this way. There are times when it is safe for you to be on the map and there are times when it isn't. (see boxer vs. sen for a recent example)
You did not mention "tank" one time in your post. They are the most cost effective unit in the terran army and allow you to set up lasting contains. Tank/Marine is one of (if not) the most effective mid-game army compositions in the game.
Terran sometimes needs to cut production from existing structures to get additional production. (the same goes for the other 2 races, zerg has to cut drones to make units, protoss can't constantly produce out of all the gateways if they want to add more) You do have bunkers and turrets.
|
I agree with you about Terran mid-game lacking strength but that can easily be dealt with.
Vs Toss: 1-2rax FE+bunkers will hold any early P aggression. I've really fallen in love with 250mm cannons lately also, amazing vs collosi to mitigate that heavy damage and allow me to keep a rine-heavy comp.
Vs Zerg I struggle quite a bit, but I usually harass quite a bit(4 rines->2 hellion->1 banshee) then pump some sort of quick tech such as a thor or BC+rines/rauder
|
You forgot that Terran also has the worst upgrade structure and has no way to force air control... 
Anyway one solution is to go into ultra turtle mode, secure your 3rd and eventually 4th bases, then overmax your army on upgraded BCs, building extra OC's so you can sack workers. This strategy includes liberal usage of PFs in chokes, and turret spam/sensor towers to protect vs harass. I've seen Drewbie use it effectively in several ladder games.
The problem, of course, is that games played this way will take 45 minutes to an hour, and I REALLY don't want to do that if it can be avoided...
If you want a TvP build for fast massed t2 I suggest you check out LZ's replay pack.
For TvZ you might want to check out Boxer's style, or Kawaii Rice. Basically constant marine attacks to delay while the tank count slowly builds up.
|
I'm pretty much in the same spot as you.
Hell I had one game where I was on 4 bases with 12 techlab raxes pumping marauders and I still lost after killing all the colossus since his gateway army reinforced faster. I think the correct idea as Terran is to turtle with Siege Tanks and harass with Reapers/Hellions/Banshees/Drops. As far as cost effectiveness goes, Siege Tanks cannot be beaten in that regard. That lets you have a smaller standing army while also teching, macroing and harassing. Since you'll be harassing, your opponent will have a hard time "taking the map."
This is all theory craft of course.
|
A couple of points :
2) Macro
Terrans may have expensive production facilities, but it is very easy to macro with hotkeys and rally points. Protoss can't micro and macro at the same time, we (Terrans) can. I think this is a huge advantage.
4) Timeliness
I fully disagree. What do you mean by slowest ?
We have a viable timing push/poke/harass at almost every stage of the early game. We can just choose the pace of early game, and other races can't.
About the army speed, you say that "we have to find a decent way to harass". Aren't medivacs the best way to harass in the entire game ? They're fast and mobile, and allow ridiculously cost-efficient attacks (hellion drops, double drops). Protoss have to use half their army to deal with a double drop, and you can attack with your main forces in the meanwhile.
About the questions at the end of your post, most of my builds are based on a bio aggression, into a fairly quick expo (6-8 minutes), into a bio/medivacs push while securing a third. This is the easiest/smoothest gameplay I've found so far (I find mech play being far too slow/passive). In all match-up. When on 3 bases you can transition into whatever you want quite easily.
|
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.
At the moment Im stuck in the 2 base 8+rax boat as most Terrans seem to be and just get fast upgs. Lately Im not even getting Factory/ports. Just more rax and keep constantly attacking - Yes Medivacs are great but you can hit some good timings vs a Z if they go ling in to Spire without roaches or banes. Good Spire snipe timing if you get lucky.
There isnt really a good Factory/Port mid-game build. - Yes Tanks (especially marine/tank can be really effective) But if toss get storms/immo/blink stalker It cant be smashed and if Zerg take air control and hit some kind of corruptor/brood timing its hard to hold.
Sure Thors are nice too but if you had that choice. Thors or Goliaths? I know what I'd choose and it wouldnt be the Thor. - Lovely ground DPS especially with upgrades and cannons but so costy and 6 supply damn one whole depot. AntiAir wise - Not even worth it vs any player who knows how to magic box - or split banshees decently. Maybe for use in TvT if opponent gets lots of vikings.
(Little off Topic after this)
Its funny how people say Mules are OP. If Terran didnt have mules the game would be unplayable for us. Next time you think about shouting off about mules being OP go play a custom vs AI one With and one without mules and see how much less you get as Terran without mules.
Stim and bunker nerfs hurt us hard, and the reason behind the Stim nerf is almost lolable. Nerfed because people had trouble Scouting - Thats a player issue not an imbalance issue. What about Scouting Fast leg/blink research or some kind of fast Roach borrow play?
And the bunker nerf just makes it harder to FE - Which you have to do on most maps/MU now to survive/get to mid-game.
Bit of a rant sry =D
|
Some of what you say is true but i think you make it out to be worse than it actually is.
Money: One of terran's big advantages is being able to expand in base, which is really hard to scout for the other races until observers/overseer is out. So i dont know think money is a big problem for Terran. Yes we will behind in workers due to larvae and chrono but we have mules to even it out.
Macro: Yes we need to make more buildings and production facilities than the other races. This is why its important to have a well thought out build that is efficient. Do not play too reactive as a Terran player. "Oh hes getting templar i should get ghosts" "oh now he is getting zealots, i should make blue flame hellions". Playing this way will get you killed because you'll need several new buildings to tech switch that fast and you'll be severely behind in supply. Have a well thought out plan and you wont have a problem getting the necessary production facilites down
|
I disagree, T midgame is the best of the three races, we have so many options with bio upgrades, medivacs, drops, banshees, hellions. It is the Terran late game that is hurting us. All of your macro points you made are magnified when the game goes late. On top of that the T army is just very very slow, and requires you to be able to setup a mid game positon very fast.
|
This is actually very insightful OP. I mean I don't think terran is weak in a general sense, I just really dislike some of those points, where some parts of terran play are so ridiculously bad compared to the other races, mainly the production buildings/tech switching.
It just breaks my heart, since it is what makes rine so important. Rines are versatile enough that aslong as you protect them with other units, no tech switch will *totally* own you, and therefore in all 3 MUs you can bank up on those raxes and don't require to tech switch hardcore. But I mean it's pretty dull to make the rest of your army consist of protecting/killing your opponents AoE units(and hence why warp in templars were so strong in PvT)
|
No offense, I really don't mean to sound harsh when I say this but you sound like a Zerg player.
I'm not saying you should switch to Zerg or that you whine like certain demographics on this forum--simply put, you sound like someone who can't see the forest past the trees.
When I used to play Zerg I was highly upset and hampered by the nature of the drone mechanic. While I knew it's power to produce units was great--I kept making the wrong call on which units to make. You see, when a Zerg player mistakes building one unit instead of another, that player doesn't get his larva back. Every time the moment came to decide whether to build a roach, or drone, or muta, or zergling, or whatever--you were always afraid that you were making the wrong choice.
Now I play Terran, and strangely enough I'm stuck with the exact same problem. As terrans we need to make a choice, early on, what unit composition we will be producing. All bio, all mech, all air, biomech, mechair, bioair or biomechair. The more we emphasize one over the other the stronger and larger our army becomes. We focus it too much and much like zerg we end up making 20 drones just as the 6gate hits and we die with only 2 zerglings out.
The way Zerg learned to handle it was to figure out how to stretch the flexibility of their units. Little things like depending on speedlings to stop hellions, banelings in overlords to weaken the Protoss deathball, etc... In a sense, they began to use their units inefficiently in order for their macro to become more streamlined.
For example, vs Zerg I depend on Turrets, Planetary Fortresses and Hellions to maintain map control from the early game to the midgame. Early Hellions stops zerg from running speedlings off of creep. Turrets+Marines prevents the Mutalisks from hopping in and out of your base allowing you to push forward through the map. I use Hellions to get me a safe expansion, and I use turrets+marines to allow me to get a third. Once on 3bases I either commit to heavy mech/bio/air (mostly bio-mech) apply pressure to get a 4rth started. The 4rth base usually is the main trigger that makes them push hard for the win--crashing their units into my siege line. I normally am able to control 1/4-1/3 of the map while my army smashes expansions that are nearby.
What I mean to say is that each expansion will need a different unit setup to gain and hold. This unit setup cannot really be reactive to what your opponent does, it needs to be transitory to what your build order begins with.
The reason I use Hellions early on is because I need a reactored barracks and tanks to survive the midgame vs zerg. That meant that I needed a build order that gave me early game control while giving me the factory and reactor I needed to transition into. I normally transition to heavy bio play because I need the engineering bay to survive the midgame transition. my lategame has mostly been Thors because I grab an armory at some point to get +2 from the engineering bay. Because I have thors I have to turtle during the mid-late game transition due to lost mobility. This means more bunkers, turrets and planetary fortresses.
I like dictating my build order and transitions based on my desired midgame setup. This is usually dictated by how much map control I want to have at certain points in the game. The amount of map control I get dictates whether or not I get an expansion moreso than either timings or the opponent's economic status.
I actually find that playing this way has improved my midgame drastically for the better. I now lose to my macro more than anything else. Rarely do I lose feeling as if I couldn't have done anything. I now can *feel* when my macro has slipped, when my micro is subpar. Build order losses have stopped happening for the most part, cheeses no longer feel random, and I usually am at my strongest during the midgame *if* the transition went smoothly.
Were my turrets late? I don't get my 3rd in time--the midgame sucks.
Did I use my early hellions to harass instead of to contain and in doing so lost all my hellions? I don't get my natural in time and the midgame sucks.
And so on and so forth.
|
On April 20 2011 08:33 RedMosquito wrote:
Some of what you say is true but i think you make it out to be worse than it actually is.
Money: One of terran's big advantages is being able to expand in base, which is really hard to scout for the other races until observers/overseer is out. So i dont know think money is a big problem for Terran. Yes we will behind in workers due to larvae and chrono but we have mules to even it out.
Macro: Yes we need to make more buildings and production facilities than the other races. This is why its important to have a well thought out build that is efficient. Do not play too reactive as a Terran player. "Oh hes getting templar i should get ghosts" "oh now he is getting zealots, i should make blue flame hellions". Playing this way will get you killed because you'll need several new buildings to tech switch that fast and you'll be severely behind in supply. Have a well thought out plan and you wont have a problem getting the necessary production facilites down
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?
|
On April 20 2011 09:11 Velladin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 08:33 RedMosquito wrote:
Some of what you say is true but i think you make it out to be worse than it actually is.
Money: One of terran's big advantages is being able to expand in base, which is really hard to scout for the other races until observers/overseer is out. So i dont know think money is a big problem for Terran. Yes we will behind in workers due to larvae and chrono but we have mules to even it out.
Macro: Yes we need to make more buildings and production facilities than the other races. This is why its important to have a well thought out build that is efficient. Do not play too reactive as a Terran player. "Oh hes getting templar i should get ghosts" "oh now he is getting zealots, i should make blue flame hellions". Playing this way will get you killed because you'll need several new buildings to tech switch that fast and you'll be severely behind in supply. Have a well thought out plan and you wont have a problem getting the necessary production facilites down
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?
What he is saying is that since Terran seems to be the race least able to do an easy tech switch--maybe the focus should be to refine and improve the stuff that terran is actually good at instead of saying "Terran is bad at ______ so we should figure out how we can be good at ______"
|
I agree with Iokac. He basically said everything i was going to say. You are basically discribing a zerg style of play.
Unit composition
Terran are the hardest to tell what kind of tear unit are which. Such as marine tier 1 but what about marauder? They tier 1 or 1.5? Then does that mean everything in the factory tier 2? Those that mean everything in the starport tier 3? Medivac tier 3? Viking tier 3 but they seem kinda weak to be tier 3.... TvZ in broodwar terran would go bio heavy and then get science vessel to go against zerg tier 3 (ultras/defilers). Tier 1 unit(marine) + Tier 3 support unit(vessels) vs tier 3 unit(ultras/defilers) + tier 1 support (zergling).
Zerg on the other hand has the best way to discribe tier 3 cause they have 3 lvl of hatcher = 1, Lair = 2, Hive = 3. So it easy to categorize tier 3 units.
Mobility
You speak mobility but I think terran are not as immobile as you make them sound. Terran well known for their drops and hellion and banshee are rather good at map control which isn't all that bad.
In general, the mid game, terran is suppose to be all up in their enemy face with constant aggression. In broodwar, the mid game was when terran start going aggressive against the zerg. Zerg would try to drone up alot in the early game because they know the chance they will have in the mid to late game is minimal. Same goes for TvP in broodwar, terran will start to accumulate the good number of tanks to move out at this point and secure map control and gain bases and if the opportunity arrives, they will be aggressive and go for the kill.
|
So I guess no one listened to him and posted a VOD with pointless theorycrafting.
|
Money, in terran's case, should not be a problem whatsoever. Almost every single skill on the OC saves you or gives you money. Supply drops instantly save you 100 minerals that you can spend, or MULES give you 270 minerals AND they stack. Personally, since i play all 3 races, i think that Terran mines out bases faster than all the other races.
Terran macro, granted, isn't the greatest thing in the world. You have one production facility, which can have 2 add-ons: Reactors and Tech Labs. Reactors let you produce twice as fast, but only of the most basic unit. Tech Labs let you create stronger, more durable units, but only one at a time. This is significantly less versatile than Protoss macro, let alone Zerg. Warp Gates also allow for some mobility of production.
Tanks were also not mentioned in the post, which are a huge part of Terran's ground army.
I would say that terran's main weakness is mobility. Their most mobile units are hellions and air. Hellions are overall terrible against mid-game unit compositions unless you reach a huge critical mass. The air in itself is easily denied, and leaves your ground army weak. Medivacs are the only way for terran to get from place to place quickly, but are easily sniped by stalkers.
|
As a terran player I think that something is actually really underused : thorship. That's not as much money in your medivac as you may think (compared to 4maraudeurs for example) and if you're obviously not going to use them to harass, it allows your army to be a lot more mobile if you've thor/bio (or like TLO, thor/hellion/bio). In those case the thor is the only thing that slow your army, and you can drop it quickly from the medivac, more quickly than anything in fact, so if you don't fly over the void and along your army you should not be sniped.
And that lets the possiblity to do some really cool micro during the battle. (drop thor in range for 250mm/in front of your rines, pick it when in low health...).
But for tanks, impossible, too risky to have to drop two tanks by medivac and you still need to siege.
|
Regarding to RedMosquito i believe we have to play reactivate; quote from him: "Oh hes getting templar i should get ghosts" "oh now he is getting zealots, i should make blue flame hellions". Playing this way will get you killed because you'll need several new buildings to tech switch that fast and you'll be severely behind in supply." like hell you have to play reactive if he gets templar you bet most people are gonna get ghost and if he gets zealots blue flame might be smart. Hell a great example is colossus viking which Terran doesn't get viking in reaction to colossus? You, don't have to play reactively but if you want to stay alive you should.
As for Imres statement about Thor ship, I believe that it is a good idea to use it, but for each Thor you need to carry in your Thor ship that's 1 medivac you cant send to harass and I believe that it is a bit risky versus blink stalker, if you're not careful you will lose it quickly.
|
On April 20 2011 08:20 Kostoglotov wrote:
A couple of points :
2) Macro
Terrans may have expensive production facilities, but it is very easy to macro with hotkeys and rally points. Protoss can't micro and macro at the same time, we (Terrans) can. I think this is a huge advantage.
If this was truely an advantage Protoss would turn all their warp gates back into gateways when moving out. They could then macro EXACTLY the same as a Terran (macro with hotkeys and have rally points)... but they choose not to because it's not an advantage.
|
SHAD UP GoonSack!!! Your making too much sense, your going to be the black sheep.
|
Interesting topic.
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.
|
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.
|
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.
|
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?
|
I don't know that Protoss is actually stronger in the midgame than are Terran...they do have the warpgate mechanic, which is very useful, but Protoss units just aren't as worth the money as Terran units are until they get a big enough death-ball on the field. The edge Protoss gets from chronoboost is maybe greater than the mule, but I'm not convinced that makes up for the edge Terran has in cost-efficiency prior to the late-game.
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.
|
I'm currently in the middle of an epic 6 game losing streak in TvP against a practice partner of mine... so yea, shit feels weak bro. Real weak.
|
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.
|
On April 20 2011 09:11 Velladin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 08:33 RedMosquito wrote:
Some of what you say is true but i think you make it out to be worse than it actually is.
Money: One of terran's big advantages is being able to expand in base, which is really hard to scout for the other races until observers/overseer is out. So i dont know think money is a big problem for Terran. Yes we will behind in workers due to larvae and chrono but we have mules to even it out.
Macro: Yes we need to make more buildings and production facilities than the other races. This is why its important to have a well thought out build that is efficient. Do not play too reactive as a Terran player. "Oh hes getting templar i should get ghosts" "oh now he is getting zealots, i should make blue flame hellions". Playing this way will get you killed because you'll need several new buildings to tech switch that fast and you'll be severely behind in supply. Have a well thought out plan and you wont have a problem getting the necessary production facilites down
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.
|
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?
|
Really glad to see a detailed post like this, good job OP.
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.
|
On April 20 2011 13:42 Azzur wrote:Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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.
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.
|
Terran is extremely dependent on having a consistent and fluid mid game plan that both reacts to the opponent and forces a reaction from them. If you do not do this, you will certainly lose to standard Protoss Colossus balls, and will have 1 push to beat the Zerg.
|
On April 20 2011 14:20 KiLL_ORdeR wrote:Show nested quote +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?
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.
|
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?
|
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.
|
First off I think its a bit hypocritical to expect others to post vods and replays in order to back up their arguements when you don't make the same effort yourself. I dont understand the hate towards theorycrafting. Seriously this is public forum about a videogame, its not a thesis defense panel.
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.
|
I think you're analysis is a bit overcomplicated and it makes certain statements that whilst they are true they don't really prove what you're trying to say. Allow me to analyse the TvZ midgame.
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.
|
Terran actually has a strong mid game (2 base vs 2 base). It's the late game (3+ base) that's the problem.
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.
|
I feel that 3 base vs 3 base is fine tvp though, link, but it depends on so many factors you cannot simply say "oh we both got 3 base at the same time with the same uppgrades and supply and other shit and.." no. I think that's far too much of a generalisation and it really depends on how you go to there in the first place.
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.
|
Yea, 3 base vs 3 base T v P staying on bio is not bad for terran. I guess it's still considered mid game around then.
If P goes for a zealot phoenix colossi army, his phoenixes should be able to deter any attempts to drop. Otherwise, good cannons /w dt warp-ins do relatively well too.
|
The problem of Terran isn't that it's weaker than other races in any specific state, it's the lack of flexibility and the way T has a hard time switching between things once you commit to something. As Zerg, you have fewer upgrade paths and a single production building; as Protoss, again you have fewer upgrades + warpgates - and your warpgate units by themselves are more potent in lategame, but as Terran it's highly difficult to adapt and keep up; and once you commit to one style, or one area of the map, or one timing push, it is very difficult to do something else.
The thing with worker production is also very true; while MULEs are pretty OP, there's no way you can match the insane saturation speed of Zerg, and Protoss with chronoboosts is at the very least on par, possibly better in that regard.
It's true that Terran is 'all about timing pushes', as some other poster said - but I feel it's not like that in a good way; we HAVE to push out with our upgrade / research / unit timings, because outside of these we are very helpless offensively, often weak defensively as well - whereas other races are much more flexible in that regard.
Not saying that Terran is straight up 'worse' or weaker than the other races, but I do feel that it is much more constricted, and has more things to look out for.
|
Hmm, timing attacks? I don't really know what you mean by relying on those exactly. Maybe in TvZ where there are all sorts of 2 base timing attacks and pressures and so forth but in TvP there is no real timing attack that I'm aware off other then really late thorzain style 50 billion thor special tactics.
Like, in TvP there are 2 very clear timing windows when Terran has map control. The first is between when conc shells finish and when warpgate tech finishes and when, after both players have their first expansion finished, between when Terran gets his medivac tech out and the Protoss finishes teching and masses upa a big ball of units. But you don't use these windows to push because you'll just get wtfowned by sentries, you use them to gain as many tiny advantages as you can so it leads into a big advantage later when you have to confront his army directly, something you HAVE to do eventually. That's not a race being bound to timing attacks, it's a race that has to exploit the other's lack of mobility and his dependance on one large battle as opposed to many smaller ones.
This is playing bio ofc. I suppose if you're playing bio/mech or mech then there are certain timings you can exploit but I wouldnt' say it defines the race as opposed to the others.
|
On April 20 2011 23:38 iaguz wrote:
Hmm, timing attacks? I don't really know what you mean by relying on those exactly. Maybe in TvZ where there are all sorts of 2 base timing attacks and pressures and so forth but in TvP there is no real timing attack that I'm aware off other then really late thorzain style 50 billion thor special tactics.
Like, in TvP there are 2 very clear timing windows when Terran has map control. The first is between when conc shells finish and when warpgate tech finishes and when, after both players have their first expansion finished, between when Terran gets his medivac tech out and the Protoss finishes teching and masses upa a big ball of units. But you don't use these windows to push because you'll just get wtfowned by sentries, you use them to gain as many tiny advantages as you can so it leads into a big advantage later when you have to confront his army directly, something you HAVE to do eventually. That's not a race being bound to timing attacks, it's a race that has to exploit the other's lack of mobility and his dependance on one large battle as opposed to many smaller ones.
This is playing bio ofc. I suppose if you're playing bio/mech or mech then there are certain timings you can exploit but I wouldnt' say it defines the race as opposed to the others.
There are a lot of good timing pushes in TvP. you mention concussive shell, but there are also timing attacks for bio when your first medivacs and ghosts pop at around 90-100 food that has been around since the beta, and tank/marine timings are becoming more and more popular.
You also mention mech play which is pretty popular, especially in europe (I don't know of any koreans or north/latin americans who play mech, but I'm sure there are at least a few as it is a very strong style)
On April 20 2011 15:12 XXXSmOke wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2011 14:20 KiLL_ORdeR wrote: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? 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.
No, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm basically saying is that you can either play pure mech, pure bio, or mech with a few bio units sprinkled in, and do really well for yourself if you maintain steady unit production.
you aren't terrible mid-game as mech. have you ever even played mech? yes it is stronger on some maps than others, but the same can be said about any strategy. you can't attack mid-game as mech, but you are impossible to kill, so if you understand how to control space on the map, then you are extremely powerful.
I think link0 says it best, that late game terran is the problem, not mid-game.
|
I've always thought of Terran as only having two modes: early-game and late-game. The reason I say this is because the only thing that usually changes is the amount of bases. The reason I say that the mid game is weak is because it's the transitional period where you get more production buildings, more workers for a 3rd base (depends on how many works you already made), start fighting for map control to secure the 3rd base, and doing all of the above as fast as you can.
The worker problem is annoying because you can't make them as fast as you would like.
The macro problem is annoying because we have to mass a certain amount of buildings and get a certain amount of units before we get enough benefits from it
(ex: compare getting 1 factory, 6 tanks, siege mode, and putting that in your army compared to 3 factories, 6 tanks, siege mode, and putting that in your army; it takes less time to reach the minimum mass of effective tanks).
The map problem is not as problematic, but it's still an important part of any race.
The time problem is extremely troublesome because terran units are slow to make, slow to move, and have a large minimum mass to be effective. You need a lot of marines, a lot of marauders, even a lot of tanks. There are very few units that have a low minimum effective mass and are considered cheap. This also causes a macro and a money problem. The worst part of this is that, even though our units are the most cost efficient, they aren't efficient by themselves while Zerg and Protoss don't have to worry about this as much with chrono, warpgates, and larvae mechanics.
This transitional part to the late-game, in my opinion, is the weakest part because it takes us so much time to get workers, buildings, and units. Yes, our army is efficient. Yes, our mules are pretty nice. But the amount of time we get there is pretty unacceptable unless you're just turtling hardcore like Goody.
This large amount of time creates timing windows where you can't do anything vs a decent opponent that scouts.
For every reason you give that the late game is weak, I can relate it to something in the mid game.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
I don't really get what your OP is asking. It's a long list of complaints, many of which I disagree with, followed by "How do I transition into Terran midgame?"
Going to have to close this, despite being 3 pages.
|
Calgary25980 Posts
This is a pretty ridiculous request:
My current goal is to find a build that gets me safely to 6 gases and enough scvs in a timely fashion to support that gas in order to get enough tanks, ravens, banshees, and whatever other units I need in a large enough quantity where I have enough money to build enough production buildings to cover for the slow build times of the Terran.
"I want a build that surely gets me 6 gases where I can make anything."
Really?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
