EPTAnd we all know stalkers are the most inefficient fighting unit in Sc2, almost as bad as mutas.
[H/D] HTs vs Colossi - Page 3
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
willeesmalls
United States477 Posts
And we all know stalkers are the most inefficient fighting unit in Sc2, almost as bad as mutas. | ||
|
shimpoe
88 Posts
But as for strategically, I like a style that I think inka was doing, which was DT drops into HT. But as for straight up HT builds, it can be kind of nice not building out of a Robo constantly because that can allow you to typically afford 1-2 extra gateways instead, which makes an army a bit more mobile. The twilight council has some nice upgrades, so you can easily deviate a build for whatever reason early on. Like aiming for HT's and just swapping your build to mass blink stalkers instead at the last minute before you put down that templar archives. Also you could rush out weapon upgrades a bit smoother as well if that makes a difference. Feedback is what I would say is the most underrated skill in the game. Seems like I've hardly ever seen it used, but it's hilarious the amount of clutch things you can do with a good feedback (like destroying a medivac drop, banshee, etc). I've never had a problem with "HT are so slow wahh" Because really, if you move any army long distances it's going to limbo-line and you have to wait up a bit for it anyways. Just get out of the 1 control group syndrome and these 'problems' are far less apparent. Whenever I went HT's in games, it always felt like I surprised the opponent, which is admittedly gimmicky, but also kind of good. Seems like HT is the road less taken, so it's less expected. With a real early game HT storm push, having an archon or two in low supply battles is actually pretty amazing. Archons are not nearly as terrible as they're made out to be. Sure they're clumsy (if you don't micro) but they do pretty respectable damage to certain units, and have a decent enough chunk of HP. Now you might not go out of your way to build archons, but they are just a cherry-on-top to HT's. But usually a couple good storms and feedback is all HT need to do to pay for themselves, so having an archon or two around after a small battle to supplement your army a bit is a nice bonus. Plus they're Nal_Ra's favorite unit, can't argue with him, he cooks rice like a beast. Of course none of this is to say colossus is a bad path either, really they're both great. It's actually surprising how flexible it is, having multiple very solid paths like that. | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
The colossus is better early on in general because the robo bay is generally better then the council early on, it's less gas intensive and much better in small to medium sized battle's as well as attrition battle's. The colossus has some harder counters in anti-air units but doesn't do friendly damage. The real use offcourse relies on the matchups: PvP: colossi have no real counter here (like corruptors and vikings) and are way more effective then templar in zealot vs zealot fights, colossi is definately best and thus colossi are better then templar in this mu as long as it's ground based. PvZ: colossi excel against lings but can be countered quite hard by corruptors or infestors. HT are great against hydra and decent against roaches AND help to feedback the corruptors and infestors that counter your colossi. Archons are also at their best in this Mu as everything is biological and there is no EMP or anything to weaken your archons. A mix of both is best in this matchup imo as they compliment eachother, only colossi is really weak against infestors / corruptors and only HT is weak against lings. Colossi range is not that crucial in this matchup imo as in other matchups by the way. PvT: colossi are great against bio as they outrange it and stop the kiting. Immortals and robo tech are also really good to get fast in this matchup making colossi even better as it's a smooth transition (whereas PvZ or PvP often have more pure gateway play early on). Vikings are a decent counter but they are easier to counter then corruptors are. HT are a bit lacking in this matchup imo, EMP counters it quite well and bio armies are way faster then hydra's so that storming them forces you to run your own zealots through the storm often. Archons are quite crap as well in this MU as they are slow to reach bio and suck vs mech. Colossi are good in all three matchups whereas HT are only really good against zerg imo. Against zerg colossi are also at their worst as zerg has the hardest counter to them in the corruptor and infestor. Against terran and protoss im quite confident that investing in colossi is almost always better then in HT. Corruptor 150m 100g (14+6) * 1.2 - 1 = 23 dmg per hit against colossi (assuming corruption is applied) resulting in 12.1 DPS at range 6 200 hitpoints with 2 armor Viking 150m 75g (10+4) * 2 -2 = 26 dmg per volley against colossi resulting in 13 DPS at range 9 125 hitpoints with no armor Vikings slightly outdamage corruptors but though this evens out if the colossi gets armor upgrades. Corruptors outdo vikings because they got alot more hitpoints though meaning it is hardly effective for protoss to focus them in a battle whereas vikings are quite easily sniped. Guardian shield also cuts the viking DPS more then it does corruptors. | ||
|
Surrealz
United States449 Posts
On June 09 2010 07:51 Anon06 wrote: I have great beef with Hts they infuriate me, so I prefer collosi. HTs move too slow meaning they are always out of position. Example A: you move your army up ready to engage the enemy army, you troops move up and suffer heavy losses while your slow templar move up to cast storm late. Expample B: you move your army up ready to engage the enemy army, you troops move up and suffer an EMP while your slow templar move up to cast feedback. Example C: you move up realize the situation is unfavorable and order your troops back the high templar lag behind your army and get picked off. Psyonic storm is negate-able. example: you cast psystorm on mass hydras, using creep they immediately move out taking minimal damage. (zerg rarely engage full scale off creep) HTs don't grant sight up cliffs. HTs don't intimidate the enemy. HTs don't reach critical mass, at least not permanently. (out of energy) HTs can't reach siege tanks safely as opposed to collosi who can relatively. HT tech tree does not provide access to observers, knowledge is power. (observer is posted twice because this line provides emphasis on scouting and the one below on number of options) HT tech tree ops up only 2.5 units(HT DT archon), robo tree opens up four units(prisim, obs, immo, colloi) HT do not synergize well with chareglots (aside from cost) as they hurt your chargelots with psystorm when they rush in. So I highly recommend robo first and HTs as an after thought. 1- Yea, colossus go up cliffs. This is completely awesome. 2- HTs DO intimidate the enemy. They will be moving around more than usual like mexican jumping beans expecting to try and dodge storms 3- HTs DO reach critical mass, but a different kind. They instead reach a point where when you have like 6+ of them, their storms are not dodgeable, and they are literally hitting the ENTIRE enemy ball with 80 dmg storms 4- HTs nor Collosi can reach siege tanks that easily. But ya I'd give a slight edge to collosi here 5- While the HT tech tree doenst give access to observers, it also allows for blink + charge which will bolster up your army. Also, you can always throw down a robo for the obs. However I will agree that this is the MAIN weakness of a non-robo build 6- This is sort of pointless as we are discussing HTs, not the amount of other units you can make (not to mention obs + prism cannot attack, and collosi require another building) 7- The chargelots problem is true, but also keep in mind that chargelots dont really synergize with sentry/collosi armies as well. I can't tell you how many times I've FFd my chargelots behind the enemy line that I want to keep from reaching my Collosi. Also, with a collosus-centered build you want more stalkers to combat the inevitable anti air, so chargelots arent even used that much there anyways. I think that HTs are really underused right now, and are going to see ALOT more use in Phase 2 of the beta. Their high cost and lack of scouting (no obs) are really limiting them right now, but I'm really hoping people find a better use for them that is more viable other than incorporating them in an already critical mass army.. | ||
|
KaiserJohan
Sweden1808 Posts
As Z, however....you have no super-counter like EMP. You have no counter to it besides trying to snipe them of (gl with that, the tossball will make it cost dearly). Sure roaches can survive a storm but damned they are dmged and easly finished of. But the worst part is hydras. Hydras are slow as HELL when not on creep, and unless you are defending don't assume you'll have creep. And then if you have to get them all out of a storm.. 1) They'll take alot of dmg before they are out of the storm due to slow speed. 2) His army will snipe them of OR slay your roach tanks since they lack support. If you have a good number of HT's, Z ground is just screwed because he can't micro away all his units a hundred times and think he'll have an army left . Colossi are a piece of cake compared to HT's. Left-over mutas+corruptors+broods handle them just fine. The only hard part about colossi is that your air must suicide into them and kill them or they will faceroll hydras when they enter battle. T's vikings counter colossi easly, it's rediculous, with their 9 range. Corruptors just suck in comparison to the viking. Tbh buff corruptor range, it costs more than a viking but is inferior in every single way. | ||
|
Surrealz
United States449 Posts
I played a PvT the other night where I stormed like 5 times, got the other guys army down REALLY low, but his army actually was able to stim and still rip through my incredibly weak blink stalkers. Even with proper micro I still got eaten up, as stalkers just cant "clean up" like colossi can. Zealots seem to be out of the picture to me. Even chargelots get eaten alive before even getting there. I feel like stalkers are a better meat shield. More HP, and can actually ATTACK the bio ball terran usually has. The only thing I can think of to combat these problems is to do a TOTAL SURROUND with FF, where you literally "box in" a good portion of the other army and use all your storms there, literally just killing them all with storm upon storm upon..storm.. EMP is always a concern, but its not really that hard to micro your HTs in a separate control group and avoid getting hit by it. Almost like a surprise cavalry. | ||
|
Zealot Lord
Hong Kong747 Posts
Only way I can think of is to get a quick stargate phoenix to scout - but is there any better way? I prefer not to get cannons (unless you are absolutely sure theres a banshee rush coming) because they can severely hinder your ability to push and be aggressive. Some say hallucinated phoenix scout, but I find that to be way too late to start deciding on what tech path to choose. | ||
|
TossFloss
Canada606 Posts
On June 09 2010 09:59 Zealot Lord wrote: For those Protoss players who go fast HT against Terran bioballs, how do you exactly determine for sure there isn't a banshee rush coming? Like say you send a stalker or two to poke at the walled up Terran ramp and you see a few marines/mauraders there fending you off. But that doesn't mean he's committing to MMM right? You can't go for HT and Robo observers because you'll obviously have insufficient troops to deal with a early mid game push. Only way I can think of is to get a quick stargate phoenix to scout - but is there any better way? I prefer not to get cannons (unless you are absolutely sure theres a banshee rush coming) because they can severely hinder your ability to push and be aggressive. Some say hallucinated phoenix scout, but I find that to be way too late to start deciding on what tech path to choose. Either stargate->phoenix or robo->obs. Maybe someone has a straight up TC build which works; I don't. Because of banshee range, static defense is a poor investment. | ||
|
perfectflaw72
Canada94 Posts
1. say your up against a zerg with mass hydra roach, colussus would help more because of the vast contities of units but HTs would be more effective versus a hydra ling army because they are light 2. Colussus are not hard to protect if you keep your army togther and being one of the units that can walk over other units its stay safe with your stalkers HTS give you more option but really Colussus are the easyier way to go BONUS: you can get obs out faster with the robos | ||
|
Markwerf
Netherlands3728 Posts
Without robo tech banshee's can be a problem. You can't really prevent bio stimkiting you without colossi. Well placed EMP's can screw you over, especially as you might lack proper scouting without obs HT aren't so great against mech really, with the range on storm being too short. HT being gas heavy forces them to be paired with zealots basically which is 'ok' with fast legs i guess but can be problematic early game. HT can work occasionally against terran if you opened starport as you will have scouting, a banshee counter and mobility then already. But otherwise colossi are way better and probably still are. | ||
|
Inkarnate
Canada840 Posts
| ||
|
Anon06
United States203 Posts
On June 09 2010 09:19 Surrealz wrote: 1- Yea, colossus go up cliffs. This is completely awesome. 2- HTs DO intimidate the enemy. They will be moving around more than usual like mexican jumping beans expecting to try and dodge storms 3- HTs DO reach critical mass, but a different kind. They instead reach a point where when you have like 6+ of them, their storms are not dodgeable, and they are literally hitting the ENTIRE enemy ball with 80 dmg storms 4- HTs nor Collosi can reach siege tanks that easily. But ya I'd give a slight edge to collosi here 5- While the HT tech tree doenst give access to observers, it also allows for blink + charge which will bolster up your army. Also, you can always throw down a robo for the obs. However I will agree that this is the MAIN weakness of a non-robo build 6- This is sort of pointless as we are discussing HTs, not the amount of other units you can make (not to mention obs + prism cannot attack, and collosi require another building) 7- The chargelots problem is true, but also keep in mind that chargelots dont really synergize with sentry/collosi armies as well. I can't tell you how many times I've FFd my chargelots behind the enemy line that I want to keep from reaching my Collosi. Also, with a collosus-centered build you want more stalkers to combat the inevitable anti air, so chargelots arent even used that much there anyways. I think that HTs are really underused right now, and are going to see ALOT more use in Phase 2 of the beta. Their high cost and lack of scouting (no obs) are really limiting them right now, but I'm really hoping people find a better use for them that is more viable other than incorporating them in an already critical mass army.. 1: they don't even need to go up the cliff, they have sight range as flying meaning you can have it on low ground and blink stalkers up to high ground as if you had an observer/phoenix around. 2: arguable i suppose, but i see high level players FF behind the enemy forces so they cant run from collosi and chargelots. 3:they are, unless in a horrible horrible location, and can be preemptively countered with ghost emps, where as lances can't be avoided ever and even with emp can still deal damage. 4:siege tanks have attack priority on HTs and longer range, where collosi have equal range and no priority I've seen, could be wrong. 5:"Also, you can always throw down a robo for the obs." also you can always throw a council for upgrade, now ask yourself which is better to have first? i vote information to affect any other decisions from that point on. 6:Its completely relevant op asks which tree is important to go first as he realizes you can have both. here's his quote: "4. Robo tech vs Twilight council: In long enough games you usually end up with both, but the one you get first will make a large effect on the unit of choice." 7: that seems to be caused by your own mistake, you're supposed to force field behind the enemy forces so they cant retreat from your chargelots and collosi, which synergizes way better then blowing up your own units. they ARE underused and that's because they are limited and underwhelming. also a point i missed earlier HT needs an upgrade to be functional, collosi need and upgrade to do their job better, but they can be used w/o the upgrade at least. | ||
|
DEVIANT
New Zealand30 Posts
This thread has been really helpful in making me think of using them more, however whenever I hear someone say something about morphing archons, I skip to the next post right away. Seriously, this is the worst unit in the whole game. I really hope they give it a big armour buff or damage buff, or even better, shield buff. Units that cost that much and take up two previously useful units and some extra time should have more usefulness than the two they replaced. Not less usefulness than one of those two units... | ||
|
Seltsam
United States343 Posts
On June 09 2010 14:29 DEVIANT wrote: I've always been really slack with HTs. I've used every single other unit in the game, with varying degrees of success, but not the HT's (except in AI games for training). This thread has been really helpful in making me think of using them more, however whenever I hear someone say something about morphing archons, I skip to the next post right away. Seriously, this is the worst unit in the whole game. I really hope they give it a big armour buff or damage buff, or even better, shield buff. Units that cost that much and take up two previously useful units and some extra time should have more usefulness than the two they replaced. Not less usefulness than one of those two units... Yeah morphing Archons when your HT have energy for storms is retarded, but if you have a few HTs that are out of energy and are out of position, throw them into an Archon. A lot of times, HTs die only after 1-2 storms, and if you get off those storms then morph them. It's just about knowing when your HTs' usefulness has reached a point where its likelihood of death outweighs its likelihood of gaining more energy for storms. Used correctly, Archons are essentially free. I feel like a main issue with HTs atm is that they aren't as easy to use. That's true, but I think HT are a much less dangerous unit. Think about how much they do to allow the rest of your forces to rip through everything significantly faster. It's true that a High Templar vs. a Colossus would show that a Colossus will get significantly more kills than a High Templar, but I would argue that that data would be skewed, as you have to see them working separately in different situations. I have become more and more enamored with this HT + Stalker/Blink combination that allows me to severely cripple their units with 2-3 well-placed storms, after which my Stalkers Blink into strategic positions (as in, I don't click 1 control group and blink all my stalkers in one place; I form a good concave or surround), and they proceed to tear up just about everything. I don't think anyone here would be surprised when I said that ~20 Stalkers can rip through ~20 Hydralisks at 1 HP. I might lose my High Templar, but their storms typically allow all but just a tiny few of my Stalkers (or whatever units I happen to have) to live. The key is to have an extremely mobile army so that you can engage your opponent's at an area of your choosing -- specifically, where you've placed some High Templar on an overlooking cliff. In tandem with that, I usually put 1-2 HT in my main army as backups. My HT die pretty fast, unless I can get them to an Archon before it happens, but a good storm or two ends up sparing so many other units that the investment is well worth it. And, while I am of the mindset that the Archon is really not that bad at all, if I were to propose a change, it wouldn't be an attack/shield upgrade. It would just be the ability to morph an Archon back into 2 High Templar. Then the Archon could act as a sort of "these Templar are useless but will die, so this way they can maybe live for a bit longer" way. | ||
|
shimpoe
88 Posts
On June 09 2010 14:29 DEVIANT wrote: I've always been really slack with HTs. I've used every single other unit in the game, with varying degrees of success, but not the HT's (except in AI games for training). This thread has been really helpful in making me think of using them more, however whenever I hear someone say something about morphing archons, I skip to the next post right away. Seriously, this is the worst unit in the whole game. I really hope they give it a big armour buff or damage buff, or even better, shield buff. Units that cost that much and take up two previously useful units and some extra time should have more usefulness than the two they replaced. Not less usefulness than one of those two units... Yeah it's posts like this that are just hilarious to me. You'd actually rather just throw away energy-less HTs at your enemy for free kills, than warp them into a unit that can at least take some damage, and do some damage. Right. If you think people are just making HTs and immediately morphing them into archons, then you're completely missing the point of them and doing it wrong. We get that archons aren't the best unit, but they're a lot better than a complete dead weight. | ||
|
Skyro
United States1823 Posts
I remember one game my opponent snuck a bunch of lings around the back of my army while he engaged with his hydras from the front. I simply stormed on top of the HTs he was targetting with his zerglings and morphed them into archons. You have to remember that the instant HTs morph they get the archon's shields so they can tank quite a bit. The same goes for if they try to snipe your HTs w/ mutas as I've seen zerg players try to do. Also just to repeat nobody is recommending to go quick HTs. It's strictly a 2+ base, late game option. | ||
|
Skyro
United States1823 Posts
On June 09 2010 11:54 Anon06 wrote: 1: they don't even need to go up the cliff, they have sight range as flying meaning you can have it on low ground and blink stalkers up to high ground as if you had an observer/phoenix around. 2: arguable i suppose, but i see high level players FF behind the enemy forces so they cant run from collosi and chargelots. 3:they are, unless in a horrible horrible location, and can be preemptively countered with ghost emps, where as lances can't be avoided ever and even with emp can still deal damage. 4:siege tanks have attack priority on HTs and longer range, where collosi have equal range and no priority I've seen, could be wrong. 5:"Also, you can always throw down a robo for the obs." also you can always throw a council for upgrade, now ask yourself which is better to have first? i vote information to affect any other decisions from that point on. 6:Its completely relevant op asks which tree is important to go first as he realizes you can have both. here's his quote: "4. Robo tech vs Twilight council: In long enough games you usually end up with both, but the one you get first will make a large effect on the unit of choice." 7: that seems to be caused by your own mistake, you're supposed to force field behind the enemy forces so they cant retreat from your chargelots and collosi, which synergizes way better then blowing up your own units. they ARE underused and that's because they are limited and underwhelming. also a point i missed earlier HT needs an upgrade to be functional, collosi need and upgrade to do their job better, but they can be used w/o the upgrade at least. 1. Very useful I agree. The rub here is they can be hard countered like air units though. 2. Not a great arguement TBH. You can't expect in every army engagement you ever get into you'll have enough sentries w/ enough energy, and in a small enough corridor where you can FF their retreat. Just b/c you saw a pro player do it a here or there doesn't mean much. 3. There are ways to micro around to an extent, but I agree because it becomes too risky to use HTs when ghosts are involved. My HT usage has gone down dramatically as more terran players have started using ghosts. 4. Same as #3, as more players have moved from MMM balls into mech and ghosts, less HT usage in this matchup for me. Agree completely. 5 & 6. Again it's pretty much consensus at this point you don't go quick HTs. Speaking in terms of late game options the early/mid-game tech choices become irrelevant. 7. Zealots synergize great with HTs, not sure what you're talking about here. I tend to go more stalker/sentry with colossi. Remember that zealots have the most cost effective DPS in the game. It may not seem like it at times since they can't focus fire and die fast from being in the front lines but if they are allowed free rein to dps they rip things up. That's why they synergize so well w/ HTs as w/ psi storms you don't need to focus fire and w/ the opposing army continually trying to move out of storms they aren't dps'ing your zealots who chase them down and rip them up. Colossi OTOH synergize better with stalker/sentry heavy armies since you want to abuse the colossi's range with FFs so you need stalker/sentries for that. | ||
|
Anon06
United States203 Posts
On June 10 2010 01:11 Skyro wrote: 1. Very useful I agree. The rub here is they can be hard countered like air units though. 2. Not a great arguement TBH. You can't expect in every army engagement you ever get into you'll have enough sentries w/ enough energy, and in a small enough corridor where you can FF their retreat. Just b/c you saw a pro player do it a here or there doesn't mean much. 3. There are ways to micro around to an extent, but I agree because it becomes too risky to use HTs when ghosts are involved. My HT usage has gone down dramatically as more terran players have started using ghosts. 4. Same as #3, as more players have moved from MMM balls into mech and ghosts, less HT usage in this matchup for me. Agree completely. 5 & 6. Again it's pretty much consensus at this point you don't go quick HTs. Speaking in terms of late game options the early/mid-game tech choices become irrelevant. 7. Zealots synergize great with HTs, not sure what you're talking about here. I tend to go more stalker/sentry with colossi. Remember that zealots have the most cost effective DPS in the game. It may not seem like it at times since they can't focus fire and die fast from being in the front lines but if they are allowed free rein to dps they rip things up. That's why they synergize so well w/ HTs as w/ psi storms you don't need to focus fire and w/ the opposing army continually trying to move out of storms they aren't dps'ing your zealots who chase them down and rip them up. Colossi OTOH synergize better with stalker/sentry heavy armies since you want to abuse the colossi's range with FFs so you need stalker/sentries for that. sigh... you should read the original before responding to a response... 2. Uh sentries can cast more than 1 force field, so all it takes is 2 early sentries to cast 4 force fields which is large enough to shut wide ramps and other choke points. 7. Storm hurts your zealots which charge into it. | ||
|
da_head
Canada3350 Posts
macro hard (off 2 base)-> gain map control (either by attacking or having more shit and getting map control)->macro hard->pound down on opponent non stop | ||
|
Skyro
United States1823 Posts
On June 10 2010 02:36 Anon06 wrote: sigh... you should read the original before responding to a response... 2. Uh sentries can cast more than 1 force field, so all it takes is 2 early sentries to cast 4 force fields which is large enough to shut wide ramps and other choke points. 7. Storm hurts your zealots which charge into it. 2. Not sure you even read my response. So you're saying your sentries always have enough energy, you never use guardian shield, and all your battles happen where you're defending your ramp? Positioning and unit composition is a huge factor if you are even able to do this or not. Like I said if you're making the case for colossi, you want probably want to use FF to split their army and abuse the range of colossi, so if you say FF synergizes with colossi more I agree with that, but that's not what it seems like you're saying. It seems like you're saying you having 2 sentries means your opponent's army can never retreat vs you, which I'm pointing out is silly. For late game army comps where you choose b/w colossi and HT vs zerg (which is the only matchup I really use HT), it's going to be colossi/stalker/sentry or HT/zealot/sentry (w/ less stalkers), generally. I choose HT b/c they are less hard countered and not as dependent on where you fight as you don't have to worry if the place you're fighting is a nice place to throw down FFs. 7. This makes me wonder if you ever used HTs at all, or you just used them very poorly. This is such a non-factor. Zealots are cheap and expendable, and the damage they receive from well placed storms is minimal at best. | ||
| ||
