|
Okay so I did some quick number crunching.
High Templar with Storm
Twilight: M150 G100 T50
Archive: M150 G200 T50
Storm: M200 G200 T110
High T: M50 G150 T55 (+25 for 75 energy)
M550 G650 T210 (you can get two templars in the time storm is beng researched)
Collosus
Robotics: M200 G100 T65
Robo Bay: M200 G200 T65
Colossus: M300 G200 T75
M700 G500 T205
Looks pretty even. But I think Templar with storm is much more effective than Collosus without upgrades. They can reinforce much quicker, they have longer range, and feedback makes them great for sniping or crippling important units (Thors, BC, Banshee, Medivac, Infestor, Ghost, etc, etc)
But check this out. If we add the upgrades (amulet and range)
Storm Templar
Twlight: M150 G100 T50
Archive: M150 G200 T50
Storm: M200 G200 T110
High T: M50 G150 T55 (+25 for 75 energy)
Amulet: M150 G150 T110
M700 G800 T320 (you can get like 4 templars by the time Amulet is done but it would be retarded to get templar 4 before Amulet)
Colossus
Robotics: M200 G100 T65
Robo Bay: M200 G200 T65
Colossus: M300 G200 T75
Range: M200 G200 T140
M900 G700 T270 (you build the Colossus while range is being researched of course)
Now when we look at the resources with the researches it kind of skews towards Colossus. It's cheaper. It's safer (longer range, less frail, sight on high ground) It takes much longer if you wait for amulet but you can pump out a couple templars. BUT at the same time if you get anymore than 3 while you are waiting for amulet you will have to wait a bit to get some energy.
Now obviously we can't just say A is better than B. Colossus is a siege unit but Templars have feedback, give you access to Archons, is much cheaper, etc, etc. BUT how about just in this specific instance? Is Colossus with range more effective in handling mass units, or are Templar more effective? Storm seems a little underpowered without some good force fields since most units that Storm does best against are very fast (lings, Bio terran, Hydras, mutas, etc)
What do you guys think?
|
This comparison has been done alot of times before and the way you just did it is just useless.
Total tech costs etc can give a glance of how easily available something is but that's about it, there are just a TON of things you are forgetting that are way more important in the comparison.
For example the twilight council might be required for templar but you often need this building anyway. Charge is critical against terran bio for example and extra attack upgrades are critical against zerg.
Most importantly you are forgetting the possible counters to each unit and the armies they are part off which are the most important factors for differences amongst the 2 units:
Against terran the colossus gives very good AoE against bio BUT needs air backup to stay alive against vikings which the terran can make without additional tech (as they get medivacs off a reactor starport anyway). Vikings mean you need to make stalkers in addition to the colossus which are weak against marauders, the most used terran unit against protoss... Colossus at first glance might seem better then templar against terran but the army you need to make with them is just much worse. Templar can be weak against EMP but with templar you can go almost 100% zealots which are very good against bio. Combined with the fact that templar tech is on the same route as zealot charge, templar tech just seems to be better then colossus tech against terran.
Against zerg colossi are very good. They 1 shot zerglings with the proper amount of attack upgrades and can be supported with stalkers which are good against any non-zergling unit from the zerg. Sentries are great with an all-range army completing this combo. Corruptors require spire which is for the rest a bit useless against stalker/sentry which favors the colossus as well in this matchup. Also quite important, colossus massing with double robo bay easily allows switching to immortal production in case ultralisks are made by the zerg. Finally templar aren't too great against zerglings and ultralisks which are both really good against protoss, storming zerglings is just not the same as in BW in this game therefore colossi are probably better then HT against zerg. Also a council is only really needed for lvl 2 upgrades against zerg, so the tech on route to colossi is better as well in this mu.
In PvP colossi simply have no proper ground counter. In lack of a counter colossi are MUCH better then templar because they can't miss and can't do friendly damage. Colossi are definately the way to go for a ground fight in this Mu.
There are occasions where colossi are good against terran (like when getting them really quick before terran has viking access) and when templar are good against zerg (like when zerg has a spire already and uses mostly hydra, but in general it's templar against terran and colossi for the other 2 matchups imo.
|
if your trying to figure out which is the higher DPS build/cost since they both pwn low-HP units, i dont know, but overall the better choice is the coli imo. anything in diamond league is a bit more complicated though, temps might be alot more versatile as the game progresses.
some things to think about when deciding between the builds are:
what else builds out of your tech tree? (probably most important esp since observers are from robos)
exact finish timing of high-DPS units (surely one comes sooner than the other on a flawless build)
and pretty much what you talked about. i think the fact that coli can actually soak damage while dealing some is pretty big, along with the obs u need to make anyways i think its the safer bet overall for a platinumish/lowmiddiamondish level build. less micro intensive, coli can cliff.
the only real downside is their easy counterability via ATA units, so if you expect an air battle, the temps would probly be alot more useful, terran and esp zerg air are pwnd pretty hard by storm. switching over to temps when you scout air may be too late, not sure if your just looking for an early game answer or not. im assuming as toss u dont run heavy air builds much cause i dont see it much.
thats what i think. kinda nub tho, hopefully sum1 good posts for u.
|
On August 12 2010 08:34 Markwerf wrote:
This comparison has been done alot of times before and the way you just did it is just useless.
Total tech costs etc can give a glance of how easily available something is but that's about it, there are just a TON of things you are forgetting that are way more important in the comparison.
For example the twilight council might be required for templar but you often need this building anyway. Charge is critical against terran bio for example and extra attack upgrades are critical against zerg.
Most importantly you are forgetting the possible counters to each unit and the armies they are part off which are the most important factors for differences amongst the 2 units:
Against terran the colossus gives very good AoE against bio BUT needs air backup to stay alive against vikings which the terran can make without additional tech (as they get medivacs off a reactor starport anyway). Vikings mean you need to make stalkers in addition to the colossus which are weak against marauders, the most used terran unit against protoss... Colossus at first glance might seem better then templar against terran but the army you need to make with them is just much worse. Templar can be weak against EMP but with templar you can go almost 100% zealots which are very good against bio. Combined with the fact that templar tech is on the same route as zealot charge, templar tech just seems to be better then colossus tech against terran.
Against zerg colossi are very good. They 1 shot zerglings with the proper amount of attack upgrades and can be supported with stalkers which are good against any non-zergling unit from the zerg. Sentries are great with an all-range army completing this combo. Corruptors require spire which is for the rest a bit useless against stalker/sentry which favors the colossus as well in this matchup. Also quite important, colossus massing with double robo bay easily allows switching to immortal production in case ultralisks are made by the zerg. Finally templar aren't too great against zerglings and ultralisks which are both really good against protoss, storming zerglings is just not the same as in BW in this game therefore colossi are probably better then HT against zerg. Also a council is only really needed for lvl 2 upgrades against zerg, so the tech on route to colossi is better as well in this mu.
In PvP colossi simply have no proper ground counter. In lack of a counter colossi are MUCH better then templar because they can't miss and can't do friendly damage. Colossi are definately the way to go for a ground fight in this Mu.
There are occasions where colossi are good against terran (like when getting them really quick before terran has viking access) and when templar are good against zerg (like when zerg has a spire already and uses mostly hydra, but in general it's templar against terran and colossi for the other 2 matchups imo.
I will only add one more thing to what he said, HT feed back are useful in many PvT situation such as medv, ghost, thor, and BC and raven. All 5 of those are key terran units, and if the situation arise, protoss player should snipe them with feedback.
|
feedback and storm is devastating to bio.
as a terran, i find that colossus are easily sniped by stim marauders and they're only good when you get like >3 of them.
in a long game you should aim to get both HT's and colossus versus bio.
|
Imo collossus are been used less and less cause in the long run their more of a liability than str.
been weak to any air is lame , esp compare to thor not even a contest.
on the other hand Ht do the same and even better aoe dmg , they can transform to archons and they cant be hit by vikings or coruptors not to mention they can hit air as well.
|
I think one of the hugest strengths of the templar tech is the mobility of the templar tech. You can warp in a templar anywhere on the map with a pylon which gives you so much more mobility against the already mobile zerg, and the less mobile terran. Colossus on the other hand really only shine in a front sided battle, and the huge bulky army with the colossus support will probably be very hard pressed to defend multiple expansions once (if?) the maps get wider and larger.
In PvZ templar also give you access to Archons which while they aren't the greatest unit, they still soak up a lot of damage and if given zealot support they output very decent damage against ultras/lings.
In PvT templar tech comes after the TC which is a necessary building anyways. A Protoss army without blink/charge is running on one leg really.
The downside of course is that templar are easily EMP'd, but still if you spread them out you can usually get 2-3 decent storms and feedbacks off on medivacs.
|
On August 12 2010 08:34 Markwerf wrote:
This comparison has been done alot of times before and the way you just did it is just useless.
Total tech costs etc can give a glance of how easily available something is but that's about it, there are just a TON of things you are forgetting that are way more important in the comparison.
For example the twilight council might be required for templar but you often need this building anyway. Charge is critical against terran bio for example and extra attack upgrades are critical against zerg.
Most importantly you are forgetting the possible counters to each unit and the armies they are part off which are the most important factors for differences amongst the 2 units:
Against terran the colossus gives very good AoE against bio BUT needs air backup to stay alive against vikings which the terran can make without additional tech (as they get medivacs off a reactor starport anyway). Vikings mean you need to make stalkers in addition to the colossus which are weak against marauders, the most used terran unit against protoss... Colossus at first glance might seem better then templar against terran but the army you need to make with them is just much worse. Templar can be weak against EMP but with templar you can go almost 100% zealots which are very good against bio. Combined with the fact that templar tech is on the same route as zealot charge, templar tech just seems to be better then colossus tech against terran.
Against zerg colossi are very good. They 1 shot zerglings with the proper amount of attack upgrades and can be supported with stalkers which are good against any non-zergling unit from the zerg. Sentries are great with an all-range army completing this combo. Corruptors require spire which is for the rest a bit useless against stalker/sentry which favors the colossus as well in this matchup. Also quite important, colossus massing with double robo bay easily allows switching to immortal production in case ultralisks are made by the zerg. Finally templar aren't too great against zerglings and ultralisks which are both really good against protoss, storming zerglings is just not the same as in BW in this game therefore colossi are probably better then HT against zerg. Also a council is only really needed for lvl 2 upgrades against zerg, so the tech on route to colossi is better as well in this mu.
In PvP colossi simply have no proper ground counter. In lack of a counter colossi are MUCH better then templar because they can't miss and can't do friendly damage. Colossi are definately the way to go for a ground fight in this Mu.
There are occasions where colossi are good against terran (like when getting them really quick before terran has viking access) and when templar are good against zerg (like when zerg has a spire already and uses mostly hydra, but in general it's templar against terran and colossi for the other 2 matchups imo.
I love you for this post, thanks for explaining it in clear terms
|
I think there is something missing from OP analysis, collosus only hit ground and storm hits anything in radius potentially much more deadly. Storm is also much more effective as clinch reinforce for expos with cannons which happens late game toss some of the tech tree incentives could be burrow roachces for collosus because you have parallel observer tech. It's highly situational and you just have to realize the restrictions of each.
|
I tend to prefer collosi in most situations simply because of the fact that I play on my laptop (over wifi). In larger battles (125 food+) my computer becomes frustratingly slow and with templar I have to, 1)Hit the hotkey for my templar, 2) hit T, 3) place it in a spot where it will do a lot of damage. Usually between steps my target moves or something else happens (it takes like 5 seconds for my laptop to respond to each command, and I'm also running at like 2 frames per second), leaving me with many useless storms. Collosus are pretty much a-move, with a tad of micro. Templars are ridiculous against bio-balls before my computer hits the shitter late game though.
However, anyone who has a halfway decent computer can pretty much ignore this post, its just my personal situation with templars/collosi.
|
Terran player here. Chargelots and Templar are the scariest thing for me. Colossi seem just so much easier to counter with vikings. Chargelots are just good against bio. Templar, I need to have good micro with my ghosts, which I don't always do. Either have good ghost control, or I go mech (Hellion/Tank/Viking). Often in maps with an easy 3rd (Delta Quadrant, Lost Temple, etc), I just go mech or at the very least biomech so that I don't have to worry about Chargelots/Templars.
|
I feel like templars are almost always a better way to start out. Here if my 4 main points for this argument.
1) If you start with Collossus first you cannot gain much map control until you get at least 2 or 3 of them. This makes it much harder to expo, and deny opponents expos.
2) Once you get 3 Collosus and start to attack or take map control, you can't afford any mistakes. If your Collosus die it takes a long time to get new ones out, often making you the loser of the game. With the templer tech you will have many more gateways and if you lose your entire army, you can completley replentish a new army much faster.
3) Mid to late game once multiple expos have been started by both players mass gateways gives you much more map control as you can warp in units anywhere u have a pylon. This is extremely effective in destroying expos and protecting your own.
4) If your opponent goes air and you start with a Collosus build it can be very hard getting enough anti air out with the lack of gateways that you will have.
BTW this is strictly for a PVT game, nothing I wrote is neccesarily implied in the other two matchups.
|
So vs mech or bio mech, colossi or HT (I'm still thinking HT because of the access to chargelots/blink, but one wrong move and HT will melt instantly to tank fire). Im actually really curious what yall think of that.
edit - forgot phoenix as an option.. though this post is on collossi/templar
|
Depends on the situation, the build, and the tech you already have up. I personally tend to go robo vs zerg and templar vs terran. Pretty much always get chargelots also, they complement either rly well.
|
I don't know about the cost or the build times, etc, but I do know that as a zerg I fear HT far more then I fear collosi, at least while I'm at the hydra stage.
|
While some have pointed out that robo provides obs which are critical in many ways, you also need to consider that you will normally be getting a twilight council for charge/blink anyway. Both builds will eventually get something from the other, as in if you go temp you will eventually want obs, and if you go colo you will eventually want charge/blink
|
Here is my guide for PVT opening I'm a mid to high diamond level player and I feel this is the safest build in terms of be able to counter whatever the Terran throws at you.
1)9/10 pylon then scout with probe
2)10 gateway chrono first zealot (This is very critical because your probe scout usually is not able to stay in his base long enough to see what he is going. With this zealot sometimes you will be able to kill a few scv or marines, but don't let your zealot die. Even if you kill nothing the goal is to see what he is doing.
3) If you sense a Bio push (see a Marauder or 2nd barracks being made) you counter with 3 gate templer tech.
4) If you don't sense a Bio push go 1 gateway then 1 robo followed by 2 more gateways. (I suggest at this time only using the robo to make an observer. Generally from here I change to templer tech, and possibly will use the robo bay to make a warp prism to harrass scvs.
* I personally feel like you should never expand until the Terran begins to.(unless you have an enormous advantage or on certain maps with extreme distances between bases) With your observer you will be able to see exactly what time this is happening at.
With this build you are able to see exactly what the terran is doing so there is no surprises. I honestly feel like in PVT the most important unit is your observer
Also make sure never to lose your observer watch for missle turrets as they have better vision than range. Don't let your observer sit over a group of marines either(one scan = dead observer) position it very carefully on ledges and then peak in and out of his army without letting him kill it.
I realize I didn't give much of a build order but if anyone cares for a more in depth analysis on my build feel free to PM me.
|
While I really like colossi stacking storms just seems a lot more effective. In general I would say colli vs terran because of emp and HT vs zerg. In the end I really prefer HT over colossi though.
|
Templars are alot more useful against zerg in the late game than collisi, since collisi get absolutely demolished by broodlords or ultralisks.
|
Here's the difference: colossi are better at dealing sustained DPS whereas templar provide greater mobility and instant reinforcements. Personally, I prefer storm in all matchups now. The mobility is just too good. More importantly, Terran and Zerg players (at least in diamond) have gotten very good at anticipating and countering colossi. As most of you have probably noticed, Toss doesn't do so well when that happens. Templar are much harder to nullify.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
