On November 06 2010 09:56 OutlaW- wrote: A part of me is hurting because of how bad of a unit the raven is.. Please give us iradiate or at least the shield.. HSM doesn't work as it will kill your marines as well(against ling/bling) and auto turrets are only really used for minor harrassment and slow pushing, you cant get them fast enough. PDD is pretty bad against ling bling muta as well.
Wouldn't that'd be too easy with 250 mana pool and smart cast...that unit has 60 hp more than raven
On November 06 2010 09:39 Fruscainte wrote: Are you even reading the thread pwadoc?
Hellions completely turn the tide of battles with Lings. Extremely cost effective at that, 3 hellions will just roast huge lines of Zerglings instantly.
I've replied to this repeatedly. We're talking about the cost effectiveness of marines vs. lings. If I mix in a few banelings with my lings, marines are suddenly not at all cost effective against lings. If you mix hellions in with your marines, lings are not at all cost effective. If I mix roaches, ling and blings against marines and hellions, the marines and hellions will get roasted. We're not talking about any of that though. The point is that as long as the zerg maintains ling parity with the terran, the advantage of this build is negated. Of course both players are going to supplement their armies with units that counter marines and lings.
Once zerg start mixing in roaches and blings, the build accomplishes its purpose. Hellions/Rines only use minerals. You force the zerg to counter cheap replaceable mineral units with a gas heavy army. As long as you employ some micro as terran you should be able to trade armies even if the zerg goes heavy speedling.
On November 06 2010 12:44 dahorns wrote: Once zerg start mixing in roaches and blings, the build accomplishes its purpose. Hellions/Rines only use minerals. You force the zerg to counter cheap replaceable mineral units with a gas heavy army. As long as you employ some micro as terran you should be able to trade armies even if the zerg goes heavy speedling.
Hellion marine isn't nearly as cost effective vs. roach/ling/bling as mass marines. The hellions cost twice as much as a marine, but fall very hard to roaches. I'm also fairly sure that reactored hellion production will cut into marine production, though to what extent I'm not sure. 4 hellions is 8 marines, though, so I'd imagine the zerg will tend to have better than mineral parity with the marine numbers. In the test I've done with ~40 marines/4 hellions vs. 80 lings/8 roaches, I end up with 6 roaches, 5 if it goes really badly. That means I'm trading 350 minerals and 50 gas for 600 minerals. I will take that trade any day.
I've also been find that the marine-heavy builds rely on trading armies with the first few pushes. When you mass lings, you actually end up winning overwhelmingly, which means you can deny or at least delay the terran fe. 3 hatches on 2 bases devoted to lings provides for a lot of very aggressive play and gives you map control.
Also keep in mind that the gas limitation for the zerg is a small window. You're trying to stress the zerg's gas supplies as he takes a third. If the zerg can drone up on three hatches without much gas, and then take a third, he can surge forward and supplement the mineral-based early army with a mid-game gas army. A zerg with three bases and 4 hatches is going to have a pretty good income and production advantage over a 2-base terran.
On November 06 2010 09:39 Fruscainte wrote: Are you even reading the thread pwadoc?
Hellions completely turn the tide of battles with Lings. Extremely cost effective at that, 3 hellions will just roast huge lines of Zerglings instantly.
I've replied to this repeatedly. We're talking about the cost effectiveness of marines vs. lings. If I mix in a few banelings with my lings, marines are suddenly not at all cost effective against lings. If you mix hellions in with your marines, lings are not at all cost effective. If I mix roaches, ling and blings against marines and hellions, the marines and hellions will get roasted. We're not talking about any of that though. The point is that as long as the zerg maintains ling parity with the terran, the advantage of this build is negated. Of course both players are going to supplement their armies with units that counter marines and lings.
Once zerg start mixing in roaches and blings, the build accomplishes its purpose. Hellions/Rines only use minerals. You force the zerg to counter cheap replaceable mineral units with a gas heavy army. As long as you employ some micro as terran you should be able to trade armies even if the zerg goes heavy speedling.
You have to react accordingly to whatever Zerg is putting out. This is isn't a build but a style centered around marine/raven. They make up the core of your army. Get hellions if you see a Persian army of lings, get tanks if you see a baneling all-in. Get ghosts/banshee/medivac if you can't deal with infestors with just the marines and ravens. These unit support, the core army is still the same - 5-10 Rax marine and 2 port Raven.
As for pwadoc. If you want to go mass zerglings, go for it. There is a reason people go banelings instead of lines. Send some reps when you do and you will have a better basis than unit tester. Also, this build basically requires Terran to deny zerg bases like the original SK Terran. If zerg gets a third up, you will basically have a hard time. This isn't an all-in either, Terran will expand as well to be successful.
Just in case any amateurs are interested: this strat annihilates in lower plat and below...not that that's surprising I guess. I suck and I have 100% win rate even doing the pure "gimmick" version (not a single attacking unit besides marines and ravens). The games last forever though, lol
baneling/ling to hold off rines stopped getting mutas massed ling/baneling to hold off (the ravens run out of energy quick and cant keep up with constant swarming lings) transitioned into hydra/roach
once i was able to catch all his ravens it was game over
On November 07 2010 03:04 MadisonStreet wrote: Bunch of replays of early bio aggresion that sets up for a solid economy and SK Style terran mid - lategame.
On November 07 2010 03:04 MadisonStreet wrote: Bunch of replays of early bio aggresion that sets up for a solid economy and SK Style terran mid - lategame.
I <3 replays! I will watch when I get home. If you don't mind my asking, about what level are these played at?
Edit: scratch that, I just saw your thread that says you're 2200. I'll watch those replays too, thanks for contributing so much to the community!
Np glad to help. Most of these are rather quick games because the early pressure was enough to dictate the game. I've got alot more macro oriented games with consistant bio drops just need to find them and upload.
I tested this with 60 marines and 120 lings, off creep, with 2/2 upgrades, combat shield, stim and ling speed, no micro. The lings win. Once the marines get to 3/3 they win, though it's pretty much even once the zerg has adrenal glands. Again, even the addition of two banelings completely shifts the balance. Even the the marines manage to snipe the banelings, the lings are getting free hits during that time.
As long as the zerg can maintain ling parity with marines, the advantage of this build is negated. It does not force the zerg to heavily invest in gas counters, and as a result does not force the zerg to get a fast third for gas income. the zerg can also replenish ling numbers much faster than the terran, even off 6-rax.
I know it is a bit off topic at this point, but for the life of me I can't duplicate your results. 60 marines with stim and combat shield will beat even +1 attack speedlings. I even tried to spread the marines out as if they were avoiding blings and they still won. By no micro, did you mean you didn't even stim marines? In fact +1 attack marines beat 1/3 speedlings on creep.
It's much more realistic to test marine numbers ranging from 10-30 against speedlings.
Also, the point is not to ignore banelings all together, but make a smaller ratio of them against marines. I see zerg players make like 20 banelings for no good reason when they only need 4-5.
On November 07 2010 04:42 link0 wrote: It's much more realistic to test marine numbers ranging from 10-30 against speedlings.
Also, the point is not to ignore banelings all together, but make a smaller ratio of them against marines. I see zerg players make like 20 banelings for no good reason when they only need 4-5.
Yeah, I realize that. I was just pointing out that marines are more efficient in higher numbers. 20 marines seems to be about the break even point. My last question was more about my own curiosity because our results were so different.
I tested this with 60 marines and 120 lings, off creep, with 2/2 upgrades, combat shield, stim and ling speed, no micro. The lings win. Once the marines get to 3/3 they win, though it's pretty much even once the zerg has adrenal glands. Again, even the addition of two banelings completely shifts the balance. Even the the marines manage to snipe the banelings, the lings are getting free hits during that time.
As long as the zerg can maintain ling parity with marines, the advantage of this build is negated. It does not force the zerg to heavily invest in gas counters, and as a result does not force the zerg to get a fast third for gas income. the zerg can also replenish ling numbers much faster than the terran, even off 6-rax.
I know it is a bit off topic at this point, but for the life of me I can't duplicate your results. 60 marines with stim and combat shield will beat even +1 attack speedlings. I even tried to spread the marines out as if they were avoiding blings and they still won. By no micro, did you mean you didn't even stim marines? In fact +1 attack marines beat 1/3 speedlings on creep.
the most realistic tests, if you must use the unit tester, would be groups of about 20ish to maybe 30 1/0 marines with cs (+1 finishes at same time as cs, very early), with and without stim but mostly with, against 0/0 speedlings, then maybe try 1/0 and 0/1 speedlings on and off creep. I really think micro makes a huge difference for the marines especially if they can limit the surface area by hugging walls, but ling micro can help some too so the unit tester just isn't conclusive enough.
edit: As far as the difference in results I'm not that surprised. There are so many little factors that can be conciously or subconciously manipulated that it can't be objective. If you WANT the lings to win they'll probably win. There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Thanks for the strat, it even works in bronze with my crap macro and micro and I don't feel the threat of containment that happens when I go immobile mech/thor and get snapped by muta harass.
Hey guys, I just started playing with marine/ravine play. Here's me against a ~1800 zerg. My initial thoughts are that micro skill against banelings is paramount for this strategy to work.
You didn't float your CC out for whatever reason. You then stopped being aggressive. Then you were floating at ~1K minerals, you split your army in two instead of throw down turrets. Zerg then got his third and fourth and you didn't try to expand... Your macro just kinda stopped working at ~20 min.
I didn't even watch until the end since the game effectively ended when you decided to turtle and let Z's take the map.
What's your recommendation to fight a decent size harassing force of mutalisks? Seems like this build has a number of options. Rines behind or defensive auto-turrets or missile turret, or keep some ravens back for SM??
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-163476.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-163477.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-163478.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-163479.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gamereplays.org/community/uploads/repimgs/repimg-33-163480.jpg)
