EPTNevertheless, thors are also far more effective on the ground agianst things like roaches and hydras.
Vikings v Thors in TvZ (with some stats) - Page 2
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
farseerdk
Canada504 Posts
Nevertheless, thors are also far more effective on the ground agianst things like roaches and hydras. | ||
|
wherebugsgo
Japan10647 Posts
Vikings compared to thors are roughly equal, I think. Vikings are a bit more mobile, but the range is similar and the damage output, in the end, is similar, because thor shots often get lucky while viking damage is more consistent. Vikings tend to last longer, though, at least once you have a small group of them. | ||
|
Blyadischa
419 Posts
| ||
|
statikg
Canada930 Posts
I find the biggest issue with thors these days is that the zerg just keeps making his muta ball bigger to the point where if you don't keep all your thors together they can get sniped or as soon as you move out, he comes in and kills your expansion, your thors are too slow to do much, maybe you can kill his 3rd or 4th, but by then your expansion is dead too and you can't retreat or split up your army because then your gonna get owned by mutas. | ||
|
Gegenschein
Canada107 Posts
On December 23 2010 00:56 farseerdk wrote: vikings benefit from upgrades a TON against mutas (this has to do with the range 9/crit mass thing). A quick thor or 2 is probably a better response than vikings to early mutas (when you're on 1-2 bases), but getting a ball of vikings (with upgrades) is probably better later on when you have to defend multiple locations. Nevertheless, thors are also far more effective on the ground agianst things like roaches and hydras. Attack upgrades on vikings do scale better than attack upgrades on thors: The cost of a vikings is roughly 0.43 the cost of a thor, if you consider mineral, gas and supply cost (but not building time). Thus, for every thor, you get 2.3 vikings. Vikings shoot twice every two seconds = 1 / sec. Thus, 2.3 vikings has a rate of 2.3 / sec. Thors shoot four times every three seconds = 1.33 / sec. Which means that for every attack upgrade, you get a bonus of 2.3 / 1.33 = ~1.7 dps (per 1 thor equivalent) bonus for choosing vikings over thors. According to the same logic, though, upgrading armor for mutalisk with benefit more against vikings than against thors. Armor upgrades on vikings will also be of greater benefit than armor upgrades on thors, simply because the thor starts with 1 armor, whilst the viking starts with none. But this is a false argument, since 2.3 vikings are still much more fragile than a single thor. This is because the thor needs to be robust, being so immobile. Vikings, on the other hand, can much more easily retreat to safety. But, as many people have stated, including myself, the major concern remains that you'll probably want to upgrade vehicule weapon and armor for your tanks first, which will benefit thors. Altought ship armor upgrade isn't bad at all if you're going heavy medivacs. The way I see it, upgrades for your vikings are only mildly important in this build. Vikings will neither been the main damage dealers nor the main targets of your army. What is much more important, on the other hand, since you can focus fire with vikings, is having enough of them to one-shoot a mutalisk. Which means 6 or 7 vikings at 0 upgrade. | ||
| ||
