|
UPDATE: + Show Spoiler +Several quality threads are linking back and referencing this guide. Check them out as well. If you know of other threads linking here, please let me know. Synopsis In this article I'm going to outline the standard formations; their strengths and vulnerabilities, as well as some useful tactical maneuvers and important marching orders.
Knowledge Level: Intermediate The concepts here are pretty basic but an intimate understanding can lead to complex in-game applications.
Primary Formations Below you will see a graphic of the primary, fundamental formations.
The Arc Has two Forms: A Concave and a Convex. The difference between the concave and the convex arc is simple the direction of focus. The concave is considered an extremely offense arc formation and as you will see below it focuses fire into a centralized location and creates a semi-surround on your target. The convex arc is considered a more defensive formation as it is designed to protect the focal point behind it.
We've all heard the casters and high-level strategists say, "Look at that beautiful arc!" Or they will mention that one player has the arc advantage in a certain scenario. Most of us already know that having an arc is good. But do you know why? Have you visualized why? The following examples pertain specifically to ranged units, however adding melee units into the mix creates extremely interesting dynamics pertaining to each formation.
In Fig B.1 the blue player has an ideal arc formation around the orange player. The orange player is in the ball formation. The blue player will win this battle in equal numbers as the concave arc is more cost efficient. You can visualize this by looking at Fig B.2 and seeing how all the firepower is concentrated into a single point. Additionally, the arc maximizes the number of troops able to engage because they are in range of the enemy's front line.
In Fig B.3 you can see the orange player in the ball formation. He will most likely lose this battle. A portion of his troops will not be in range to fire. Move commands must be issued in order for all of the troops to engage the enemy. This is detrimental because the opponent in the arc formation will not need to issue those move commands. In Fig B.4 you see that the firepower is scattered out from the middle.
The Arc Formation's Vulnerabilities The concave arc is an extremely potent offensive formation but because it is so powerful in a focused direction it is extra vulnerable to flanks and pincer attacks (discussed more below).
Formations: The Spread vs. The Ball in regard to Melee Units You'll have heard the term "surface area" used by commentators or high level strategists when talking about melee units and forming surrounds on your opponent. This absolutely must be taken into consideration when moving your troops when you know melee units are on the field. This is especially important when fast melee swarms are in play (i.e. in Zerg matchups).
Now, since this game is essentially played in two dimensions, there is no "surface area" as that is a function of 3D space. What we're actually measuring is circumference. Do you know just how much more effective a surround is in certain scenarios? We're going to refer to this exposure is attack area.
In Fig. D. you see blue's troops in the spread formation. The red circles represent the circumference areas of attack by melee units. c = circumference in the equations. In Fig. D you see blue's troops in the ball formation.
In Fig. E. blue's troops are exposed to a total attack circumference of 12.56 while blue's troops in Fig. D., the spread formation, are exposed to an incredible 56.34 attack circumference! The spread formation is 4.49 times more exposed to melee attack. This increase, or decrease, in attack area exposure is directly related to the number of spread clusters and the size of them.
Formations: Spread and Ball in regards to move commands and focus fire The ball is the most common formation because it is the one that your troops will naturally create when boxed and issued a move command (See Figure F.). In certain scenarios the ball is absolutely ideal, most notable when you want to focus fire one or several units.
TIP: Maintain Formation while moving. If you have a nice position, such as an arc composition, you can select the formation and issue a move (or attack move) command very far away (such as clicking on the mini-map). Because the formation converges into a ball formation the farther away you click the slower that convergence will take place. You would need to issue a stop command at the desired location. This will help maintain formation while move.
In Fig. G.1 issuing a focus fire command is going to be relatively inefficient. The majority of your troops have to perform move commands (green arrows) before they can fire (red arrows). The potency of using focus fire from this formation, or the arc formation (but to a lesser degree) is not ideal.
In Fig. G.2 you see that in a focus fire scenario using the ball formation is ideal. Move commands and focus fire commands are most efficient in this formation.
Tactical Maneuvers
Understanding the "Flank" is vital. The above image describes a flank.
Most formations and marching orders you will face will be vulnerable to a flank attack. The flank attack will constrict your opponent's movement and reduce disperse his firepower's focus.
The Pincer Attack is an incredibly powerful tactical maneuver. If you can Pincer your opponent's army (aka the Double Envelope) you will likely create an offensive advantage in the encounter. The Pincer is essentially a double flank attack and can have a dramatic psychological effect on your opponent.
Charge (Full Frontal Attack), Full Surround, Supply Line, and the Ambush One of the primary reasons I wanted to discuss the Flank, and the Pincer is because the most common attack formation you will see in a SC2 game is the Charge, which is a full frontal attack. This is the most straight forward attack maneuver you can do. I find this interesting because in a relatively even fight you are not creating an advantage for yourself by doing this. The Charge is absolutely a valid attack pattern, but it should be used for a reason, such as to conceal an ambush, or to increase the effectiveness of a flank.
The Full Surround If you can manage a full surround on your opponent (by combining a charge with a pincer) you may actually find yourself at an incredible advantage in the encounter. Conversely, being surrounded can have a profoundly negative psychological impact on you.
The Supply Line (Reinforcements) Not all attacks are reinforced, but when they are the supply line is an excellent tactical target. The supply line is the path in between the opponent's production and their army.
The Ambush To put simply; to attack where they are not looking or not expecting. Because of the attack move command it can be difficult to truly "ambush" your opponent so this tactic is best embodied by the "drop" play or what is commonly referred to as the "multi-pronged harass". Since all units in SC2 can see in all directions simultaneously you have to "draw their attention" in order to create an ambush. If you do not draw their attention you are basically relying on them to make a mistake.
Marching Orders
With a firm understanding of flanks, supply lines, and unit formations you can better understand the importance of having structured marching orders. Your army is the most vulnerable when they are moving from one location to another. If you just click across the map your troops will want to travel in a line. It is very important that you have a forward scout and three guards; one for each flank and your rear.
Use terrain to your advantage. You can actually use impassable terrain to guard a flank, or both flanks. If you're utilizing your supply line and reinforcing your march having a rear guard is not that important. A skilled opponent will attempt to attack you while you're army is marching and will likely use one of the tactics described above. You should be guarding yourself from these tactics.
Conclusion Use this knowledge of basic formations and tactical maneuvering to optimize your defensive and offensive postures. Keep these concepts in mind at all times when moving your troops, or repositioning your troops. Ask yourself, "am I in the best formation for this exact scenario?"
I know this seems like a basic thought process but I'm sure many players will focus too much on the "end goal" of "attacking an expansion," or "defending a rush, or a ramp," and forget everything that occurs in between now and then. Having knowledge of, and utilizing, formations will help you come out on top in more encounters.
Feedback Thanks to Saracen for changing the thread title!
|
|
On January 27 2011 03:24 Protonoid wrote: Great post!
Thanks! I hope it helps some, and possibly even sparks some interesting feedback.
|
Great post!
This has definetly sparked my interest again as to the correct usage of my brotoss ball of death, in the sense that when my colossus get raped it's looking like I want my ball of death to become an arc asap while reinforcing... and use my zealots to force a ball formation for my opponent's army versus my stalker arc as well!
|
Nice post but you should also inform techniques on how to get this arc instead of creating a ball when you move out and attack
|
On January 27 2011 03:39 .kv wrote: Nice post but you should also inform techniques on how to get this arc instead of creating a ball when you move out and attack
This wasn't really designed to be a how-to article, but if enough people begin asking similar questions or requesting similar things I may decide to edit the post with some formation techniques.
|
Great post!
I instantly thought of zealot HT vs T bio, where T wants to ball up to lower the overall circumference to decrease damage from the zealots, but then gets punished for balling because of storm.
Actually, thinking about it for a second, Terran bio seems quite vulnerable to this kind of "formation vulnerabiliy" as it's all ranged. The best unit compositions to use against Terran bio all utilize some sort of advantage through a composition that forces Terran out of the ball.
|
On January 27 2011 03:52 Truenappa wrote: Great post!
I instantly thought of zealot HT vs T bio, where T wants to ball up to lower the overall circumference to decrease damage from the zealots, but then gets punished for balling because of storm.
Actually, thinking about it for a second, Terran bio seems quite vulnerable to this kind of "formation vulnerabiliy" as it's all ranged. The best unit compositions to use against Terran bio all utilize some sort of advantage through a composition that forces Terran out of the ball.
You are right on the money.
You hear the term, "caught out of position," and that can mean several things. It can be proximity to defensive structures or threatened areas, or it can be mean you were caught with your army in the wrong formation.
Fast melee units used in combination with massive AoE attackers (HTs, Colossus, Banelings, Etc ...) create a really, really difficult tactical hurdle for Terran to overcome.
|
On January 27 2011 03:39 .kv wrote: Nice post but you should also inform techniques on how to get this arc instead of creating a ball when you move out and attack
In that coaching video that was posted with InControl he pointed out a nice way to achieve a nice arc/spread while moving your army by first spreading out your army and then clicking attack move to a point very far in front of them, causing them to move in a more uniform line, rather than converging to a point close in front of them and forming a ball.
|
On January 27 2011 03:52 Truenappa wrote: Great post!
I instantly thought of zealot HT vs T bio, where T wants to ball up to lower the overall circumference to decrease damage from the zealots, but then gets punished for balling because of storm.
Actually, thinking about it for a second, Terran bio seems quite vulnerable to this kind of "formation vulnerabiliy" as it's all ranged. The best unit compositions to use against Terran bio all utilize some sort of advantage through a composition that forces Terran out of the ball.
This is actually one of the other advantages of the arc. Splash units won't hit as many units as they would in the ball, ebcause they likely won't hit things behind their target, but melee units can't get a surround as easily (especially if they are coming from the center of the arc), because to get behind the arc, they need to traverse its entire length first. It's a strong compromise between the ball and the spread, and also allows a maximal amount of your units to fire.
|
On January 27 2011 04:43 Skyro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2011 03:39 .kv wrote: Nice post but you should also inform techniques on how to get this arc instead of creating a ball when you move out and attack In that coaching video that was posted with InControl he pointed out a nice way to achieve a nice arc/spread while moving your army by first spreading out your army and then clicking attack move to a point very far in front of them, causing them to move in a more uniform line, rather than converging to a point close in front of them and forming a ball.
I did not see the video, but yes. If you issue a move command extremely far away (like on the minimap) the convergence from point A to point B is so far that it will appear like your arc is being preserved (even though it is shrinking very slowly.
Just in case anyone is wondering, you'll want to use the 'stop' or 'hold position' command when your army is in the desired location (as the move command will still be really far away).
Great contribution Skyro!
|
The way that terran counters both speedlings and banelings is by forming an arc of units that is impenetrable. Have you ever seen zerglings run into a terran wall? It's usually a slaughter for zerg.
|
Really awesome post, I really like the visuals used to illustrate these concepts.
Having to balance a ball formation (which has less surface area) and a spread formation (which is less vulnerable to AoE abilities) really makes for an interesting dynamic and calls for a lot of micro. It's exactly why zerg loves wide, open maps and terran loves maps with narrow chokes. When you have enough units to allow for it, I find that having a very dense arc (wide range, but many units clumped together) is a lot of times the best way to go. It decreases your surface area but allows for more units to be attacking.
|
While it is obvious perhaps you should note that an arc is more vulnerable against colossus fire.Great guide though, had no idea the ball reduced speedling effectiveness by that much.
|
On January 27 2011 05:23 Fargoth wrote: While it is obvious perhaps you should note that an arc is more vulnerable against colossus fire.Great guide though, had no idea the ball reduced speedling effectiveness by that much.
That's actually an excellent point about the Colossus. Since the Colossus's AoE attack is perpendicular to the direction the Colossus is facing that will, in many cases, trace the line of your Arc.
Now, one thing that probably should be noted is that the effect ratio of the Ball Compared to the Spread, in relation to speedlings specifically, is relative to the size of the ball. The bigger the ball, the more effect reduction you get from Speedling surrounds, and vice versa while using the spread formation.
Formation is such a critical topic. I couldn't find any robust guide or discussion threads about it, so here we are
|
How did you come up with the statistics for the TVZ speedling stuff? Also, in a small speedling vs marine skirmish, you have to account for the travel time that lings have to do to engage spread out marines. Thoughts?
|
Great stuff. It's good to see a rigorous analysis of these fundamental, core aspects of gameplay. If you want to be extra baller, immortalize this thread on Liquipedia.
|
would the effect of focus firing while in an arc change if you manually focused fired individual subgroups of the arc?
This could help prevent unnecessary movement for overkill as well.
Great post btw. Very good common ideas, but good to have them somewhat formalized as well.
|
On January 27 2011 06:34 butidigress wrote: How did you come up with the statistics for the TVZ speedling stuff? Also, in a small speedling vs marine skirmish, you have to account for the travel time that lings have to do to engage spread out marines. Thoughts?
I'm essentially calculating the spread's exposure to melee attack as opposed to the ball formation. The speedling is the most logical unit to use as a direct reference because of how fast it is.
Look at Figures C and D. You will see the calculations I'm talking about.
(d * π) * n = melee attack exposure per formation
Where d=diameter of unit cluster (aka "ball"), and n = number of unit clusters.
In the Figures I cited above I used a simple grid to determine the diameters of the unit clusters. This type of formula is perfectly proportional.
I suppose it would be possible to be even more accurate by using the exact in-game grid layout, as well as the unit collision parameters to find the precise differences relative to various melee units versus certain spread and ball compositions, but I think a good rule of thumb is: The spread formation is about 4.49 times more exposed to melee attacks than the ball formation.
Closing Distance Yes, the ranged units may get extra attacks while in the spread formation but compared to the increased exposure and the speed of the melee unit you're analyzing I think this has a very negligible effect on the outcome.
|
On January 27 2011 06:46 VelRa_G wrote: Great stuff. It's good to see a rigorous analysis of these fundamental, core aspects of gameplay. If you want to be extra baller, immortalize this thread on Liquipedia.
I'm unfamiliar with this process. Care to elaborate?
Is this something you guys think the community would consider useful enough to have in that type of directory?
|
On January 27 2011 06:58 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2011 06:46 VelRa_G wrote: Great stuff. It's good to see a rigorous analysis of these fundamental, core aspects of gameplay. If you want to be extra baller, immortalize this thread on Liquipedia. I'm unfamiliar with this process. Care to elaborate? Is this something you guys think the community would consider useful enough to have in that type of directory?
Of course. There is already a Unit Positioning article there, but its current situation is barebones.
Unit Positioning
Head here and login with your TL account. If you are unsure about how to contribute to a Wiki, you can navigate the numerous help pages available there.
|
You mention Fig. G and Fig. H, but there is only two E's and two F's.
|
On January 27 2011 08:03 dbosworld wrote: You mention Fig. G and Fig. H, but there is only two E's and two F's.
Wow. I know exactly why that happened too. Shoot.
I've put in a temporary edit. I will fix it tomorrow :/
Thanks, Dbosworld.
|
Don't forget the Protoss forcefields which can be used to split up a bioball into 3 or 4 parts if used creatively in conjunction with terrain. This will majorly screw the positioning of terran. Psi storms will wreck the trapped marines, and the part nearest to the P army will get surrounded by zlots.
What I don't get is why pro players (Sjow, demuslim, even the ogs terrans) don't load their trapped guys up into medivacs and escape, instead choosing to stim, run and let them die. Surely the micro can't be THAT tough? If you can drop, surely you can load trapped guys into medivacs.
Btw, jinro is the only terran player I have seen escaping FF trap by evacuating marauders with medivacs, but he does it rarely because he relies more heavily on tanks, and Toss are forced to move back due to the long tank range.
|
Spread your arc for my ball so I can focus fire.
Stupid things aside, this is a good post for newbies. You should also integrate some analysis of Terrain because formation and Terran go hand and hand. For example, there's a reason why you set up your ranged units behind a choke because they end up in the 'ball' formation.
|
On January 27 2011 08:44 Antisocialmunky wrote: Spread your arc for my ball so I can focus fire.
Stupid things aside, this is a good post for newbies. You should also integrate some analysis of Terrain because formation and Terran go hand and hand. For example, there's a reason why you set up your ranged units behind a choke because they end up in the 'ball' formation.
Don't assume someone is a noob just because you already know something But I get your point.
That is why I labeled the knowledge classification as "Intermediate." I could definitely see myself expanding this type of article if I see there is a calling for it.
|
Oh, before I forget, I want to provide a quick answer (in my perspective, so don't take it too seriously) to the zergling baneling combo against marine ball/spread formation.
As the T, I will ball up my bioball against the zerg for maximum damage output, but will assign 1 hotkey for marauders and 1 hotkey for marines. When the banelings come rolling, I will select the marine hotkey and pull back, while the marauders will scoot and shoot the banelings (1 marauder 2 shot 1 baneling w/o upgrades). All this while maintaining ball formation (2 balls). Hopefully this will be enough to take down the banelings. If not, then I will lose all marauders to zerglings but still have full marine ball to take down the weakened zerglings.
If there was nowhere left to run, then I will spread the marines using mouse dragging, and hope to escape with at least one portion of the marines.
I rarely face such massive head-on attacks by the zerg on naked bioballs, as I use drops and airforce to hurt zerg, while using bunkers as defense (not many banelings left if they rushed my bunkers and depots). Hence, do take what I wrote with a grain of salt...
|
An important thing to add is that the disadvantage of Ball vs Arc is greatly reduced if the distance between both armies is smaller then the range of the units. For example, if you have two pure stalker forces, and your enemy has an arc on you, it can be beneficial to blink right on top of him, of course only if you are sure that you have at least similar amounts of stuff, since this will make a retreat of any side very hard and costly.
The main goal is always to maximize the amount of your stuff hitting his stuff, and ideally at the same time to reduce the amount of his stuff hitting yours. While this is quite obvious, it can´t hurt to state it, because i think while it is intuitively clear, since i have the feeling that a lot of people do know which positions they prefer their army to be in from experience, but do not exactly know why these specific positions are better than others. And this always comes down to maximizing the amount of time your units hit the enemies, and minimize the amount of time the enemy units hit yours. Ranged want to kite melees, because this way they get more hits for each hit the enemy gets. Melees want to surround, because this way they can prevent the enemy from kiting. Siegetanks want to be spread out, because they can still fire all the time because of their large range, but the enemy needs to run from tank to tank to kill them. No unit should be wandering around behind the lines looking for a spot to get in, because then they are not firing, which is bad. All comes down to the same basic principle.
So even if you don`t have an arc, an engagement where your ball is near to his arc is far less bad for you than an engagement where your ball is at maximum range of his arc, with all of your enemies stuff firing at you, while half of your guys run around aimlessly, and generally are not firing.
|
On January 27 2011 04:43 Skyro wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2011 03:39 .kv wrote: Nice post but you should also inform techniques on how to get this arc instead of creating a ball when you move out and attack In that coaching video that was posted with InControl he pointed out a nice way to achieve a nice arc/spread while moving your army by first spreading out your army and then clicking attack move to a point very far in front of them, causing them to move in a more uniform line, rather than converging to a point close in front of them and forming a ball. remember to make sure there arent any ramps or any other obstacles between you and you attack move location, your units will converge on a turn or a ramp regardless. This tactic works best in open ground but can be tailored to fit many scenarios... Its crucial in PvP collossus wars to use this imo.
|
On January 27 2011 08:53 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2011 08:44 Antisocialmunky wrote: Spread your arc for my ball so I can focus fire.
Stupid things aside, this is a good post for newbies. You should also integrate some analysis of Terrain because formation and Terran go hand and hand. For example, there's a reason why you set up your ranged units behind a choke because they end up in the 'ball' formation.
Don't assume someone is a noob just because you already know something But I get your point. That is why I labeled the knowledge classification as "Intermediate." I could definitely see myself expanding this type of article if I see there is a calling for it.
I'd say unit positioning is a pretty basic skill because good positioning will beat mindless good macro if you have decent macro.
|
Speedlings are almost 5x better against the spread than they are against the ball It would be better if you could avoid things like that. 5 is a number you pulled out of... nowhere. It depends on the number of lings, marines, marauders, quality of spread, positioning of marauders, zergling micro, terrain, usage of stim, creep presence...
|
On January 27 2011 11:09 Cano wrote:Show nested quote +Speedlings are almost 5x better against the spread than they are against the ball It would be better if you could avoid things like that. 5 is a number you pulled out of... nowhere. It depends on the number of lings, marines, marauders, quality of spread, positioning of marauders, zergling micro, terrain, usage of stim, creep presence...
It is definitely a generalization, but in the example I created the formula yields a result of 4.59. Yes, there are many factors, but I'd be willing to be that if I ran this permutation through statistical rigor we'd see a nice standard distribution with 4-6x being the majority.
I think it is unfair to say I based it on "nowhere" when I show you the exact formula used to generate the number.
|
Yes, but you need to realize that your formula does not directly apply to a real world situation. Your formula describes the surface area of the terran bio army. While this is certainly relevant, it only directly translates into the effectivity of the zerglings if they magically appear with instant 100% surface area, and only applies for as long as there are enough zerglings to cover the whole of the surface area, and the area does not change, for example because of stuff dieing.
In a real world situation, the zerglings need to flood in, probably from one specific direction, wrap around the bio, and kill it. All this time you are losing lings, and you will especially lose the foremost lings first, thus making the time to get the surround even longer, so you will need more zerglings to ever achieve that perfect surround, decreasing the efficiency of them even more. Encounters between bio and lings do not tend to take a long time, since both sides, but especially the bioball, do insane amounts of damage to each other, so the time to get the surround is not insignificant. This time also is different when surrounding a ball when compared to surrounding small blobs, and especially the zerglings do not gain any efficiency from the surface area they have while moving in to surround.
So if you lose half of your lings before you even get a surround, you might not even have enough lings left to even use all of that surface area, thus gaining nothing at all. You only gain the full potential increase if the time running to the enemy is insignificant when compared to the time spend fighting, and also you have enough lings to cover the whole surface for the whole time of the engagement, which basically is not a real-world situation.
Edit: This is not meant to say that this is not important. Just the plain "5 times more efficient" feels strange. I just did some testing, and, for example, you can fit around 23 lings around a ball of 20 marines, but if you spread those rines out into groups of three, each group can be surrounded by about 9 lings, making a total of about 63 lings able to hit them. Note how this, for example, is not an increase of *5.
For all of the following tests i used stim + combat shields vs lings with speed, no upgrades on each side.
The influence of the formation is still very important, for example, those same 20 marines spread out like that die to 40 lings, with about 11 lings at half health still alive. But clustered up, more than half of the marines survive, and all the lings are dead. Your lings are far more effecive against spread out marines. But do not make up random numbers.
For example, those same 20 marines spread very barely defeated 36 lings. If those 36 lings were 5x as effective as they would be against a clustered force, this would mean that the 20 marines clustered would be able to barely defeat, or maybe barely lose against, 180 lings. This obviously does not happen. About 150 lings survive. The reason is obviously that marines start dieing, and there are still enough lings to cover the whole surface area for the whole fight.
|
On January 27 2011 12:11 Simberto wrote: Yes, but you need to realize that your formula does not directly apply to a real world situation. Your formula describes the surface area of the terran bio army. While this is certainly relevant, it only directly translates into the effectivity of the zerglings if they magically appear with instant 100% surface area, and only applies for as long as there are enough zerglings to cover the whole of the surface area, and the area does not change, for example because of stuff dieing.
In a real world situation, the zerglings need to flood in, probably from one specific direction, wrap around the bio, and kill it. All this time you are losing lings, and you will especially lose the foremost lings first, thus making the time to get the surround even longer, so you will need more zerglings to ever achieve that perfect surround, decreasing the efficiency of them even more. Encounters between bio and lings do not tend to take a long time, since both sides, but especially the bioball, do insane amounts of damage to each other, so the time to get the surround is not insignificant. This time also is different when surrounding a ball when compared to surrounding small blobs, and especially the zerglings do not gain any efficiency from the surface area they have while moving in to surround.
So if you lose half of your lings before you even get a surround, you might not even have enough lings left to even use all of that surface area, thus gaining nothing at all. You only gain the full potential increase if the time running to the enemy is insignificant when compared to the time spend fighting, and also you have enough lings to cover the whole surface for the whole time of the engagement, which basically is not a real-world situation.
Edit: This is not meant to say that this is not important. Just the plain "5 times more efficient" feels strange. I just did some testing, and, for example, you can fit around 23 lings around a ball of 20 marines, but if you spread those rines out into groups of three, each group can be surrounded by about 9 lings, making a total of about 63 lings able to hit them. Note how this, for example, is not an increase of *5.
For all of the following tests i used stim + combat shields vs lings with speed, no upgrades on each side.
The influence of the formation is still very important, for example, those same 20 marines spread out like that die to 40 lings, with about 11 lings at half health still alive. But clustered up, more than half of the marines survive, and all the lings are dead. Your lings are far more effecive against spread out marines. But do not make up random numbers.
For example, those same 20 marines spread very barely defeated 36 lings. If those 36 lings were 5x as effective as they would be against a clustered force, this would mean that the 20 marines clustered would be able to barely defeat, or maybe barely lose against, 180 lings. This obviously does not happen. About 150 lings survive. The reason is obviously that marines start dieing, and there are still enough lings to cover the whole surface area for the whole fight.
Nice tests!
I like to see that. In one of my responses I did indicate that in order for the numbers to be precise you would need to use in-game unit measurements in relation to specific unit collision masks, etc, etc. So I get that.
Why do you think the numbers are random? The formula states that units are 4.59 times more exposed to melee attack in the spread formation than a ball of similar forces. I really don't think this needs to turn into an argument. I've edited the original post to alleviate some of the confusing wording. But the fact that there is a potential to be nearly five times more effective is true. I'm not sure why you think this means the number of units killed or defended is multiplied by 5 (as alluded to in your last post). In the nicest way possible, I think you are just slightly confused about that one aspect.
Now, granted, when comparing equal food counts of lings and marines, and setting it up in the lab, you get results like the ones you described. However, that is not what I was saying in the OP at all. I'm talking about the importance of unit positioning, and in this particular scenario, the vulnerability units have against fast moving melee units when in the spread formation, most notably, speedlings. Nowhere in the OP was I comparing "equal army marines to equal army speedlings." If I implied that, I will revise the wording.
|
Well, yes, the last part of was merely something fun i tried out, and is obviously not very useful, or intelligent.
The point i was making is that it your formula states that units have 4.59 times more surface area in that specific case, but not always. For example, if i oversimplify it to the marines taking up a specific area which could be distributed anyway you like, instead of them being specific units each, and assuming circular spaces covered, the following formulas for a circle are well known:
A=Pi*r² C=2*Pi*r
With A being the area of the circle, and C the surface (don´t know the english word for that on a 2-dimensional figure)
So, if you split the area of one circle out into x different equal circles, you gain
A'=x*Pi*r'²=A=Pi*r² since r=C/(2*Pi), and C'=x*2*Pi*r' ---> r'=C'/(2*Pi*x) ==> x*C'²/(4*Pi*x²)=C²/(4Pi) C'²/x=C² C'=C*sqrt(x) C'/C=sqrt(x)
This means that the change in surface area is proportional to the squareroot of the amount of pockets you split the circle to. Obviously, this gets less precise the smaller the numbers of units involved are.
But generally, for example, if you split your stuff into 4 groups, this increases their surface area by 2, if you split it in 9 groups, by 3, and so on.
I, too, do not want to overcomplicate this, however, i believe that the formula you used to derive the surface area was based mostly on those circles which you draw by eye, if i am right. But maybe this formula i derived will help you out a bit.
Also, the problem that other guy and me were complaining about, is not the exact number of 5, but the general fact that you used a number there at all. As you can see from my results, the surface area increases with the amount of pockets created, and your 4.5* increase means that the enemy created about 20 pockets, while different results are gained at different amounts of unit groups. Also, the surface area, while being important, can not be directly translated into speedling efficiency.
Sorry for intruding and overmathing on a very specific and not necessarily very important part of your OP.
Edit: Stupidity
|
great post man. Think little tips should be outlined for noobies, like having an "arc" of marines at the top of your ramp on hold position to maximize dmg to a stalker that wants to peek up to harass. Also makes it super easy to pull a weakened marine away.
|
On January 28 2011 03:15 Ponyo wrote: great post man. Think little tips should be outlined for noobies, like having an "arc" of marines at the top of your ramp on hold position to maximize dmg to a stalker that wants to peek up to harass. Also makes it super easy to pull a weakened marine away.
I plan on expanding this into more of a comprehensive Guide. I think the community will enjoy it.
|
Really good job man. It's always cool to see intuitive concepts analyzed like this.
|
UPDATE ========
Hey everyone, I just updated this guide with new graphics and whole new sections!
Let me know what you think.
|
Love it! Gonna study this loads, gonna help a ton in ZvZ roach battles.
|
I think one thing that's fairly obvious but probably worth noting in the flanking section is how flanking will usually create a concave for you, which is double valuable since it gives you good formation and limits his response.
|
On January 29 2011 04:05 TeH_Murmur wrote: I think one thing that's fairly obvious but probably worth noting in the flanking section is how flanking will usually create a concave for you, which is double valuable since it gives you good formation and limits his response.
That's a great point.
Formation transitions was not really covered at all, huh? Thanks!
|
Wow this is a great post you analyzed that pretty damn greatly, and the pics also help alot.
|
Hey, mods,
How can I change the title of this thread? I feel it is a little more comprehensive than I originally labeled it.
|
If anybody is seeking practice utilizing unit formations you should give marine arena a try. The mechanics of that game can really help give you a feel for how important a good formation really is and how to use the tactics in the op effectively
|
I've never heard of that. Do you find it in custom games?
|
Awesome thread, I've tried some pincer movements in 2v2s and the difference is gigantic, you can even take out a immortal heavy army with mass roach and proper flanking.
|
Thanks for the input, Bleak!
I posted this to hopefully broaden some of the tactical formations used in combat. As stated in the OP the most common, BY FAR is the Charge (Full frontal assault).
Did you try the Pincer after reading the article, or is that just something you did regularly?
I encourage you reading the OP who have not tried some of these tactical formations to give it a shot. They are time tested military tactics.
|
Woah!!! Great post!!!
This should definitely find a home on liquipedia!!
This plays a huge role in terms of ZvT with ling surrounds and MMM balls.
|
On January 31 2011 06:04 OverZero wrote:Woah!!! Great post!!! This should definitely find a home on liquipedia!! This plays a huge role in terms of ZvT with ling surrounds and MMM balls.
I wonder how often Liquipedia is used as a resource for things like this. Since threads get buried so quickly here maybe it would be better if I converted this to a wiki article.
|
On January 31 2011 05:27 TimeSpiral wrote: Thanks for the input, Bleak!
I posted this to hopefully broaden some of the tactical formations used in combat. As stated in the OP the most common, BY FAR is the Charge (Full frontal assault).
Did you try the Pincer after reading the article, or is that just something you did regularly?
I encourage you reading the OP who have not tried some of these tactical formations to give it a shot. They are time tested military tactics.
I've tried Pincer some time ago, when I was playin 2v2 with a buddy. We were getting attacked and I thought going for pincer could help. It definitely did: We split up our forces in the map Tempest, and pincered them from our natural expansions. their army just melt and we won.
I use it whenever I can in 2v2s, but not so much in 1v1 because I forget, or maps are quite narrow.
|
^ bump to ask the community a question
QUESTION: If I were to make this post, and expand on it, for Liquipedia, should I use the existing "Unit Positioning" article, which is quite lacking, or should I create a new one?
Existing Liquipedia article: http://wiki.teamliquid.net/starcraft2/Unit_Positioning
I'm leaning towards a new one simply because the title "Unit Positioning" does not really cover the "Tactics and Analysis" portion of what I want to include in the article. If I can change the title, or get help from a mod, then that might be the best bet.
|
On January 29 2011 05:21 TimeSpiral wrote: Hey, mods,
How can I change the title of this thread? I feel it is a little more comprehensive than I originally labeled it. I can change it for you. What would you like it to be called?
Great thread by the way. Very useful for newer players.
|
Wow, I just nerdgasm'd.
Thanks for the amazing work.
|
It is hard to emphasize how strong flanking is against concaves because you can engage your opponents forces one to two units at a time with larger groups. I like this post, it is well written and touches on the often ignored value of tactics within starcraft.
|
Definitely a great thread mate. Ive put it in my recommended threads thread
|
Well, i was just wondering when i was going to see another super informative topic on the forums. Since most of people just claim about balance issues and dont STOP and think about that their post is irrational. Thanks for this man, really good post. Wish to see more of them coming.
|
As interested as i was by the formations, i think one of the really cool things is the supply line. More aggressive armies have longer supply lines that are less easily supported. I have often seen streams of marines or tanks moving across the field, or a single collosus walking across with little or no support. Perfect targets for sniping, no? And yet i don't see as much of that as i would like.
|
|
Very interesting post!
Maybe going into detail for each race would even further greaten it?
|
Damn, this would've been helpful if I remembered it. I FE-ed and had an obviously bigger army because it was cross positions (he FE-ed, too, and was trying to put on pressure with stim) so there were slow reinforcements in the contrary with my instant warp-in.
It was on metalopolis middle right. My zealots were at the bottom of the ramp, and my stalkers were in front of the bottom of the nexus. He simply flanked with his marines and marauders (using stim) right against my ranged units, which allowed him to kill all of it and finish off my zealots. If I only I was in an arc and had my melee units in the front. xD
I actually been noticing that my losses are coming from being "out-of-position", so this is really helpful. Thanks.
|
On March 11 2011 07:28 Saracen wrote:Show nested quote +On January 29 2011 05:21 TimeSpiral wrote: Hey, mods,
How can I change the title of this thread? I feel it is a little more comprehensive than I originally labeled it. I can change it for you. What would you like it to be called? Great thread by the way. Very useful for newer players.
I was thinking "[G] Positioning, Formations, and Tactics"
What do you guys think about that?
And also, for the Liquipedia Article, should I edit the similar/existing article or create a new one?
|
Yeah honestly I think you should totally replace the existing liquipedia article with the OP.
I also think It would be great if you added some more sections to make it more SC2 specific. For example,
-Muta stacking -Marine splitting -Magic boxing -Siege lines and the "vision advantage" -Scouting patterns -Simcity -How to transition between formations -How to practice formations/multitasking etc
|
This is great!
Could you add tips for mechanics on how to execute the maneuvers to each formation? For example, optimal hotkey setups?
|
wow awesome post with nice images
|
Awesome post! Thanks for taking the time for baller stuff like this.
|
Oh my. This is such an awesome post. Thanks man!
|
Oh dude, totaly deserves the bump! great read and explanation on sc2 tactics and weaknesses of arcs thx!
|
On March 11 2011 13:03 kNightLite wrote: Yeah honestly I think you should totally replace the existing liquipedia article with the OP.
I also think It would be great if you added some more sections to make it more SC2 specific. For example,
-Muta stacking -Marine splitting -Magic boxing -Siege lines and the "vision advantage" -Scouting patterns -Simcity -How to transition between formations -How to practice formations/multitasking etc
You know, making it more SC2 specific is a decent idea.
Maybe I will toy around with that.
|
Beautiful. Adding in more detail as to the construction / defeat of the formations would be great, but this is awesome as it stands; excellent visuals, clear, concise descriptions, and probably most importantly...
PRETTY COLORS!
|
On January 27 2011 06:58 TimeSpiral wrote: Is this something you guys think the community would consider useful enough to have in that type of directory?
Liquipedia it!
|
Wow, this is such an amazing post. Thank you so much man! =D You've brought a lot of interesting thoughts out of the fog for me.
|
On March 24 2011 09:47 O.Golden_ne wrote:Show nested quote +On January 27 2011 06:58 TimeSpiral wrote: Is this something you guys think the community would consider useful enough to have in that type of directory? Liquipedia it!
You guys have convinced me. I'm doing it. And it will be new and improved!
|
woah!! this is awesome... + points for the illustrations... this really helps visualize the theories in positioning, formations, etc...
|
On April 05 2011 23:45 ztoa03 wrote: woah!! this is awesome... + points for the illustrations... this really helps visualize the theories in positioning, formations, etc...
Thanks!
I chose generic illustrations because screenshots would necessarily be biased to the race/units/maps/locales used. The symbolic illustrations are much easier for one to naturally impress upon relative scenarios.
|
|
Oh, wow. That's pretty cool. I looked over that thread and did not see a link to this one though :/
Did I miss it?
There are more good guides popping up every day.
|
How much of an extra advantage would you get if you have a pure zealot, a couple of sentries, and 2-3 colossi and you attack in these situations:
a) You just flank with your whole army from behind (he has 5-6 siege tanks, and 2 bunkers).
b) You half half and attack from 2 sides.
Obviously, b is better, but I just wanna check for both options, how much of an advantage do I get from those?
|
On April 06 2011 09:58 iChau wrote: How much of an extra advantage would you get if you have a pure zealot, a couple of sentries, and 2-3 colossi and you attack in these situations:
a) You just flank with your whole army from behind (he has 5-6 siege tanks, and 2 bunkers).
b) You half half and attack from 2 sides.
Obviously, b is better, but I just wanna check for both options, how much of an advantage do I get from those?
I'm not sure how to quantify the advantage, to address your question of "how much" specifically. But you also need to keep in mind that there is no real "back" to a unit in Starcraft 2 because all units are aware and have vision in a 360 radius. There is only a "back" to a formation that is oriented in a specific direction.
Option (b), the pincer, is far superior in this scenario. You are ...
(1) Reducing his ability to maneuver by closing from two angles.
(2) Dispersing the Siege Tank fire in multiple directions instead of focusing the splash on one big ball of units
(3) You achieve the "full surround" about twice as fast as you would with a full frontal charge (even if it is from the "back").
(4) You create the psychological impact on your opponent of being surrounded. This can cause him to scramble and fumble at the controls.
Hope this helps.
|
great post dude!! see ya in game! (stinkfist)
|
I never saw this the first time you posted, amazingly awesomely fantastical OP So cool, makes visualizing really easy with the really neat diagrams!
|
On April 06 2011 13:33 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 09:58 iChau wrote: How much of an extra advantage would you get if you have a pure zealot, a couple of sentries, and 2-3 colossi and you attack in these situations:
a) You just flank with your whole army from behind (he has 5-6 siege tanks, and 2 bunkers).
b) You half half and attack from 2 sides.
Obviously, b is better, but I just wanna check for both options, how much of an advantage do I get from those? I'm not sure how to quantify the advantage, to address your question of "how much" specifically. But you also need to keep in mind that there is no real "back" to a unit in Starcraft 2 because all units are aware and have vision in a 360 radius. There is only a "back" to a formation that is oriented in a specific direction. Option (b), the pincer, is far superior in this scenario. You are ... (1) Reducing his ability to maneuver by closing from two angles. (2) Dispersing the Siege Tank fire in multiple directions instead of focusing the splash on one big ball of units (3) You achieve the "full surround" about twice as fast as you would with a full frontal charge (even if it is from the "back"). (4) You create the psychological impact on your opponent of being surrounded. This can cause him to scramble and fumble at the controls. Hope this helps.
So it's worth it even if you have slow lots. I see, thanks. :D
I actually lost twice to this terran because of positioning. He abused the high ground from the low ground with medivacs and siege tanks, and it was annoying, especially at the taldarim altar's natural. I think I should have moved out fast so I can pincer him before he scans my army, and this also makes it so he doesn't know where I am.
|
On April 07 2011 21:36 iChau wrote:Show nested quote +On April 06 2011 13:33 TimeSpiral wrote:On April 06 2011 09:58 iChau wrote: How much of an extra advantage would you get if you have a pure zealot, a couple of sentries, and 2-3 colossi and you attack in these situations:
a) You just flank with your whole army from behind (he has 5-6 siege tanks, and 2 bunkers).
b) You half half and attack from 2 sides.
Obviously, b is better, but I just wanna check for both options, how much of an advantage do I get from those? I'm not sure how to quantify the advantage, to address your question of "how much" specifically. But you also need to keep in mind that there is no real "back" to a unit in Starcraft 2 because all units are aware and have vision in a 360 radius. There is only a "back" to a formation that is oriented in a specific direction. Option (b), the pincer, is far superior in this scenario. You are ... (1) Reducing his ability to maneuver by closing from two angles. (2) Dispersing the Siege Tank fire in multiple directions instead of focusing the splash on one big ball of units (3) You achieve the "full surround" about twice as fast as you would with a full frontal charge (even if it is from the "back"). (4) You create the psychological impact on your opponent of being surrounded. This can cause him to scramble and fumble at the controls. Hope this helps. So it's worth it even if you have slow lots. I see, thanks. :D I actually lost twice to this terran because of positioning. He abused the high ground from the low ground with medivacs and siege tanks, and it was annoying, especially at the taldarim altar's natural. I think I should have moved out fast so I can pincer him before he scans my army, and this also makes it so he doesn't know where I am.
Well, from a gameplay perspective, I think you are considerably higher level than I. But, to address your example, there are a few tactics you can use here.
That particular tank push is very common and powerful on T'DA. So, park a probe at the end of his natural's ramp. The moment he moves out, set up your Pincer attack. If it's the 2rax-reactor tank push it's getting to your base before charge or thermal lance unless you are doing some crazy rush. It's rarely ideal to attack into siege lines (obviously) but defensively you have to.
The tactical goal for this Pincer is to attack at the moment, or just slightly before, his tanks are activating siege mode and the SCVs are working on the bunkers. It's important in a Pincer that the two divisions of units are roughly the same size. So, take the number of gates you have into account when you're setting up the maneuver (overload the far team and warp in for the close team).
Both tanks and marines are really, really bad versus Zealots w/ Guardian shield. Your Terran opponent knows this, which is why he's leveraging the terrain to his advantage and constructing bunkers because the siege tanks remove much of the mobility of the marines. If you have robo-tech, even better. Spot the "kill zone" with an observer so you can see the exact siege time to 1a2a into his force.
I can almost guarantee you will crush the army losing almost nothing (assuming it's the push I'm talking about). As the game progress and the tank numbers get bigger this changes a little bit.
Sorry for such a long response :/
|
First about the 4.5 'exposure' of spread versus single balled units. As was pointed out yes the 4.5 comes from a particular split, and you can use derivatives to get the accurate amount for arbitrary splits. However someone complained that you didn't take into account creep, speed, etc., and I don't think this is a problem since you're talking about 'exposure' and not about 'effectiveness.'
Second, about concave vs. ball battles you state:
You can visualize this by looking at Fig B.2 and seeing how all the firepower is concentrated into a single point. Additionally, the arc maximizes the number of troops able to engage because they are in range of the enemy's front line. I think really what's important is the combination of these points. I.e. the fact that at the initial moment when you engage if you have a concave to your opponents ball then the first 2-3 shots your units fire will be focused on his front units while he is moving in to get all his units attacking, so a) he is missing shots from his rear units if they are out of range (but not from his front units if he can move/stop correctly) b) damage is spread unevenly over his army.
Point b) is the interesting point because it's saying that in general it's worse to loose 500 life on 5 units and 0 life on another 5(group A) than 500 life on 10 (group B). Suppose we're talking about ZvZ so the average life of a unit is 145, and suppose the average DPS of a unit is 10, also suppose all units are in range of each other. Suppose the effective DPS (EDPS) of a unit is proportional to the unit's base DPS times the percentage of health they are at.EDPS=k_1 * DPS_base * Life_remaining/Life_initial ≈k_2 * DPS_base * Life_remaining/Life_initial*{1 if a target is in range, 0 otherwise} ≈k_3 * DPS_base * Life_remaining/Life_initial*Number_of_targets in range The intuition for EDPS is that the effective amount of damage a unit does depends both on how much damage per second they can do, and how many seconds they are alive for to do that damage, and whether they can attack something. Whether the above formula for EDPS is correct though would require some statistical analysis of simulation results (i.e. maybe it's DPS_base^2 *c_1 +Life_rm/Life_0 * DPS_base^0.5, If someone is interested in testing this with me, and is good with the map editor, let me know.) Then for group A if 500 damage is spread evenly among the 5, then each has 31% HP left, so the EDPS of the group is 5*0.31*10+5*1.0*10=65.5, while for group B each has 65.5% HP left so the EDPS of five of those units is 10*0.65.5. So in fact whether damage is spread or not depends on whether EDPS is a linear function. In the definition I gave it is linear, so in this case it doesn't matter. You could argue that if you have a concave it is easier to focus fire with small groups of your concave so that for group B the 500 damage will be spread evenly, while for group A it will not be spread evenly (i.e. 3 roaches dead in group A, 7 full health), but again this will only make a difference if EDPS is not linear, in fact if you focus fire and overkill then you actually hurt yourself no matter whether EDPS is linear or not. Thus for now we should only say that concave is more effective because it is likely that if you have a concave more of your units have an enemy in range.
Third, about pincer/flank you state:
If you can Pincer your opponent's army (aka the Double Envelope) you will likely create an offensive advantage in the encounter. Bearing the previous argument in mind, if two armies are of equal size and equal range then having a pincer will not gave you an advantage no matter whether EDPS is linear or not. The case where flanking is most common is for Zerg, because flanking allows melee units to take shorter paths in order to get into position, which increases their EDPS as defined above, and that is the only and most important element of flanking. Of course flanking can prevent kiting and retreat as well, but those are tactical considerations and not properties inherent to deciding who will win in formation A vs formation B.
Finally, thank you for this thread, it's provoked me to think about this in my own gameplay: -infesters/ultras and cracklings (HTs/Collosus and chargelots) make for a powerful combination because the formation that is most effective against one is countered by the other. -in zvz crackling/infester will be superior to roach/infester once both sides have enough fungal growths available and the crackling player can set up good flanks. -roach/hydra is superior to pure roach if used defensively, because defensively hydras can be positioned such that they will attack before roaches in their position would attack; offensively since hydras are slower they may not get into position quickly enough so their added range won't be a bonus, and roaches have slightly higher EDPS than hydras.
|
On April 08 2011 03:30 Jagd wrote:First about the 4.5 'exposure' of spread versus single balled units. As was pointed out yes the 4.5 comes from a particular split, and you can use derivatives to get the accurate amount for arbitrary splits. However someone complained that you didn't take into account creep, speed, etc., and I don't think this is a problem since you're talking about 'exposure' and not about 'effectiveness.' Second, about concave vs. ball battles you state: Show nested quote +You can visualize this by looking at Fig B.2 and seeing how all the firepower is concentrated into a single point. Additionally, the arc maximizes the number of troops able to engage because they are in range of the enemy's front line. I think really what's important is the combination of these points. I.e. the fact that at the initial moment when you engage if you have a concave to your opponents ball then the first 2-3 shots your units fire will be focused on his front units while he is moving in to get all his units attacking, so a) he is missing shots from his rear units if they are out of range (but not from his front units if he can move/stop correctly) b) damage is spread unevenly over his army. Point b) is the interesting point because it's saying that in general it's worse to loose 500 life on 5 units and 0 life on another 5(group A) than 500 life on 10 (group B). Suppose we're talking about ZvZ so the average life of a unit is 145, and suppose the average DPS of a unit is 10, also suppose all units are in range of each other. Suppose the effective DPS (EDPS) of a unit is proportional to the unit's base DPS times the percentage of health they are at. EDPS=k_1 * DPS_base * Life_remaining/Life_initial ≈k_2 * DPS_base * Life_remaining/Life_initial*{1 if a target is in range, 0 otherwise} ≈k_3 * DPS_base * Life_remaining/Life_initial*Number_of_targets in range The intuition for EDPS is that the effective amount of damage a unit does depends both on how much damage per second they can do, and how many seconds they are alive for to do that damage, and whether they can attack something. Whether the above formula for EDPS is correct though would require some statistical analysis of simulation results (i.e. maybe it's DPS_base^2 *c_1 +Life_rm/Life_0 * DPS_base^0.5, If someone is interested in testing this with me, and is good with the map editor, let me know.) Then for group A if 500 damage is spread evenly among the 5, then each has 31% HP left, so the EDPS of the group is 5*0.31*10+5*1.0*10=65.5, while for group B each has 65.5% HP left so the EDPS of five of those units is 10*0.65.5. So in fact whether damage is spread or not depends on whether EDPS is a linear function. In the definition I gave it is linear, so in this case it doesn't matter. You could argue that if you have a concave it is easier to focus fire with small groups of your concave so that for group B the 500 damage will be spread evenly, while for group A it will not be spread evenly (i.e. 3 roaches dead in group A, 7 full health), but again this will only make a difference if EDPS is not linear, in fact if you focus fire and overkill then you actually hurt yourself no matter whether EDPS is linear or not. Thus for now we should only say that concave is more effective because it is likely that if you have a concave more of your units have an enemy in range. Third, about pincer/flank you state: Show nested quote +If you can Pincer your opponent's army (aka the Double Envelope) you will likely create an offensive advantage in the encounter. Bearing the previous argument in mind, if two armies are of equal size and equal range then having a pincer will not gave you an advantage no matter whether EDPS is linear or not. The case where flanking is most common is for Zerg, because flanking allows melee units to take shorter paths in order to get into position, which increases their EDPS as defined above, and that is the only and most important element of flanking. Of course flanking can prevent kiting and retreat as well, but those are tactical considerations and not properties inherent to deciding who will win in formation A vs formation B. Finally, thank you for this thread, it's provoked me to think about this in my own gameplay: -infesters/ultras and cracklings (HTs/Collosus and chargelots) make for a powerful combination because the formation that is most effective against one is countered by the other. -in zvz crackling/infester will be superior to roach/infester once both sides have enough fungal growths available and the crackling player can set up good flanks. -roach/hydra is superior to pure roach if used defensively, because defensively hydras can be positioned such that they will attack before roaches in their position would attack; offensively since hydras are slower they may not get into position quickly enough so their added range won't be a bonus, and roaches have slightly higher EDPS than hydras.
Welcome to the community and thank you for such an elaborate contribution to the thread!
In regards to your thoughts about the double envelope (pincer) maneuver of equal army sizes.
Bearing the previous argument in mind, if two armies are of equal size and equal range then having a pincer will not gave you an advantage no matter whether EDPS is linear or not.
That's quite a conditional statement, but the logic is also a little fuzzy. The idea of the pincer is to take advantage of your opponents positional orientation. They are most likely moving perpendicular to your double envelope. This puts them at a severe disadvantage even if the army is identicaly because the pincer has to charge formations attacking a perpendicularly oriented marching order.
This may not have a direct effect on eDPS but it has the potential to produce profound effects such as: (1) Surprise.
(2) Limiting your opponents ability to maneuver
(3) There units will likely not be oriented in such a way to fight a two front battle. Precious cargo (siege Tanks, Colossus, Infesters, Hydras, Templars, whatever, will now be on one "side" of the attack instead of in the back.
(4) Getting blitzed like this has a psychological impact on your opponent. Starcraft 2 is as much a game of psychology as it is tactics, strategy, and mechanics. If your opponent was planning on a charge, attacking a certain location in a certain formation, and is all of the sudden faced with a double envelope pincer engagement he is at a disadvantage while you are executing the maneuver you planned for, giving you advantage in the engagement. In other words; he is forced to react instantly, while you are executing a premeditated attack pattern.
(5) Finally, DPS manipulation is an obvious part of any tactical maneuver in Starcraft 2 but there are other major factors that should be considered when planning things like this.
Thanks again!
|
So I quickly glanced through and didn't see anything about this, but I'm curious to know the difference between two bunched of armies engaging and one army engaging with a good arc and the other just in a ball. So if they both engage with say...30 marines, how many marines does the army that was in an arc have left at the end? Yeah I could test this myself, but I'm at work
|
On April 07 2011 22:40 TimeSpiral wrote:Show nested quote +On April 07 2011 21:36 iChau wrote:On April 06 2011 13:33 TimeSpiral wrote:On April 06 2011 09:58 iChau wrote: How much of an extra advantage would you get if you have a pure zealot, a couple of sentries, and 2-3 colossi and you attack in these situations:
a) You just flank with your whole army from behind (he has 5-6 siege tanks, and 2 bunkers).
b) You half half and attack from 2 sides.
Obviously, b is better, but I just wanna check for both options, how much of an advantage do I get from those? I'm not sure how to quantify the advantage, to address your question of "how much" specifically. But you also need to keep in mind that there is no real "back" to a unit in Starcraft 2 because all units are aware and have vision in a 360 radius. There is only a "back" to a formation that is oriented in a specific direction. Option (b), the pincer, is far superior in this scenario. You are ... (1) Reducing his ability to maneuver by closing from two angles. (2) Dispersing the Siege Tank fire in multiple directions instead of focusing the splash on one big ball of units (3) You achieve the "full surround" about twice as fast as you would with a full frontal charge (even if it is from the "back"). (4) You create the psychological impact on your opponent of being surrounded. This can cause him to scramble and fumble at the controls. Hope this helps. So it's worth it even if you have slow lots. I see, thanks. :D I actually lost twice to this terran because of positioning. He abused the high ground from the low ground with medivacs and siege tanks, and it was annoying, especially at the taldarim altar's natural. I think I should have moved out fast so I can pincer him before he scans my army, and this also makes it so he doesn't know where I am. Well, from a gameplay perspective, I think you are considerably higher level than I. But, to address your example, there are a few tactics you can use here. That particular tank push is very common and powerful on T'DA. So, park a probe at the end of his natural's ramp. The moment he moves out, set up your Pincer attack. If it's the 2rax-reactor tank push it's getting to your base before charge or thermal lance unless you are doing some crazy rush. It's rarely ideal to attack into siege lines (obviously) but defensively you have to. The tactical goal for this Pincer is to attack at the moment, or just slightly before, his tanks are activating siege mode and the SCVs are working on the bunkers. It's important in a Pincer that the two divisions of units are roughly the same size. So, take the number of gates you have into account when you're setting up the maneuver (overload the far team and warp in for the close team). Both tanks and marines are really, really bad versus Zealots w/ Guardian shield. Your Terran opponent knows this, which is why he's leveraging the terrain to his advantage and constructing bunkers because the siege tanks remove much of the mobility of the marines. If you have robo-tech, even better. Spot the "kill zone" with an observer so you can see the exact siege time to 1a2a into his force. I can almost guarantee you will crush the army losing almost nothing (assuming it's the push I'm talking about). As the game progress and the tank numbers get bigger this changes a little bit. Sorry for such a long response :/
No, this is good! Thanks.
I been losing a lot, mostly to all-ins and positioning. I can usually out-macro the opponent, but I have bad decision- making.
When I see his army move out, I go, "Oh shit" and I start turtling at my ramp, which leads to my demise eventually because of his fortified position outside my base.
He didn't have a lot of tanks, just 3, raining hell on my natural probe line with 2 bunkers and a missile turret defending the front with his main bio army.
|
^ I've updated the banner and links to other relevant Guides.
Enjoy!
|
One of the best things about blink stalkers is the way you can rearrange them to get an arc.
|
It seems the EDPS I gave above is incorrect, this is from tests of 8 hydras against 8 roaches where all hydras were in range of each roach and vice-versa. The typical result was 1 hydra remaining with full HP and 1 hydra with 20/80 HP. However by the above EDPS the roaches should have won.
I'm trying to come up with a better formula. Again if anyone is good with the editor or has experience with model selection and is interested in this, send me a message.
|
|
Im glad you did. I reread and kicked myself for not paying more attention the first time. ;p
|
Great read for anyone. thanks so much for your work.
|
Russian Federation138 Posts
|
Never in the field of Starcraft conflict was so much owed by so many to TimeSpiral.
|
I'm humbled.
You guys are too kind!
|
If this is true, then why do all protosses move their collosus/stalker army around in a big ball instead of spreading it out?
|
On July 18 2011 09:11 Kiaro wrote: If this is true, then why do all protosses move their collosus/stalker army around in a big ball instead of spreading it out?
If what is true?
Are you asking if the analysis of the formations is correct, or if using positional and marching tactics is useful?
If I were to guess why the Deathball is just a-clicked around in a big ball I'd say because it's really the easiest way to do it.
|
pls link some replays as well gr8 guide
|
|
|
|