EPTThanks for this guide.
[G] Lyyna’s TvP : How to mech every protoss cry - Page 11
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 Strategy |
|
Sergio1992
Italy522 Posts
Thanks for this guide. | ||
|
ZackAttack
United States884 Posts
 | ||
|
Grubbegrabbn
Sweden174 Posts
On March 24 2012 03:29 Breach_hu wrote: http://cupapp.com/hu/replay/view/424/1v1-Entombed_Valley-nfteamBreach-EEvEE some mech TvP action by me (EU GM Terran) i can upload some other games aswell, because im trying to play mech myself too. enjoy~ Just watched this (really cool game) and have read every post in this thread. Can't a high ranked protoss watch and comment on what went wrong here from the P point of view? To me it looked like both players did well (a couple of small mistakes here and there from both sides) but in the end the mech army prevailed. Was it the cost effectiveness everyone is talking about (60k units lost for T vs 72k for P near the end). To me it looked like the P did everything that a mech army should die from theorycraft-wise (chargelot, templars, archons, immortals, blink stalkers). Off topic: My head would explode halfway through that game, how the f-ck do you keep up for a freaking long game like that "pp I need to sleep and shave, back in 5... hours?". | ||
|
Daimai
Sweden762 Posts
| ||
|
Sc2eleazar
United States70 Posts
| ||
|
Fealthas
607 Posts
| ||
|
crocodile
United States615 Posts
| ||
|
McTeazy
Canada297 Posts
On March 27 2012 02:48 Lyyna wrote: . . . Did you at least watched some replays , to see how do i deal with mobility (as already said,mass sensor towers, which shows on the minimap yes, and "MassHack" orbitals)? Same for how engagements goes . . of course i watched the replays. don't get pissy just because your strategy has weaknesses. every strategy does. Specifically, mech has this problem in every match up. anyways, you're basically playing the turtle style that protoss usually does against a bio terran who has the more mobile army. You'll notice that they win a fair amount of games. There's some timings in the mid game specifically that can be really difficult. I noticed such a timing in your replays as well. how have you fared against immortal busts? sometimes you only have a 3ish tanks and 10 marines. i think 3 immortals even without gateway support could bust that. Also, with the sensor towers, when you're on 4 bases you still can't move fast enough to deal with harass effectively i reckon. you expose your back a lot when you move out to the middle, i just haven't seen anyone in the replays exploit it. Do you have an example of you dealing with a heavily dropping/harassing player effectively? i'd interested to see that match | ||
|
crocodile
United States615 Posts
On March 27 2012 06:12 McTeazy wrote: of course i watched the replays. don't get pissy just because your strategy has weaknesses. every strategy does. Specifically, mech has this problem in every match up. anyways, you're basically playing the turtle style that protoss usually does against a bio terran who has the more mobile army. You'll notice that they win a fair amount of games. There's some timings in the mid game specifically that can be really difficult. I noticed such a timing in your replays as well. how have you fared against immortal busts? sometimes you only have a 3ish tanks and 10 marines. i think 3 immortals even without gateway support could bust that. Also, with the sensor towers, when you're on 4 bases you still can't move fast enough to deal with harass effectively i reckon. you expose your back a lot when you move out to the middle, i just haven't seen anyone in the replays exploit it. Do you have an example of you dealing with a heavily dropping/harassing player effectively? i'd interested to see that match Why don't you play him and find out? You're a protoss right? | ||
|
darkcloud8282
Canada776 Posts
| ||
|
crocodile
United States615 Posts
On March 27 2012 06:39 darkcloud8282 wrote: Nice guide, maybe you can include some replays submitted by other people in the thread since there seems to be so many variations of going mech in general (heavy ground/air). I think it will help in grasping what unit composition works best in various scenarios. Maybe its just because I submitted some of these replays, but I agree. | ||
|
rauk
United States2228 Posts
On March 27 2012 05:01 Grubbegrabbn wrote: Just watched this (really cool game) and have read every post in this thread. Can't a high ranked protoss watch and comment on what went wrong here from the P point of view? To me it looked like both players did well (a couple of small mistakes here and there from both sides) but in the end the mech army prevailed. Was it the cost effectiveness everyone is talking about (60k units lost for T vs 72k for P near the end). To me it looked like the P did everything that a mech army should die from theorycraft-wise (chargelot, templars, archons, immortals, blink stalkers). Off topic: My head would explode halfway through that game, how the f-ck do you keep up for a freaking long game like that "pp I need to sleep and shave, back in 5... hours?". there's a couple of reasons terran won. first, when toss had about 15 blink stalkers and terran had 4 marines and a tank, toss didn't just blink in and kill terran for making 3 CCs so fast. second, toss consistently makes too many stalkers and always has his chargelots trapped behind his stalkers or archons whenever he tries to engage. he also consistently chases hellions with pure chargelot and so loses a lot of chargelots for free. third, never makes any colossi so he hasn't got any splash to deal with hellions, because he keeps using storm instead of just making them into archons, which also means terran didn't have to make any vikings. lastly, he consistently fights with either half his army or attacks up a ramp (on terran's side of the map.........), the one or two times toss actually fights terran on even supply in the middle of the map toss rapes. | ||
|
c0se
Germany148 Posts
On March 27 2012 06:12 McTeazy wrote: of course i watched the replays. don't get pissy just because your strategy has weaknesses. every strategy does. Specifically, mech has this problem in every match up. anyways, you're basically playing the turtle style that protoss usually does against a bio terran who has the more mobile army. You'll notice that they win a fair amount of games. There's some timings in the mid game specifically that can be really difficult. I noticed such a timing in your replays as well. how have you fared against immortal busts? sometimes you only have a 3ish tanks and 10 marines. i think 3 immortals even without gateway support could bust that. Also, with the sensor towers, when you're on 4 bases you still can't move fast enough to deal with harass effectively i reckon. you expose your back a lot when you move out to the middle, i just haven't seen anyone in the replays exploit it. Do you have an example of you dealing with a heavily dropping/harassing player effectively? i'd interested to see that match which replays did you watch? all replays i've seen so far hes going Marines>Banshee>Thor>Tanks and never 10mins 3tanks+10 marines :/ | ||
|
Lyyna
France776 Posts
@McTeazy : well, i'm don't sure you watched right ones then . . . as c0se said, my open is basically marines into banshee and thors | ||
|
SEA KarMa
Australia452 Posts
User was warned for this post | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Go and figure what he will be producing most. Of course it is not pure "only Mech units", people whine about Broodlord/Infestor(Corruptor) all the time, when over 50% of the Zergs army is in basic units such as roaches/blings and lings in all of those games, apart from the "one in i a million" stalemates. This is really not about word picking. And if you do it, do it right and read what is written in the section "attributes" of those units: Not to get into semantics, but mech has historically been used to describe an army that mainly consists of factory units, whereas in this build the majority of endgame units features a very diverse mix. Please drop the pitchforks, I am merely suggesting to the build creator that he consider a different name for it to better describe its goals. In the past builds have had more descriptive names. The only advantage I see I have already said: EDIT: As I think more about this, Mech might have some validity since it instantly conjures in your mind a turtly style, a focus on your opponent having the wrong composition of units at max and/or inferior upgrades, and skipping earlygame/midgame in terms of potential aggression and weakness. Food for thought. Keep maintaining the guide because I personally have lost to variations of this (usually more map-control planetaries for additional third protection) and those replays are just great. | ||
|
Lyyna
France776 Posts
-Banshees -BC -Raven -PDD (yeah yeah, if he's slow on getting the ravens he'll have to care about 10 Pdd on the battlefield) -Medivacs (a few for ghosts) -Thors Hard to choose what to feedback,he? @Danglars : well, for me mech is everything involving metal-like units. And this is ok for me to use it because actually, for a lots of people, mech = factory units = A moving 50 tanks brainlessly into opponents army. It's a bio like saying "Marine/Tank" versus Z for example . . there is medivacs, there is vikings,there is marauder,etc. Actually i want the "mech" concept to evolve in the same way, thinking of it as an ball of both "mech ground" and "mech air" units. I'll probably not succeed to start this evolution (actually,succeeding at spreading this build and the turtling concept in the community would already be an huge victory for me), but it is one of my ultimate goals :D Anyway, i would like to thanks every people supporting me (because it's huge for motivation) and every people bashing me too (because i want to show them how stupid they are :D). Cheers! | ||
|
Yoshi Kirishima
United States10292 Posts
People are wrong, like you say, to call pure factory units the only kind of mech. In SC2, Terran is designed so that past a certain point, pure bio, pure mech, or pure air just loses effectiveness -- the micro required will become too intense, and so important support units will be "needed" such as medivacs and tanks for bio, and ghosts and vikings for mech. However using that logic to justify calling mech/air to be "mech" simply because they synergize wwell together (as do marine tank medivac ghost viking) is flawed. Marine Marauder Tank Thor Medivac Ghost Viking (with emphasis on Marine/Tank) is still Bio to me. The reason why is because the type of unit with the greatest amount of food is the bio units like the marines. Secondly, another important reason is because all the upgrades are focused on bio units. You get double bio upgrades, you don't get double vehicle upgrades. Mech with air support and ghosts, but emphasis on Mech, is Mech to me. However, when you start to add more and more starports later in the game, and upgrades for both mech and air units are about the same, I would then call it Mech/Air, because it is a half-half composition. When you start to remax on BCs or such, I would call that an air transition. Even if you still have some tanks and other mech ground units, they then become the support for that air army. Another reason is because the three styles, bio, mech, and air are very distinct. Composition is not the only thing separating them, as you know. Bio is dependent on smaller, but more active and aggressive numbers, harassing, pressuring, and chipping away your opponent. Mech is defensive, more passive, and relies (generally) on large numbers. Air is a strange mix of the two, but still different. It can really exploit ground based army's mobility barrier by flying into air space, allowing you to harass and pressure in a unique way, and seize map control from your opponent. If you're playing defensive, but with some banshee harass and such, I would still call that Mech - the main focus is on mech. You're still playing defensively (mainly). But once you switch to heavy BC, and start flying around killing bases and such, that is not so defensive and passive anymore. A mix between the two should be called Mech/Air or Air/Mech, to show the equally divided composition/focus/style. | ||
|
McTeazy
Canada297 Posts
On March 27 2012 07:52 Lyyna wrote: @darkcloud : i wait to finish the guide before including other's people stuff. But i keep track of every replays / vod / stream submitted to me or on the thread @McTeazy : well, i'm don't sure you watched right ones then . . . as c0se said, my open is basically marines into banshee and thors ok, i found a replay of something like you described. still though, it's 1 banshee and 20 marines and 4 tanks instead of 13 3 and none. is there a replay of you defending an immortal all in that you can remember? it just seems really really thin at that point. maybe if you alter your opening a bit you can make it safer and then transition? | ||
|
Kharnage
Australia920 Posts
On March 27 2012 09:47 McTeazy wrote: ok, i found a replay of something like you described. still though, it's 1 banshee and 20 marines and 4 tanks instead of 13 3 and none. is there a replay of you defending an immortal all in that you can remember? it just seems really really thin at that point. maybe if you alter your opening a bit you can make it safer and then transition? 4 tanks, 20 marines and a banshee should be able to hold an immortal bust. It'll come down to control and unit placement, but still, that's a pretty decent force. | ||
| ||
