|
I like the amount of discussion in the thread, and I'm pretty surprised by it. I'll make sure to read everything and bounce some ideas back and forth.
One thing I've noticed is that everyone has a different idea on what the endgame composition for terrans against both matchups should be. Me personally believe in marauder BC ghost, and possibly ravens in TvP. Other people have stated different things.
Why don't we try to play a couple of games where we aim for the lategame with a plan on when and how to tech switch, when to time our upgrades and how to open up the game to get into the best position and link replays so others can comment on what we can improve, to see if we can actually get something solid going.
Try to keep away from balance whining/unconstructive posts please.
|
On June 22 2012 08:00 ironpiggy wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 07:45 xOny wrote:
IMO in surpreme late game TvP terran is favored, Naniwa agrees, for a few reasons:
-On a map like Metro/ Daybreak, how does a protoss kill a turtling terran who has 20 vikings, 15 ghosts,maxed 3/3 bio, and defensive planetaries? you often times can not attack cost efficiently into that.
-Meanwhile, the terran is saccing all of his SCVs on minerals and going mass orbital. He then replaces that supply with even more scary units (more ghosts to make storms/archons irrelavent, so many vikings to negate any amount of colossus, and due to the non-supply of mules; enough bio to handle any protoss gateway composition ie mass chargelot).. at this point the terran can 100% of the time win with the massive army-supply lead he has (with proper army control)
So if you keep that in mind, you can then alter your mid-game playstyle to try and get to that point. Most terrans think throughout the whole mid-midlategame 'MUST KILL THE TOSS NOW!" and they get crushed by an equal army-supply protoss army... instead you could just defend w/ planetaries and set up archs with your army to survive until you can start saccing 90% of your SCVs and win later
tldr, change your mindset to "aggresive" mid game, to "passive-aggressive (never fully attacking, instead double dropping, constantly adding bases, defensive planetaries, and missile turret rings) But that's the problem, if the protoss attacks when they have 3/3, storm, collosi, and archons and are maxed before we have the defensive planetaries and are saccing scvs, we have problems, because the protoss should be able to get 3/3 before we do. The micro of our end game army in this instance very hard which is a main reason that people are complaining and looking for a new composition. The situation you say is not just supreme late game, it's a situation that is almost impossible to reach and comes once in like 30 or 40 games. And also, by the time we have this super max out, is it more efficient than a mech army is? There are more ideas to explore for compositions, and looking for that "ideal" composition is something that we need to aim for.
Can you provide replays of you trying to play completely/absolutely defensively on a map like Daybreak/Metro and dying to a 3/3 timing attack? Odds are you made some pretty big mistakes, as there is no reason that you should die to a timing from Protoss if you prepare correctly for it, just like a zerg has to make 40 spines to defend a 3 base max timing when they're getting their broods out.
Saying you can not get to a split map situation vs protoss, is ridiculous and can only be explained by severe lack of game knowledge/ experience of high level play.
The micro of our end game army in this instance very hard which is a main reason that people are complaining and looking for a new composition
oh.. you're one of those "it's too hard" people.. well I'm sure a zerg would prefer to 1 control group a-move his roaches around too, but good ones know the best way to play is to get to mass brood/infestor/corrupter, albeit harder to control. IMO a strategy should never be neglected because it's "too hard"...
|
For the sake of argument, let's say that late game Terran is actually powerful, and not just seemingly strong. The main problem then becomes the transition.
The first way to transition is outside of the ultra late game, where PFs are everywhere and MULES replace scvs. That is, to slowly transition out of bio play, where you begin mixing in more and more BCs with starports, maybe not even swapping tech labs, just keeping the production of most of the barracks, until you have a large enough number of battlecruisers/ravens with starports. I think the main problem with this transition is that it is too resource heavy. Whenever I tried to play this, I couldn't support the army I needed with the upgrades I needed without playing really risky. I would have to cut production of units so I could get more starports up. It's not even so much a gas related problem either, which is still hard to balance without ultra late game bank, it's a mineral problem. I couldn't support an optimal army(vikings for colo, ghosts for high temp, or tanks and vikings for zerg with the normal marines/marine-marauder) to deal with their composition, while getting upgrades and even more production buildings. Zerg have a similar problem when they bank gas for a ton of brood lords outside of the ultra late game, they cut their production of gas units for awhile to bank some gas. I and most zergs will then use the extra minerals on spine crawlers, to hold for brood lords. However, this isn't an option for terran, because you are never banking minerals as terran, and of course, all the static defenses require minerals, and the best one even uses gas(PF). In summary, a slow transition involves a long period of sub-optimal army without strong static defense, with low chance of surviving multiple attacks. A transition outside of the ultra late-game will simply never happen.
Now then, we've established that a transition must be made in the ultra-late game, where there are PFs and MULES and whatnot; an obvious reference is game five of MVP vs Squirtle. When we reach this maxed out stage, you obviously don't want to be making even more barracks units, and this means that for a while, because of how long BCs take to come out in large enough numbers, you won't be producing at maximum capacity while freeing up supply by killing scvs. With the way protoss and zerg remax so quickly, especially at this ultra late game stage, you would have to hope that they don't attack you multiple times, or after the initial fight with your maxed out army, you would be trading horribly badly with low amounts of units stalling for time. However, if they don't attack you, for whatever reason, it might work as we saw in MVP vs Squirtle. If this style becomes the norm, people are just going to realize what's going on, and always continuously remax with the bank they have, and continuously in waves of maxed out units, attack. Not that protoss doesn't do so anyway. In fact, this really boils down to how quickly zerg and protoss remax compared to terran armies.
Once again, this is only considering the Terran late game being strong enough to not need to remax. In other words, it literally doesn't die to anything when it is fully realized without needing to be remade, because if you have to remax on BC's, assuming you actually could, you will surely die before they come out in time.
In the end, I don't think BC transitions are a very good idea. Not even unit composition wise, but just the transition alone is bad enough. Some style of mass ghosts would be much safer, and I even think strong composition wise. It has synergy with units already out, and the production for it is nearly all there, maybe more tech labs.
Edit: This is all from my experience as a mid-masters random player. I prefer macro games, perhaps because I played zerg primarily until masters, and even as Terran I play to the late game. I have come to a good amount of ultra-late games, and found that BC transitions are very risky. I've only played mass ghost with some ravens a few times, and already find it much much more safe.
|
Endgame armies shouldn't be thought of as static unit compositions where you make X% of this unit, Y% of that unit, and Z% of a couple others. It's about trying to get the edge by countering your opponent's composition as best as possible and setting up good engagements through positioning, baiting tactics, and multipronged tactics. Even the most ultimate armies can be destroyed in one way or another.
|
I have a big issue with the suggestions of going for the endgame to transition into a superior lategame army.
Nevermind that it basically means you're going for a 40+ min game, but its also extremely map dependent. You have to be able to effectively split the map and defend key points. Not only does this mean that Terran has to survive during the massive transition but it is impossible on maps that you can't effectively defend.
|
On June 22 2012 08:24 -Exalt- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 08:00 ironpiggy wrote:On June 22 2012 07:45 xOny wrote:
IMO in surpreme late game TvP terran is favored, Naniwa agrees, for a few reasons:
-On a map like Metro/ Daybreak, how does a protoss kill a turtling terran who has 20 vikings, 15 ghosts,maxed 3/3 bio, and defensive planetaries? you often times can not attack cost efficiently into that.
-Meanwhile, the terran is saccing all of his SCVs on minerals and going mass orbital. He then replaces that supply with even more scary units (more ghosts to make storms/archons irrelavent, so many vikings to negate any amount of colossus, and due to the non-supply of mules; enough bio to handle any protoss gateway composition ie mass chargelot).. at this point the terran can 100% of the time win with the massive army-supply lead he has (with proper army control)
So if you keep that in mind, you can then alter your mid-game playstyle to try and get to that point. Most terrans think throughout the whole mid-midlategame 'MUST KILL THE TOSS NOW!" and they get crushed by an equal army-supply protoss army... instead you could just defend w/ planetaries and set up archs with your army to survive until you can start saccing 90% of your SCVs and win later
tldr, change your mindset to "aggresive" mid game, to "passive-aggressive (never fully attacking, instead double dropping, constantly adding bases, defensive planetaries, and missile turret rings) But that's the problem, if the protoss attacks when they have 3/3, storm, collosi, and archons and are maxed before we have the defensive planetaries and are saccing scvs, we have problems, because the protoss should be able to get 3/3 before we do. The micro of our end game army in this instance very hard which is a main reason that people are complaining and looking for a new composition. The situation you say is not just supreme late game, it's a situation that is almost impossible to reach and comes once in like 30 or 40 games. And also, by the time we have this super max out, is it more efficient than a mech army is? There are more ideas to explore for compositions, and looking for that "ideal" composition is something that we need to aim for. Can you provide replays of you trying to play completely/absolutely defensively on a map like Daybreak/Metro and dying to a 3/3 timing attack? Odds are you made some pretty big mistakes, as there is no reason that you should die to a timing from Protoss if you prepare correctly for it, just like a zerg has to make 40 spines to defend a 3 base max timing when they're getting their broods out. Saying you can not get to a split map situation vs protoss, is ridiculous and can only be explained by severe lack of game knowledge/ experience of high level play. Show nested quote +The micro of our end game army in this instance very hard which is a main reason that people are complaining and looking for a new composition oh.. you're one of those "it's too hard" people.. well I'm sure a zerg would prefer to 1 control group a-move his roaches around too, but good ones know the best way to play is to get to mass brood/infestor/corrupter, albeit harder to control. IMO a strategy should never be neglected because it's "too hard"...
whoa whoa whoa. I'm not one of those "it's too hard" people. I'm one of those "there should be a different way to do this." Also, I was explaining a general reason as to why people are looking for a new end game composition, because it seemed like xOny was saying that the current extreme end game is the most viable one.
And I didn't say a thing about tvz, so I don't understand why you're mentioning it at all. Nor did I say you "can not get to a split map situation vs protoss", I said it's almost impossible to reach, either because of dying or because you kill the protoss by then. And if you've played ladder, you know that an extreme late game scenario like that is incredibly hard to come by.
And I'm just saying that if you try to get to super end game with bio, you have chances of just dying after one engagement. If you go mech, most protosses are too afraid to engage it, because no one really knows whether or not who will win the engagement right now.
You seriously misinterpreted a lot of what I said.
|
On June 22 2012 09:30 HeroMystic wrote:
I have a big issue with the suggestions of going for the endgame to transition into a superior lategame army.
Nevermind that it basically means you're going for a 40+ min game, but its also extremely map dependent. You have to be able to effectively split the map and defend key points. Not only does this mean that Terran has to survive during the massive transition but it is impossible on maps that you can't effectively defend.
I agree to an extent. It's pretty stupid to try to go for a 40+ minute game every time as your core strategy. The game is always going to start with an opening, go into a midgame transition, and eventually an endgame and a supreme late game--at least, until someone missteps or rolls the dice and the game ends. But there are games when it's half-map half-map and neither player breaks each other, both players get to 3-3 (or 3-3-3) with multiple tech trees finished and a ton of production established, and it's important to be prepared for that stage of the game when it happens. Is it as important as the opening? Hell no; every game has a beginning but not all of them have an uber late-game. There's way too much variance for that. But for those few games where it's 45 minutes in and you can build whatever 3-3 armies you want from the entire tech tree, it's worth thinking about. Those games do happen, and they happen in major tournaments at crucial moments. Food for thought.
|
I have a build I have been thinking about for awhile but I have not tried it out yet. But I will give it a go tomorrow on the ladder.
Get gas at 16 then fast expand.
Get 3 barrack 1 factory and 1 starport on your 2 bases.
Build 2 vikings that you split up to take out any overlords on the map, keep putting your gas into vikings and bio upgrades. Go for a timing attack with all your scvs and the bio force you built up during the viking harass. The zerg cant remake units and you win.
6 queen opening which are standard these days do deal well with the vikings, however if they use those to defend they are not spreading creep and taking map control, and vikings are still faster and have good air-air range so you should be able to kill loads of overlords, then land them to buff versus banelings with your big all-in push. The reactor starport will also be nice to get medivacs out in time for the 11-12 minute push.
|
United States4883 Posts
I've spent a lot of time thinking about this, and I've come up with a reasonable theory, I believe. The biggest problem facing terrans is THE STEPPING STONES BETWEEN HEAVY BIO TO LATE GAME UNITS.
1) For all intents and purposes, we know we want to end up with a lot of BC or a lot of Ravens. I say OR because it's certainly impossible to find all the gas to put down the production structures + upgrades and still get a sizeable amount of both BC and Ravens. Our lategame composition is going to be a lot of SOMETHING + RAVENS/BCs.
2) The question is what our base army is going to be. Unquestionably, terran is going heavy bio in both matchups (for the most part). We have plenty of ideas for switching towards a biomech in both matchups, adding in thors/hellions to our MMMG armies as we start to reach 16:00. Bio generally leaves us with an excess of gas; Bomber put this directly into Ravens, players like Polt put it into mech. Biomech IS an option of transition.
3) Some players have been experimenting with pure mech as well. Because we stick with this composition of heavy meching, we can more easily transition into lategame mech with our endgame air transition. Therefore, I can see our two main army masses being MMM OR THOR/HELLION depending on how mobile we want to be or how fast we want to transition to our lategame tech. (edit: vikings and ghosts are added into both these mixtures as needed, of course)
So that gives us our ideal engame army: MMM OR THOR/HELLION supported by BCs OR RAVENS. We can have bio+ravens, Bomber-style or bio+BC Mvp-style. Or we can stick to pure mech with the endgame air support. The question now is how to comfortably transition into the gas-heavy air units needed to support our lategame composition. Like zerg, this is an endgame composition of our highest tiered units; we need several bases and tons of gas. Like zerg, WE NEED A SERIES OF TIERS.
Zerg tiers, from lowest to highest, give a general idea of the proper tech path, and look like this:
Tier 1: zergling/baneling
Tier 1.5: roaches
Tier 2: mutas, infestors, hydras
Tier 2.5: ultras, corruptors
Tier 3: Brood Lords
Right now the terran tiers look something like this:
Tier 1: marine/marauder, hellions
Tier 2: marine/marauder, tanks, thors
Tier 2.5: ????
Tier 3: MECH
Tier 4: BC/Ravens
As the blank suggests, I think terran is missing a tier. The biggest problem is that once terran gets to a strong MMM/G composition, perhaps with some tanks or thors, there's not really a good way to step out of the multi-pronged aggressive playstyle and into a comfortable passive style. I don't think this problem presents itself as much with mech because we're playing passive all game long and generally spend this time finally pushing our advantage. But to those who are at a struggle to pass into the endgame army, there's just not enough time or money or safety to sit comfortably on 4-5 bases.
I PROPOSE THE NUKE IS THE MISSING TIER. Using nukes and large drops (2-3 medivacs), we can buy a ton of time to get up the infrastructure needed to transition into the endgame army. During this time, we can set up defense (imagine stations of a planetary fortress in a choke with 2 tanks and a missile turret) and start getting the proper production facilities and upgrades.
Assuming the viability of a "super-terran" endgame army, we can say that using nukes to transition into mech or straight into Raven/BC is a reasonable choice. Even if zerg and protoss can fall back to a quick army remax, the terran composition should ALSO be able to remax rather quickly with MMM/G or Thor/hellion...the ravens and BC are just the final addition to the mix. Thoughts?
|
I think using Nukes and drops as a "missing tier" is faulty logic because it also relies on the opponent being worse than you are. Competent Zergs already know how to deal with drops and they will clean up the Nukes with Spores/Overseers.
I believe Nukes are a lategame option because of how spread out the Zerg will be. Running 5 bases with Infestor/Brood Lord while getting dropped in 2 locations and nuked in a 3rd location is hard to stop. Getting nuked at your third and a drop at your main when you're on 3/4 bases isn't as difficult to handle.
|
United States4883 Posts
On June 22 2012 10:30 Entirety wrote:
I think using Nukes and drops as a "missing tier" is faulty logic because it also relies on the opponent being worse than you are. Competent Zergs already know how to deal with drops and they will clean up the Nukes with Spores/Overseers.
I believe Nukes are a lategame option because of how spread out the Zerg will be. Running 5 bases with Infestor/Brood Lord while getting dropped in 2 locations and nuked in a 3rd location is hard to stop. Getting nuked at your third and a drop at your main when you're on 3/4 bases isn't as difficult to handle.
I'm talking about when zerg is on 4-5 bases with hivetech. This commonly happens around 16:00-18:00 in a game, especially on maps like Metropolis (where we saw MMA nuke and drop the hell out of Stephano until he died). Assuming the zerg doesn't die, we can safely trade bits of bio for air at little cost.
|
On June 22 2012 09:50 ineversmile wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 09:30 HeroMystic wrote:
I have a big issue with the suggestions of going for the endgame to transition into a superior lategame army.
Nevermind that it basically means you're going for a 40+ min game, but its also extremely map dependent. You have to be able to effectively split the map and defend key points. Not only does this mean that Terran has to survive during the massive transition but it is impossible on maps that you can't effectively defend. I agree to an extent. It's pretty stupid to try to go for a 40+ minute game every time as your core strategy. The game is always going to start with an opening, go into a midgame transition, and eventually an endgame and a supreme late game--at least, until someone missteps or rolls the dice and the game ends. But there are games when it's half-map half-map and neither player breaks each other, both players get to 3-3 (or 3-3-3) with multiple tech trees finished and a ton of production established, and it's important to be prepared for that stage of the game when it happens. Is it as important as the opening? Hell no; every game has a beginning but not all of them have an uber late-game. There's way too much variance for that. But for those few games where it's 45 minutes in and you can build whatever 3-3 armies you want from the entire tech tree, it's worth thinking about. Those games do happen, and they happen in major tournaments at crucial moments. Food for thought.
I agree, but this is also an entirely separate scenario to the regular lategame. No one cares if Terran is superior at the endgame in this thread. It's not the point, let alone for it being such a rarity, and saying "Go for the endgame" as a standard strategy is just silly.
That said, I want to address the BC/Raven transition.
...If it requires a lot of them to be good, it's a bad unit.
So that goes for BCs and Ravens. Ravens are not nessecarily a bad unit, but as an offensive unit? Pretty terrible. Defensively? Excellent. For a defensive unit though, you don't need a lot of them. Maybe 2-4 to support your Vikings.
I really like what Architecture said in his series of posts, saying that your first round of units need to be useful right from the start. If you have to get a massive number of them (like BCs), I wouldn't bother trying.
It's better (and cheaper) to transition into Viking/Raven/Banshee as a lategame composition. Maybe have 1-2 BCs to act as Yamato snipers vs BLs or Infestors. However, I'm far more interested in transitioning into mass ghosts while continuing to be aggressive. Treating your Ghosts like MMM and spreading them out while EMPing/Sniping Infestors sound like a valid though perhaps difficult strategy.
|
On June 22 2012 11:39 HeroMystic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 09:50 ineversmile wrote:On June 22 2012 09:30 HeroMystic wrote:
I have a big issue with the suggestions of going for the endgame to transition into a superior lategame army.
Nevermind that it basically means you're going for a 40+ min game, but its also extremely map dependent. You have to be able to effectively split the map and defend key points. Not only does this mean that Terran has to survive during the massive transition but it is impossible on maps that you can't effectively defend. I agree to an extent. It's pretty stupid to try to go for a 40+ minute game every time as your core strategy. The game is always going to start with an opening, go into a midgame transition, and eventually an endgame and a supreme late game--at least, until someone missteps or rolls the dice and the game ends. But there are games when it's half-map half-map and neither player breaks each other, both players get to 3-3 (or 3-3-3) with multiple tech trees finished and a ton of production established, and it's important to be prepared for that stage of the game when it happens. Is it as important as the opening? Hell no; every game has a beginning but not all of them have an uber late-game. There's way too much variance for that. But for those few games where it's 45 minutes in and you can build whatever 3-3 armies you want from the entire tech tree, it's worth thinking about. Those games do happen, and they happen in major tournaments at crucial moments. Food for thought. I agree, but this is also an entirely separate scenario to the regular lategame. No one cares if Terran is superior at the endgame in this thread. It's not the point, let alone for it being such a rarity, and saying "Go for the endgame" as a standard strategy is just silly. That said, I want to address the BC/Raven transition. ...If it requires a lot of them to be good, it's a bad unit. So that goes for BCs and Ravens. Ravens are not nessecarily a bad unit, but as an offensive unit? Pretty terrible. Defensively? Excellent. For a defensive unit though, you don't need a lot of them. Maybe 2-4 to support your Vikings. I really like what Architecture said in his series of posts, saying that your first round of units need to be useful right from the start. If you have to get a massive number of them (like BCs), I wouldn't bother trying. It's better (and cheaper) to transition into Viking/Raven/Banshee as a lategame composition. Maybe have 1-2 BCs to act as Yamato snipers vs BLs or Infestors. However, I'm far more interested in transitioning into mass ghosts while continuing to be aggressive. Treating your Ghosts like MMM and spreading them out while EMPing/Sniping Infestors sound like a valid though perhaps difficult strategy.
I don't like too much air in TvZ because the Zerg can make a lot of Corruptor/Infestor, then morph some Broodlords to kill all the stuff you have on the ground. A couple of air units to cover for the Ravens is good, as well as to force more Corruptors, but I don't like more than that as chain fungals>air.(typically, besides BC's)
|
On June 22 2012 11:56 Fencer710 wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2012 11:39 HeroMystic wrote:On June 22 2012 09:50 ineversmile wrote:On June 22 2012 09:30 HeroMystic wrote:
I have a big issue with the suggestions of going for the endgame to transition into a superior lategame army.
Nevermind that it basically means you're going for a 40+ min game, but its also extremely map dependent. You have to be able to effectively split the map and defend key points. Not only does this mean that Terran has to survive during the massive transition but it is impossible on maps that you can't effectively defend. I agree to an extent. It's pretty stupid to try to go for a 40+ minute game every time as your core strategy. The game is always going to start with an opening, go into a midgame transition, and eventually an endgame and a supreme late game--at least, until someone missteps or rolls the dice and the game ends. But there are games when it's half-map half-map and neither player breaks each other, both players get to 3-3 (or 3-3-3) with multiple tech trees finished and a ton of production established, and it's important to be prepared for that stage of the game when it happens. Is it as important as the opening? Hell no; every game has a beginning but not all of them have an uber late-game. There's way too much variance for that. But for those few games where it's 45 minutes in and you can build whatever 3-3 armies you want from the entire tech tree, it's worth thinking about. Those games do happen, and they happen in major tournaments at crucial moments. Food for thought. I agree, but this is also an entirely separate scenario to the regular lategame. No one cares if Terran is superior at the endgame in this thread. It's not the point, let alone for it being such a rarity, and saying "Go for the endgame" as a standard strategy is just silly. That said, I want to address the BC/Raven transition. ...If it requires a lot of them to be good, it's a bad unit. So that goes for BCs and Ravens. Ravens are not nessecarily a bad unit, but as an offensive unit? Pretty terrible. Defensively? Excellent. For a defensive unit though, you don't need a lot of them. Maybe 2-4 to support your Vikings. I really like what Architecture said in his series of posts, saying that your first round of units need to be useful right from the start. If you have to get a massive number of them (like BCs), I wouldn't bother trying. It's better (and cheaper) to transition into Viking/Raven/Banshee as a lategame composition. Maybe have 1-2 BCs to act as Yamato snipers vs BLs or Infestors. However, I'm far more interested in transitioning into mass ghosts while continuing to be aggressive. Treating your Ghosts like MMM and spreading them out while EMPing/Sniping Infestors sound like a valid though perhaps difficult strategy. I don't like too much air in TvZ because the Zerg can make a lot of Corruptor/Infestor, then morph some Broodlords to kill all the stuff you have on the ground. A couple of air units to cover for the Ravens is good, as well as to force more Corruptors, but I don't like more than that as chain fungals>air.(typically, besides BC's)
There's really no reason why you shouldn't treat your air units like bio and spread them out. Hell, you already have to do the same thing with just Raven/Viking. Banshees can even be used to snipe infestors from flanked positions.
There's a lot you can do with Banshees. Far more than what you can with a Battlecrusier (unfortunately). It's also very useless to NP a Banshee, while the BC can Yamato a Raven or be a 550 HP tank.
|
There is no terran "lategame", stop kidding yourselves.
User was warned for this post
|
I am a master protoss who has no idea about TvZ, but I feel mech should REALLY be explored more. I cringe every time terrans say they don't have a viable endgame mix. Mech itself is already pretty strong (hellions and tanks destroy zealots and thors anything else) and with ghosts added I just don't see any counter to that even.
Check out Lyyna's mech thread, it even has me raging at him in there!
http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=323003
|
United States4883 Posts
On June 22 2012 11:39 HeroMystic wrote:
It's better (and cheaper) to transition into Viking/Raven/Banshee as a lategame composition. Maybe have 1-2 BCs to act as Yamato snipers vs BLs or Infestors. However, I'm far more interested in transitioning into mass ghosts while continuing to be aggressive. Treating your Ghosts like MMM and spreading them out while EMPing/Sniping Infestors sound like a valid though perhaps difficult strategy.
I've actually experimented with a maruder/ghost/viking lategame style. And I've tried to split ghosts like marines, but they just don't do it very well. Ghosts are AWFUL at splitting quickly. But the marauder/ghost/viking is actually a really cool, mobile lategame composition. I never really looked at possible transitions, but I suppose I could have started nuking everywhere while adding on some BC's or Ravens.
Might be something people can look into. I basically had like 20 rax with tech labs at the end so I could produce marines if I needed to.
|
On June 21 2012 20:10 SomeONEx wrote:I think that reaper is an actual option in lategame TvP. My coach from a long time ago taught me that once I'd hit max in TvZ, I should add some 3-4 rax with tech labs for ghosts. Now, if the same is done but with reapers instead, and we just drop away some supply and add in ~10 reapers, I think that Blizzard will find another thing to nerf with Terrans  I would like to add, that I am backing this statement up with a game ThorZain played against some Protoss I can't recall where ThorZain added in reapers in his army and just crushed the Protoss, can't remember where/what game it was 
Thorzain vs Crank in Slayers vs mouz of EG Masters Cup VII
|
i think that camping until you have 12 thor(1 shoot broodlords)/12 tank, then go out, this can work imho
this against zerg of course
User was warned for this post
|
On June 22 2012 18:39 Garmer wrote:
i think that camping until you have 12 thor(1 shoot broodlords)/12 tank, then go out, this can work imho
this against zerg of course
No, it can't. I have tried it, and 3/3 mech simply doesn't work vs Infestor-Broodlord.
If your tanks are sieged, the broodlords are going to devastate your thors using the friendly fire mechanic (which is retarded, by the way- IMO, after all the ridiculous nerf's, and banes/Collosi doing no friendly damage, the friendly splash should be removed.. but that's a different discussion).
If your tanks are unsieged, or you got too many Thors, he just NP's each of the Thors (he should have at least 1 Infestor per Thor at that point in time), make the Thors kill all the tanks, then each other, and you're dead.
An alternative is simply having ~10 queens, mass infestors, and mass broodlords.. You'll never get a good concave to actually shoot at a single BL with 12 Thors, and the queens will just heal the BL's, making them unkillable. If you got sieged tanks ,they destroy your own army.
Edit:
Of course, if you got no tanks but mainly hellions, he Nueral's all the Thors, fungle and kill any hellions that try to intercept the Infestors, and you die. Quite simple.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
