|
Hey!
I have been trying to think of alternative methods of playing TvP and am wondering if this transition works?
Since there are two main marco routes a protoss will go against terran (colossus/HT or both), I wondered if adding battle cruisers in would put terran in an advantageous position for mid-late game engagements?
Since terran are forced to flex according to what protoss builds (if protoss goes templar, terran replies with ghosts and terran builds vikings to respond to colossus), the addition of BCs instead of vikings would create a problem for protoss players that do not react correctly.
Against a protoss composition of colossi/templar with battle cruisers instead of mass vikings, I feel the terran army is much stronger.
Against templar, obviously the BCs are stronger. Even if templar use feedback, it doesn't really hurt them substantually if properly upgraded, and if the templar energy is used there, all the better for your bio force (long live the tanks of terran army!).
Why do I think this? Whether your build vikings or battle cruisers, you have to get the attack and armor upgrades for air if toss builds colossus, but this way, the units aren't useless once the colossi die and provide a transition to late game.
Battle cruisers:
400 mineral
300 gas
90sec build
550 Health
Vikings:
150 mineral
75 gas
22sec build (when reactored)
125 Health
Essentially, you are building ~3.5 vikings per BC in cost, and 4 vikings per BC in build time, but the real win in my opinion is the health differential, even when compared against 4 vikings.
The reason I believe this would be a great transition is because it gives your frail MMM army a tank for damage which has a constant rate of fire. Additionally, the BCs are great because you could theoretically phase out marauders entirely unless toss went pure stalker vs. the BCs (since BCs tank damage) and incorporate ghosts instead. Yes, this is an gas heavy composition, but gas is something I find I have too much of late game in this matchup.
Anyway, this is just theory-crafting, and I am not a high level player. So what I am asking for is your thoughts in regard to this idea and why it could have potential, or why it has not been more popular in high-level play.
-Jinx
|
Because you have a reactored starport to build medivacs which you use to churn out a couple of quick viking when Toss starts investing significantly towards Colossi. You can't reactively build Battlecruisers because you need to have a tech labbed starport, a fusion core and then it takes another 90 seconds to get a single BC which has way less range than Vikings and can only tickle a Colossus in comparison to 4 Vikings.
BC's are also way slower than your bio army which negates your mobility advantage.
|
tvp mid game is all micro based. depending on how you play, if you do some damage in the early game and make toss waste gas, then you dont have much tech to worry about.
|
BC's fail to see any use in high level play because they are just a completely slow, expensive, useless, garbage unit with questionable dps and terrible range.
|
[QUOTE]On September 21 2012 04:15 Saechiis wrote:
Because you have a reactored starport to build medivacs which you use to churn out a couple of quick viking when Toss starts investing significantly towards Colossi. You can't reactively build Battlecruisers because you need to have a tech labbed starport, a fusion core and then it takes another 90 seconds to get a single BC[QUOTE]
Actually, I was talking about a non-reactionary build, in which you plan from the beginning to go BC. For instance, instead of going reactor on Starport, use factory to build TL for starport, and build a total of 2 starports and pump out 2 medivacs this way, and once you have fusion core, switch the naked starport onto barracks TL (ending up with 2 starports on tech labs). If you planned on going BC from the beginning, regardless of opponent build, the fusion core could be planned for ahead of time and reduce the latency of getting the first BC out.
Good point regarding mobility of army. Since you'd still have medivacs, drops are still a viable option though. It is likely the initially army from toss would be stalker heavy if your fusion core was spotted (or HT or air I suppose) which would lower the colossus/zealot count as well, making your bio army more effective against the protoss army I would think.
|
On September 21 2012 04:32 ButtCraft wrote:
BC's fail to see any use in high level play because they are just a completely slow, expensive, useless, garbage unit with questionable dps and terrible range.
This is not constructive and is unsubstantiated. Don't bother posting useless opinions unless you wish to specify a particular situation in which these apply. DPS is not the issue, it is the ability for the BCs to tank for the bio army (which has excessive DPS). Range can be a problem, situationally, the BC is for main engagments, not for rapid base defense. Though, I do agree that their ability to retreat is a problem in many maps.
|
On September 21 2012 04:31 LgNKami wrote:
tvp mid game is all micro based. depending on how you play, if you do some damage in the early game and make toss waste gas, then you dont have much tech to worry about.
I agree, this is a good point. In my case, however, I don't seem to have great success doing early damage to my opponent, and I prefer to purely out-macro, rather than out micro my opponent. So, perhaps a playstyle preference as well as a difference in skill level. 
|
On September 21 2012 04:44 jinx1281255 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 04:32 ButtCraft wrote:
BC's fail to see any use in high level play because they are just a completely slow, expensive, useless, garbage unit with questionable dps and terrible range. This is not constructive and is unsubstantiated. Don't bother posting useless opinions unless you wish to specify a particular situation in which these apply. DPS is not the issue, it is the ability for the BCs to tank for the bio army (which has excessive DPS). Range can be a problem, situationally, the BC is for main engagments, not for rapid base defense. Though, I do agree that their ability to retreat is a problem in many maps.
I'm just giving you my opinion. I'm high masters terran and I think BC's are useless in TvP. What damage is it going to tank? STALKERS?
The real damage dealers in TvP are a combination of collosi, storm, and chargelots. BC's cannot tank damage from these units.
There's a reason you don't see them in high level play.
|
On September 21 2012 04:44 jinx1281255 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 04:32 ButtCraft wrote:
BC's fail to see any use in high level play because they are just a completely slow, expensive, useless, garbage unit with questionable dps and terrible range. This is not constructive and is unsubstantiated. Don't bother posting useless opinions unless you wish to specify a particular situation in which these apply. DPS is not the issue, it is the ability for the BCs to tank for the bio army (which has excessive DPS). Range can be a problem, situationally, the BC is for main engagments, not for rapid base defense. Though, I do agree that their ability to retreat is a problem in many maps.
I don't understand how BCs are supposed to tank for a bio army. Stalker fire is not the primary occupational hazard for your late game bio ball.
|
On September 21 2012 04:44 jinx1281255 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 04:32 ButtCraft wrote:
BC's fail to see any use in high level play because they are just a completely slow, expensive, useless, garbage unit with questionable dps and terrible range. This is not constructive and is unsubstantiated. Don't bother posting useless opinions unless you wish to specify a particular situation in which these apply. DPS is not the issue, it is the ability for the BCs to tank for the bio army (which has excessive DPS). Range can be a problem, situationally, the BC is for main engagments, not for rapid base defense. Though, I do agree that their ability to retreat is a problem in many maps.
What exactly is the BC tanking?
|
The reason why this kind of build isn't used is that you straight up die to any attack while building your BCs I suppose. What if he just pushes with 2/3 colossus? You'll have what, 1 bc, with no little to no upgrades? your bio will melt and cya.
The only way of getting BCs in the game (and you need to mass them for them to be effective) is to turtle like hell (like in the TvZ guide written some time ago by a ministry of win manager), with planetaries everywhere and such (like MVP did on metropolis during GSL finals).
You can't just transition out of bio into BC's, they are way too expensive and long to get I guess. On top of that it's not like colossi that are a support unit, one bc is useless, you need to go full sky terran if you want them to be useful :/
And if another reason was needed, upgrades have nothing to do with feedback damage. Your BCs will take 200 damage if feedbacked with full energy, which is pretty terrible.
So yeah, if you want to play with BCs, go mass turtle into mass orbital/sac SCVs and max on sky terran. I think you can refer to Lynaa's guide to mech in TvP, where he explains everything you need to know to transition to late game sky terran (from mech, but the concept is the same).
|
I don't understand how BCs are supposed to tank for a bio army. Stalker fire is not the primary occupational hazard for your late game bio ball.
The idea behind the BCs is that they are a solid unit when mixed with a bio-centric force that give strength to the overall army composition because of their high health and constant fire and will cause the protoss player to have to respond with more than a few stalkers (producing useless units that are countered by bio) instead of using primarily zealots and therefore lowering the available gas to produce colossi and templar which can tear apart a pure bio composition.
The concept here is that BCs may acutally give terran the ability to cause protoss to build units that are less benificial in late game. I'm not saying this is fact, or that every terran should try this - I'm merely trying to raise some discussion regarding the idea of incorporating BCs instead of vikings which fragile and weak against everything beside colossi.
-Jinx
|
On September 21 2012 05:09 Talack wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 04:44 jinx1281255 wrote:On September 21 2012 04:32 ButtCraft wrote:
BC's fail to see any use in high level play because they are just a completely slow, expensive, useless, garbage unit with questionable dps and terrible range. This is not constructive and is unsubstantiated. Don't bother posting useless opinions unless you wish to specify a particular situation in which these apply. DPS is not the issue, it is the ability for the BCs to tank for the bio army (which has excessive DPS). Range can be a problem, situationally, the BC is for main engagments, not for rapid base defense. Though, I do agree that their ability to retreat is a problem in many maps. What exactly is the BC tanking?
The BCs would tank damage mainly from stalkers, high-templars, archons etc.
|
On September 21 2012 05:09 Nimix wrote:
The reason why this kind of build isn't used is that you straight up die to any attack while building your BCs I suppose. What if he just pushes with 2/3 colossus? You'll have what, 1 bc, with no little to no upgrades? your bio will melt and cya.
The only way of getting BCs in the game (and you need to mass them for them to be effective) is to turtle like hell (like in the TvZ guide written some time ago by a ministry of win manager), with planetaries everywhere and such (like MVP did on metropolis during GSL finals).
You can't just transition out of bio into BC's, they are way too expensive and long to get I guess. On top of that it's not like colossi that are a support unit, one bc is useless, you need to go full sky terran if you want them to be useful :/
And if another reason was needed, upgrades have nothing to do with feedback damage. Your BCs will take 200 damage if feedbacked with full energy, which is pretty terrible.
So yeah, if you want to play with BCs, go mass turtle into mass orbital/sac SCVs and max on sky terran. I think you can refer to Lynaa's guide to mech in TvP, where he explains everything you need to know to transition to late game sky terran (from mech, but the concept is the same).
Thank you for your post! This is very good info, and was exactly what I was looking for.
Perhaps a more gradual transition would be better than what I had envisioned. I had figured a 1RaxFE into double starport (medivac/BC production) and then 3rd CC. Perhaps if I initally built vikings until after 3rd was established I'd have enough defense and economy to make it work. I'll look into Lynaa's guide and see if there is anything I use for bio.
-Jinx
|
On September 21 2012 04:54 ButtCraft wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 04:44 jinx1281255 wrote:On September 21 2012 04:32 ButtCraft wrote:
BC's fail to see any use in high level play because they are just a completely slow, expensive, useless, garbage unit with questionable dps and terrible range. This is not constructive and is unsubstantiated. Don't bother posting useless opinions unless you wish to specify a particular situation in which these apply. DPS is not the issue, it is the ability for the BCs to tank for the bio army (which has excessive DPS). Range can be a problem, situationally, the BC is for main engagments, not for rapid base defense. Though, I do agree that their ability to retreat is a problem in many maps. I'm just giving you my opinion. I'm high masters terran and I think BC's are useless in TvP. What damage is it going to tank? STALKERS? The real damage dealers in TvP are a combination of collosi, storm, and chargelots. BC's cannot tank damage from these units. There's a reason you don't see them in high level play.
And colossi and charglots can do no damage to BCs, which makes them a fantastic unit to require protoss to make less DPS-friendly units such as stalkers or to narrow colossus production to make way for mostly templar. My point being that if I build BCs, you can't just continue to build colossus/zealot and expect to be fine. That being the case, I would guess you would go templar/archon/zealot, which is why the ghosts are part of this as well.
Granted, this is just theory, and your experience tells you this idea fails at higher levels. I appreciate your input
-Jinx
|
I have an issue with two of the points you made that are sticking out like sore thumbs when I think about BCs.
The first point is that you say BCs are not useless once the colossi are dead. How are you planning on killing colossi without vikings? The only way I can see colossi dying is to yamato cannon, in which case you'll need 4-6 high energy battlecruisers and the yamato upgrade before a colossi push comes. On a side note, in the late late game, you'll need to worry about feedback, as well, if you're going to use yamato against a high colossi count. Edit: On top of this, how are you planning on killing chargelots after you whole bio army is dead?
The other point you make is that BCs can tank damage. You list some units from which they tank damage, none of which are colossi, which are the #1 threat. Also, tanking damage from templar (the #2 threat) is another thing you mention, in the sense that they will use energy on feedback instead of storm - I'm not buying it. If there is a threatening bio army, that energy is going primarily to storms in the hands of any good protoss. On top of that, feedback's energy cost is low enough that if he was placed in a situation where he was forced to use it against you (5-6+ high energy BCs) he will have a high enough templar count with high enough energy to spam both feedback AND storm. The #3 threat is chargelots, from which BCs tank no damage.
|
I think he's wrong in saying that bcs will tank damage because we all know protoss doesn't make a lot of stalkers in pvt but bcs will work for dps. Bc dps against ground is pretty high and is only going to get stronger in hots. I think they were gonna buff dmg to 10 from 8 to ground. Although, you will need something to deal with zealots because bcs are too slow to catch up to zealots and since you suggest replacing marauders, storms and collosi are gonna eat up your marine ghost army. My two cents.
|
On September 21 2012 05:19 jinx1281255 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 21 2012 05:09 Talack wrote:On September 21 2012 04:44 jinx1281255 wrote:On September 21 2012 04:32 ButtCraft wrote:
BC's fail to see any use in high level play because they are just a completely slow, expensive, useless, garbage unit with questionable dps and terrible range. This is not constructive and is unsubstantiated. Don't bother posting useless opinions unless you wish to specify a particular situation in which these apply. DPS is not the issue, it is the ability for the BCs to tank for the bio army (which has excessive DPS). Range can be a problem, situationally, the BC is for main engagments, not for rapid base defense. Though, I do agree that their ability to retreat is a problem in many maps. What exactly is the BC tanking? The BCs would tank damage mainly from stalkers, high-templars, archons etc.
Stalkers don't out dps the medivac healing, storm would still hit any bio units. archons would still hit the bio units.
: /
|
Well at least BCs dont get smashed by Colo + storms + chargelots...
It might not tank the damage but it won't get attacked all that much.
I like the idea but it will be tough to make it work.
|
BCs are good if you can get a lot of them, the trick is getting them out without dying in the process. If you get like 10 BCs out Protoss is pretty dead, they have nothing that can kill them. A high count of BCs absolutely massacres stalkers. Storm just doesn't do enough, it only does 80 damage and has a much smaller AoE than BW. If they try to beat your BCs with templar they'll need so many that 2 or 3 ghosts can just wreck thousands of gas with 1 EMP. It's not like templar against bio where they only need two good storms to go off to win the fight, against BCs storm needs to get spammed over and over and ghosts just shut that down.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
