EPTZerglings, tanks and assumptions - Page 2
| Forum Index > SC2 General |
|
MelancholyMark
United States39 Posts
| ||
|
Elegy
United States1629 Posts
| ||
|
Zato-1
Chile4253 Posts
On March 21 2010 14:02 yomi wrote: Yup, exactly what I meant. Also saying tanks are good if the melee units have to run around and then up a ramp to get to the tanks is not really a solid argument. It's not unique. All ranged units are good against melee units that have to take 10 seconds to get to them, no? It's like saying marines are overpowered, two of them can kill 4 zealots, while not accounting for the fact you are attacking a wall-in. Please watch the video I linked, specifically at about 14:50, and tell me if you still think tanks are as effective at killing zerglings as marines are at killing zealots behind a wall-in. Yes, the tanks have a very favorable positioning, but they didn't really need that big of a positional advantage- proper positioning on a good strategic location (on a ramp with a Xel'Naga watchtower or outside your opponent's choke point) could make them just as hard to reach, and just as deadly to tightly packed, low HP units. | ||
|
cascades
Singapore6122 Posts
On March 21 2010 13:04 Bearigator wrote: I think what he meant was how much damage one tank shot does compared to how much health a zergling has. A zergling has 35 health. A tank is doing 60 damage. That is 25 damage overkill on that zergling. Just a guess though. How about 10 tanks shooting at a zealot in SC1? Overkill too yes? At least the overkill is more predictable. | ||
|
yomi
United States773 Posts
On March 21 2010 21:19 Zato-1 wrote: Please watch the video I linked, specifically at about 14:50, and tell me if you still think tanks are as effective at killing zerglings as marines are at killing zealots behind a wall-in. Yes, the tanks have a very favorable positioning, but they didn't really need that big of a positional advantage- proper positioning on a good strategic location (on a ramp with a Xel'Naga watchtower or outside your opponent's choke point) could make them just as hard to reach, and just as deadly to tightly packed, low HP units. I'm not saying marines are as good at killing zealots behind a wall-in as tanks are at killing zerglings. It was an analogy, showing that perfectly positioned units vs worst possible scenario of positioning generally results in the well positioned units winning. Also in your clip you realize that the CC has been upgraded to a planetary fortress right? And that is at most 40 zerglings fighting a Thor 3 siege tanks (a fourth tank gets a shot in at the end) and a fortress. That's 1000 minerals of tier 1 vs 1400 minerals 800 gas of tier 2 and 3. I'm not going to show a clip of 20 marines dying to 4 colossus on a hill and saying look how strong this colossus is when I know that vikings and emp could kill the colossus almost instantly. Terran has no problems with Zerglings in the first place, that is not what we need from tanks. We need them to win against Hydralisks and Roaches. | ||
|
Koffiegast
Netherlands346 Posts
On March 21 2010 22:23 yomi wrote: Terran has no problems with Zerglings in the first place, that is not what we need from tanks. We need them to win against Hydralisks and Roaches. Effectively making Z unable to win? Lots of gas or not, 2 tanks already instakill a hydra and thats without checking splash... | ||
|
Feefee
Canada556 Posts
On March 21 2010 19:41 MelancholyMark wrote: But if you're going tanks you should also have a marine/marauder army backing them up. Think about using the tanks like in a sc1 tvz where you only get them in a support role while the core of your army will still be a bio marine/marauder force. Even two or three well positioned tanks in an engagement can tip a battle in your favor in tvz and tvp. The enemy will have to choose between getting wailed on by the tanks while engaging your main force, rushing down the tanks while the rest of your army gets free shots in on them, or retreating in which case you just keep leapfrogging tanks pushing outward. I completely agree that if you have 4 sieged tanks behind a marine/marauder army they'll help you out alot against roach/hydra (no splash on your units that way). I think the reason I and others don't go tanks is because if you invest in tanks and siege mode you HAVE to make good use of them. Currently it costs a crapton to crank out 4 siege tanks and it does 2 things for you: Significantly reduces either your tech or your army size of other units, and makes it a requirement to BE in siege mode before the zerg engages you. The fact that you die if you don't siege pre-emptively is nothing new, but the fact that all the races now have HUGE mobility and that there are almost always backdoors on all the maps means it's almost impossible to create a nice front line. Just throwing in 4 tanks reduces the mobility of your Bio army to nill. One nydus worm or any sort of dropship/warpin harass and you're faced with the problem of having to unsiege your tanks. At least that's what I've always found. I can't just litter every place I want to protect with a few tanks, and in SC2 there are always tons of places you need to be able to get to quickly to defend drop-mechanics. That coupled with the fact that without a giant army wall between your tanks and the enemy the tanks die in a second makes it just not worth it to invest in a whopping 4 siege tanks. Tanks are either good in small numbers when nothing can get to them, or in huge numbers when they evaporate everything running at them. Currently neither of those seems feasible at least in my playstyle. | ||
|
Slayer91
Ireland23335 Posts
| ||
|
Jonoman92
United States9107 Posts
It's annoying when they make a nydus worm in your main, you move back to defend, and then they hit your front t.t | ||
| ||
